NationStates Jolt Archive

Ever since I've taken "Abnormal Psychology" last semester, I've began to look at TV/movie characters in a different light. I try to see if they have any Abnormal Psychological behavior that is defined in the DSM-IV (or is it V now..) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders) Anyways, I have done one for Dr. Cox from Scrubs.

He has several Personality Disorder, which includes
Narcissistic
alittle bit of Schizotypal
I guess you can also make a case for Manic Depressive AKA Bi-Polar. He does seem to be happy in one Episode and sad in the next.

I guess you can also make a case for him having Avoidant personality disorder since it seems like he's not that social, but I doubt it.

That's all I have on Dr. Cox

I've also done The Merovingian from the Matrix Trilogy's

He also has Personality Disorders:
Narcissistic and Anti-Social.

So, anyone else has weird hobbies like this, or try to see what mental disorder fake people have?

Can you find all the disorders the Red Dwarf crew has? :D

Can you find all the disorders the Red Dwarf crew has? :D

Nope, never really heard of them.

My best friend nearly did this for her research project. She picked Dr. House.

I guess y'all been reading psychological analysis of "Winnie the Pooh" characters?

its been done (http://li-zhang.net/pokemon.html)

also does anyone else see holes in doing an analysis fictional TV characters? can't you just do it on friends and family?

James Bond is a narcisistic sociopath

give me a little time to look it over and I could prolly figure out the Red Dwarf crew. just the originals (lister, rimmer, kryten, cat, male and female holly) at first, but give me a list of any extras you want me to try.

I don't want to ruin this for everybody but fictional people have been made up

Interesting hobby. I like to look for historical mistakes in movies. Drives the family nuts.

I don't want to ruin this for everybody but fictional people have been made up

While fictional people are made up and are not as complex as real people, fictional characters are based on real people. Sometimes a certain aspect of a real person is overemphasized for a character, or the character is a mixture of several people, but they are all based on their author or people the author knows well...

James Bond is a narcisistic sociopath
you missed out misogynistic to boot.

[that's doesn't mean he's sexist to his boots, btw, Just that he's also sexist. Though he might well be sexist to his boots. I've never really paid that much attention to Bond]

While fictional people are made up and are not as complex as real people, fictional characters are based on real people. Sometimes a certain aspect of a real person is overemphasized for a character, or the character is a mixture of several people, but they are all based on their author or people the author knows well...

All? Some perhaps. Certainly not all.

I don't want to ruin this for everybody but fictional people have been made up
No shit, really?!

I guess the fact that they're not real people is what makes psychoanalyzing them a mildly amusing hobby. You know, because if one went around doing it to real people just for fun, that would make one an obnoxious, pretentious jerk, right?

Here's a question for you: How do you think those made-up people got made up in the first place?

Hint: The interesting ones were made up by writers who spent some time compiling various recognizable personality traits -- and disorders, too -- that real people have. I enjoy analyzing fictional characters because it lets me reverse-engineer how I think the writer created the character and the story, which helps with my own writing.

Of course, I never studied Abnormal Psychology, so I don't diagnose disorders in fictional characters, but I like to dissect their emotional and social dynamics. :)

No shit, really?!

I guess the fact that they're not real people is what makes psychoanalyzing them a mildly amusing hobby. You know, because if one went around doing it to real people just for fun, that would make one an obnoxious, pretentious jerk, right?

Here's a question for you: How do you think those made-up people got made up in the first place?

Hint: The interesting ones were made up by writers who spent some time compiling various recognizable personality traits -- and disorders, too -- that real people have. I enjoy analyzing fictional characters because it lets me reverse-engineer how I think the writer created the character and the story, which helps with my own writing.

Of course, I never studied Abnormal Psychology, so I don't diagnose disorders in fictional characters, but I like to dissect their emotional and social dynamics. :)

Thanks for the hint, I was going to say that some of them get made up for the purposes of a decent plot. Thanks for putting me straight though.

Thanks for the hint, I was going to say that some of them get made up for the purposes of a decent plot. Thanks for putting me straight though.

Depends if it is a character-driven or plot-driven story ;)

Honestly, that kind of reverse engineering isn't going to help your writing. Unless you find that process fun and are writing just for fun. In which case, do whatever you like.

I'm not so sure.

There are perfectly good examples for both. It just depends what you are looking for at the time.

Though I would say bludgeoning characters into plots that don't agree with them can be horrible.

Honestly, that kind of reverse engineering isn't going to help your writing. Unless you find that process fun and are writing just for fun. In which case, do whatever you like.

How is it not going to help a person's writing?

With the proviso that different writers use different techniques, so not every writer will do this or do it the same way -- how is having an understanding of psychology not going to help a writer develop believable characters who behave in believable ways in their stories?

And how is the intellectual exercise of analyzing characters -- and critiquing other writers' techniques in the process -- not going to help a writer learn how to translate the idea of their character into the story on the page?

So, anyone else has weird hobbies like this, or try to see what mental disorder fake people have?

I have the weird sub-hobby of occasionally calculating the orbital radius of fictional worlds around non-fictional stars. Like that time I did the thread asking for help in my math in calculating the orbital altitude of Arrakis around the star Canopus.

How is it not going to help a person's writing?

With the proviso that different writers use different techniques, so not every writer will do this or do it the same way -- how is having an understanding of psychology not going to help a writer develop believable characters who behave in believable ways in their stories?

And how is the intellectual exercise of analyzing characters -- and critiquing other writers' techniques in the process -- not going to help a writer learn how to translate the idea of their character into the story on the page?

The thing is that the proviso is quite a big one. If you don't know whether a character's motivation to do action x was due to a psychological trauma or because he simply had to get to the motel for the purposes of a coherent story then working backwards may lead you to the wrong conclusion.

There are a lot of romantic myths about writing but the fact of the matter is that whilst "contrived" is normally used as a pejorative, everything is contrived. If you want to tell a story effectively you have to carefully manipulate the elements of that story and whilst "loving your characters" and the like are great for stirring up the kind of romantic ideals that sell writing classes and books, it's really quite crap advice.

The thing is that the proviso is quite a big one. If you don't know whether a character's motivation to do action x was due to a psychological trauma or because he simply had to get to the motel for the purposes of a coherent story then working backwards may lead you to the wrong conclusion.

There are a lot of romantic myths about writing but the fact of the matter is that whilst "contrived" is normally used as a pejorative, everything is contrived. If you want to tell a story effectively you have to carefully manipulate the elements of that story and whilst "loving your characters" and the like are great for stirring up the kind of romantic ideals that sell writing classes and books, it's really quite crap advice.
OK, let me lay it out for you this way:

1) Stories in which the characters do the things they do ONLY because the plot demands it, without any regard for whether the action makes sense for the character's personality (or whether the character has a personality at all) are called badly written stories. Regardless of the demands of the plot, a character should only do whatever THAT character would do in that situation, so the writer should understand -- and have created -- the psychology of his character -- and it better be a believable one.

2) Obviously not every single action in a plot is going to be dependent on a character's psychological profile, but the main actions -- the ones that provide drama, suspense, emotion, whatever -- will. And you never know which ones those will be, necessarily. If the plot demands that your hero stop at a diner for 15 minutes to eat a meatloaf sandwich, the HOW of that errand and that eating can reveal A LOT about your character, depending on his psychological hang-ups. An angry person, or a depressed person, or a person with OCD, or with phobias or paranoia, or in the grip of religious mania, or whatever -- all will order and eat a meatloaf sandwich in a different way. So the mere carrying out of actions in the plot is not enough to make a coherent story. The person doing the actions is part of the story, too.

3) I fail to see why you assume the characters themselves are not "elements of the story" that must be manipulated. Are you telling me that a novel like Crime and Punishment did not depend on the psychology of the character Raskalnikov? Are you telling me that an understanding of the human mind had nothing to do with Edgar Allan Poe's stories about men consumed and destroyed by lust, jealousy, hatred, or guilt? Are you under the impression that the story of Moby Dick was an actioner, all plot driven -- oh those riveting "all about whaling" chapters! -- and that Captain Ahab's obsession with revenge had nothing to do with it? Or perhaps you think there is nothing to be learned about or from the story by analyzing characters like Ahab and Starbuck? If so, the hundreds and hundreds of academics who have based their doctorates and careers on doing just that are going to be rather surprised and disappointed.

4) You seem unaware that there is also another reason for writers to use psychology in their characters. It is to psychologically manipulate the readers as well. One of my favorite horror writers is Algernon Blackwood. He was an absolute master at creating a terror reaction in the reader so subtly that, unless you minutely dissected every paragraph AND had an understanding of fear reactions, you would not be able to find the tricks he was using to screw with your head. First, he set up characters psychologically predisposed to react in the desired way to whatever he was going to inflict on them -- so psychological profiles were important there. Then, he would do little things "off camera" as it were, to which his characters would respond in the way that was natural or inevitable for them. For instance, in a scene in his story "The Wendigo," Blackwood merely implied that something unseen in the dark had tried to pull a character out of his bed by his ankles while everyone else was asleep -- and we get that impression not because the guy jumps up screaming, but because another character is awakened by the man's stifled weeping -- and he reacted that way because of his psychological make-up, so there we are again. And because "ankle terror" is a physiological fear reaction common to human beings, and the crying is a much more intimate thing than screaming, Blackwood heightens a sympathetic fear reaction in the reader as well. The reader's reaction is made all the more intense because the realism of the character's reaction -- realistic because it was natural to his personality and personal issues, with which we had already been made familiar.

I know this because I do study fear reactions in the context of horror and terror literature, and I did dissect that story line by line to find out how the fuck Blackwood had managed to scare me to actual, literal tears, despite the fact that I've been a hardcore horror reader since childhood. And I did learn a lot by doing that. I didn't learn to understand "The Wendigo." I didn't need help with that. But I did learn how to write horror and a little more about the human mind.

5) The same factors apply to drama and comedy, with the addition of actors needing to understand their characters' psychological issues in order to perform them believably.

Ever since I've taken "Abnormal Psychology" last semester, I've began to look at TV/movie characters in a different light. I try to see if they have any Abnormal Psychological behavior that is defined in the DSM-IV (or is it V now..) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders) Anyways, I have done one for Dr. Cox from Scrubs.

So, anyone else has weird hobbies like this, or try to see what mental disorder fake people have?

Not as detailed as you, but I became obsessed with the iconographic meaning in the Teletubbies series (I´m an Art History Major). The Brits invented something evil, I always thought, and I was out to uncover it. But then I thought those damn tubbies were cute and I was a lost cause...

Ever since I've taken "Abnormal Psychology" last semester, I've began to look at TV/movie characters in a different light. I try to see if they have any Abnormal Psychological behavior that is defined in the DSM-IV (or is it V now..) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders) Anyways, I have done one for Dr. Cox from Scrubs.

He has several Personality Disorder, which includes
Narcissistic
alittle bit of Schizotypal
I guess you can also make a case for Manic Depressive AKA Bi-Polar. He does seem to be happy in one Episode and sad in the next.

I guess you can also make a case for him having Avoidant personality disorder since it seems like he's not that social, but I doubt it.

That's all I have on Dr. Cox

I've also done The Merovingian from the Matrix Trilogy's

He also has Personality Disorders:
Narcissistic and Anti-Social.

So, anyone else has weird hobbies like this, or try to see what mental disorder fake people have?

Bi-polar isn't about being happy and say it's about being manic and depressed.

I think the Janitor is a narcissist.

Not as detailed as you, but I became obsessed with the iconographic meaning in the Teletubbies series (I´m an Art History Major). The Brits invented something evil, I always thought, and I was out to uncover it. But then I thought those damn tubbies were cute and I was a lost cause...
I'd like to psychoanalyze the sick bastard who put that grinning baby face onto the sun those filthy little buggers lived under. ;)

Bi-polar isn't about being happy and say it's about being manic and depressed.

I think the Janitor is a narcissist.

Oh The Janitor is alot of things...

I'd like to psychoanalyze the sick bastard who put that grinning baby face onto the sun those filthy little buggers lived under. ;)

Pedophilia. *nod*

Yes, apparently Pedophilia is a sexual mental disorder listed under the DSM...

Pedophilia. *nod*

Yes, apparently Pedophilia is a sexual mental disorder listed under the DSM...
I only know that, in my mind, with my psychology, Teletubbies was a vision of hell. Like something out of that idiotic J-Lo/Vincent D'Onofrio movie The Cell.



EDIT: I've been trying to think of some movie or tv characters I've analyzed, but for so many years now, they've all be so damned stupid, there's not much to analyze, really.

EDIT 2: Just thought of one: Dr. Who, the current series. What are the clinical terms for his god complex, severe guilt issues (survivor guilt?), and fear of intimacy?

OK, let me lay it out for you this way:

1) Stories in which the characters do the things they do ONLY because the plot demands it, without any regard for whether the action makes sense for the character's personality (or whether the character has a personality at all) are called badly written stories. Regardless of the demands of the plot, a character should only do whatever THAT character would do in that situation, so the writer should understand -- and have created -- the psychology of his character -- and it better be a believable one.

2) Obviously not every single action in a plot is going to be dependent on a character's psychological profile, but the main actions -- the ones that provide drama, suspense, emotion, whatever -- will. And you never know which ones those will be, necessarily. If the plot demands that your hero stop at a diner for 15 minutes to eat a meatloaf sandwich, the HOW of that errand and that eating can reveal A LOT about your character, depending on his psychological hang-ups. An angry person, or a depressed person, or a person with OCD, or with phobias or paranoia, or in the grip of religious mania, or whatever -- all will order and eat a meatloaf sandwich in a different way. So the mere carrying out of actions in the plot is not enough to make a coherent story. The person doing the actions is part of the story, too.

3) I fail to see why you assume the characters themselves are not "elements of the story" that must be manipulated. Are you telling me that a novel like Crime and Punishment did not depend on the psychology of the character Raskalnikov? Are you telling me that an understanding of the human mind had nothing to do with Edgar Allan Poe's stories about men consumed and destroyed by lust, jealousy, hatred, or guilt? Are you under the impression that the story of Moby Dick was an actioner, all plot driven -- oh those riveting "all about whaling" chapters! -- and that Captain Ahab's obsession with revenge had nothing to do with it? Or perhaps you think there is nothing to be learned about or from the story by analyzing characters like Ahab and Starbuck? If so, the hundreds and hundreds of academics who have based their doctorates and careers on doing just that are going to be rather surprised and disappointed.

4) You seem unaware that there is also another reason for writers to use psychology in their characters. It is to psychologically manipulate the readers as well. One of my favorite horror writers is Algernon Blackwood. He was an absolute master at creating a terror reaction in the reader so subtly that, unless you minutely dissected every paragraph AND had an understanding of fear reactions, you would not be able to find the tricks he was using to screw with your head. First, he set up characters psychologically predisposed to react in the desired way to whatever he was going to inflict on them -- so psychological profiles were important there. Then, he would do little things "off camera" as it were, to which his characters would respond in the way that was natural or inevitable for them. For instance, in a scene in his story "The Wendigo," Blackwood merely implied that something unseen in the dark had tried to pull a character out of his bed by his ankles while everyone else was asleep -- and we get that impression not because the guy jumps up screaming, but because another character is awakened by the man's stifled weeping -- and he reacted that way because of his psychological make-up, so there we are again. And because "ankle terror" is a physiological fear reaction common to human beings, and the crying is a much more intimate thing than screaming, Blackwood heightens a sympathetic fear reaction in the reader as well. The reader's reaction is made all the more intense because the realism of the character's reaction -- realistic because it was natural to his personality and personal issues, with which we had already been made familiar.

I know this because I do study fear reactions in the context of horror and terror literature, and I did dissect that story line by line to find out how the fuck Blackwood had managed to scare me to actual, literal tears, despite the fact that I've been a hardcore horror reader since childhood. And I did learn a lot by doing that. I didn't learn to understand "The Wendigo." I didn't need help with that. But I did learn how to write horror and a little more about the human mind.

5) The same factors apply to drama and comedy, with the addition of actors needing to understand their characters' psychological issues in order to perform them believably.

Wow. Quite a rant.

I'd love to reply but you seem to be responding to someone who thinks that there is no such thing as a beliviable character. So we better wait for that guy.

Do He-Man!

Wow. Quite a rant.

I'd love to reply but you seem to be responding to someone who thinks that there is no such thing as a beliviable character. So we better wait for that guy.
Hehe, you're funny. Yeah, let's wait for the person who is interested in the topic and has a point to make.

EDIT 2: Just thought of one: Dr. Who, the current series. What are the clinical terms for his god complex, severe guilt issues (survivor guilt?), and fear of intimacy?

I'm not sure survivors guilt applies. It's been implied that he was an active participant in the killing of his people.

I'm not sure survivors guilt applies. It's been implied that he was an active participant in the killing of his people.
I've heard that survivors sometimes blame themselves for the deaths of those who didn't survive. But we don't know enough about the actual events. It's some heavy-duty guilt trip, though.

I'd like to psychoanalyze the sick bastard who put that grinning baby face onto the sun those filthy little buggers lived under. ;)

LOL! My fiance finds the baby-faced sun very, very disturbing.:p

Do He-Man!
it's a;ready been done:
http://cartoonoveranalyzations.com/

heck, even the Journal of American Academy of Psychoanalysis has chipped in:
http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=jaa.017.0579a

I've heard that survivors sometimes blame themselves for the deaths of those who didn't survive. But we don't know enough about the actual events. It's some heavy-duty guilt trip, though.

Yes, but it seems odd to refer to him as a "survivor" when it's been strongly implied that he's the one who killed them all.

Ever since I've taken "Abnormal Psychology" last semester, I've began to look at TV/movie characters in a different light. I try to see if they have any Abnormal Psychological behavior that is defined in the DSM-IV (or is it V now..) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders) Anyways, I have done one for Dr. Cox from Scrubs.

He has several Personality Disorder, which includes
Narcissistic
alittle bit of Schizotypal
I guess you can also make a case for Manic Depressive AKA Bi-Polar. He does seem to be happy in one Episode and sad in the next.

I guess you can also make a case for him having Avoidant personality disorder since it seems like he's not that social, but I doubt it.

That's all I have on Dr. Cox

I've also done The Merovingian from the Matrix Trilogy's

He also has Personality Disorders:
Narcissistic and Anti-Social.

So, anyone else has weird hobbies like this, or try to see what mental disorder fake people have?


it seems to me that if a main character can easily be diagnosed with an abnormal psychology class and the DSM-IV manual, he is a sucky character. characters should have consistent flaws but they shouldnt be so flaming that it leaves me yelling at the screen "THAT MAN IS CRAZY WHY IS HE ALLOWED OUT ON HIS OWN?"

i feel the same way when i read a mystery novel and figure out "who dunnit" long before the end. i dont TRY to figure out the mystery so if it is so obvious that even *I* know, its bad writing. or bad plotting, i dont bother finishing badly written books.

it's a;ready been done:
http://cartoonoveranalyzations.com/

heck, even the Journal of American Academy of Psychoanalysis has chipped in:
http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=jaa.017.0579a
COFFEE-SNORT!!! :D:D:D Crap, you almost killed with me the PEP link. Seriously, I can't stop laughing. I have to send that to my mom as a Mother's Day present.

The first words on the page:
Masters of the Universe: Children's Toys as Reflections on Contemporary Psychoanalytic Theory
Ricardo C. Ainslie, Ph.D.
The emergence of contemporary object relations theory and self psychology as potent theoretical forces has led to rich discussion with far-reaching implications for clinical, developmental, and metapsychological theory. This article examines these developments using as a medium the Masters of the Universe figures and stories, which have captured the imaginations of a broad spectrum of phallic–oedipal and oedipal-aged children.
That just made me really, really happy. :D

Though I wonder if Mattel is aware that he left the (tm) off the words "Masters of the Universe." That's a He-Man-sized no-no in the world of product branding that would have earned a letter from their legal department if anyone had ever read this thing.

Yes, but it seems odd to refer to him as a "survivor" when it's been strongly implied that he's the one who killed them all.
Has it been strongly implied?

It's been stated outright that his society was destroyed in the war with the Daleks, and people who are the Doctor's enemies have hinted that it was all his fault, but in different ways (note: I'm only referring to the current series). If I recall correctly, it has been variously implied that he ran away or otherwise failed in the final battle, and that he sacrificed his world in order to destroy their enemy, and that all the Time Lords sacrificed themselves/their world to destroy the Daleks, and that the Time Lords brought their destruction upon themselves in undefined ways, etc, etc. I suppose, in a very complicated backstory, they could all be true, but since they come from different sources, all of whom are biased and none of whom were there, I'm going to say we don't know what really happened.

And the fact that he is alive and they're not qualifies him as a survivor of his race.

it seems to me that if a main character can easily be diagnosed with an abnormal psychology class and the DSM-IV manual, he is a sucky character. characters should have consistent flaws but they shouldnt be so flaming that it leaves me yelling at the screen "THAT MAN IS CRAZY WHY IS HE ALLOWED OUT ON HIS OWN?"

i feel the same way when i read a mystery novel and figure out "who dunnit" long before the end. i dont TRY to figure out the mystery so if it is so obvious that even *I* know, its bad writing. or bad plotting, i dont bother finishing badly written books.
Well, if a character's psychological problems are an important part of the story, then, if we trouble to analyze them, we should find that we can diagnose them because the writer developed them realistically.

Moby Dick is a good example of a story in which a main character having a clear mental problem is not a bad thing because of the way it contrasts the 100% plain vanilla normal Starbuck against the dangerously obsessive Ahab with his rage issues and self-absorption. And yes, in the story, there is a little bit along the gist of Starbuck yelling at Ahab, "You're crazy! Why are you out on your own?!" But does that make Ahab a badly written character? Hardly. Moby Dick is, partially, a story about a descent into madness, so the madness is important, and what makes it a great story is that the madness is realistically portrayed even though it is blown up to a larger-than-life scale. Traveling with Ahab farther and farther away from "normal" and deeper and deeper into his obsession (whether we want to be there with him or not) is the entire structure of what is arguably one of the greatest stories in American literature.

On the other hand, I agree that really crazy characters are seldom as engaging as normal or merely neurotic ones. I find it a lot more challenging to analyze the personalities of sane characters -- but I guess that's not "Abnormal" Psychology. What do they call it when it's "Normal" Psychology?

On the third hand, are really interesting characters ever completely normal? I mean, a person can be pretty far off kilter without being crazy, and if we bother to analyze the protagonists of any number of stories, we could probably find all kinds of disorders that don't make them crazy but do skew their reactions to things.

There's a reason why Starbuck wasn't the captain of the Pequod, after all.

And another great American writer -- Nathaniel Hawthorne. All his stories are about "normal" people -- people who fit all the social norms, do and are just what is expected and desired of them. But then we get beneath the surface and find the true personalities they are hiding -- the lies, the fears, the guilt, the perversions and corruptions. To me, all of Hawthorne's stories beg the question -- how much hypocrisy can a "normal" person maintain before it drives them off the deep end? At what point does normal-ness itself become a mental problem?

Well, if a character's psychological problems are an important part of the story, then, if we trouble to analyze them, we should find that we can diagnose them because the writer developed them realistically.

Moby Dick is a good example of a story in which a main character having a clear mental problem is not a bad thing because of the way it contrasts the 100% plain vanilla normal Starbuck against the dangerously obsessive Ahab with his rage issues and self-absorption. And yes, in the story, there is a little bit along the gist of Starbuck yelling at Ahab, "You're crazy! Why are you out on your own?!" But does that make Ahab a badly written character? Hardly. Moby Dick is, partially, a story about a descent into madness, so the madness is important, and what makes it a great story is that the madness is realistically portrayed even though it is blown up to a larger-than-life scale. Traveling with Ahab farther and farther away from "normal" and deeper and deeper into his obsession (whether we want to be there with him or not) is the entire structure of what is arguably one of the greatest stories in American literature.

On the other hand, I agree that really crazy characters are seldom as engaging as normal or merely neurotic ones. I find it a lot more challenging to analyze the personalities of sane characters -- but I guess that's not "Abnormal" Psychology. What do they call it when it's "Normal" Psychology?

On the third hand, are really interesting characters ever completely normal? I mean, a person can be pretty far off kilter without being crazy, and if we bother to analyze the protagonists of any number of stories, we could probably find all kinds of disorders that don't make them crazy but do skew their reactions to things.

There's a reason why Starbuck wasn't the captain of the Pequod, after all.

And another great American writer -- Nathaniel Hawthorne. All his stories are about "normal" people -- people who fit all the social norms, do and are just what is expected and desired of them. But then we get beneath the surface and find the true personalities they are hiding -- the lies, the fears, the guilt, the perversions and corruptions. To me, all of Hawthorne's stories beg the question -- how much hypocrisy can a "normal" person maintain before it drives them off the deep end? At what point does normal-ness itself become a mental problem?

ok. when the story is ABOUT obsession or about some other psychological problem its fine. then the writer's job is to lead us to understand the character in his madness. and to understand the psychology well enough to make it completely consistent no matter what happens in the book

no i have never read moby dick and intend to never read it.

i dont think you can diagnose abnormal psychology out of hawthorne. its NOT abnormal psychology. its the way people are. thats what makes his work compelling. you never toss the book against the wall yelling that the character it too nuts to live in the world.

**edit**

oh, and i dont analyse characters any more than i analyze mysteries. its just not my thing. if their psychology intrudes enough into the story for ME to notice it, its probably bad writing.

although i DID enjoy what wouk did in "the caine mutiny" where it seemed to be about how crazy captain queeg was but in the end its about how the psychology of the crew worked and how military discipline is undermined by the work of one (?) man.

ok. when the story is ABOUT obsession or about some other psychological problem its fine. then the writer's job is to lead us to understand the character in his madness. and to understand the psychology well enough to make it completely consistent no matter what happens in the book

no i have never read moby dick and intend to never read it.
The movie with Gregory Peck is just as good and a lot shorter.

And in regard to understanding the psychology, I just want to underscore what I think your point is -- that the WRITER has to understand the psychology, not the reader. IF the reader wants to analyze the characters, just for the hell of it, then he should be able to diagnose the characters in the way the writer intended, if the writer did a good job. But the characters should not appear "on stage" wearing signs around their necks listing their clinical disorders.

i dont think you can diagnose abnormal psychology out of hawthorne. its NOT abnormal psychology. its the way people are. thats what makes his work compelling.
You're right. That's why I was wondering what it's called when we're talking about the psychology of people who aren't crazy.

Though, actually, I don't think the Reverend Dimmesdale's sanity fared very well in The Scarlet Letter, though he didn't start out in crisis.

you never toss the book against the wall yelling that the character it too nuts to live in the world.
Funny, but I have a similar problem with characters who I think don't sink deep enough into their problems, or who aren't crazy enough, imo, to justify their drama in the story. It's the reason I don't like Hemingway -- to me, his characters are forever teetering on the brink of something but never taking that one last step into actually BEING something. I end up throwing his books against the wall and shouting things like:

"Cut the cord already, you bull-headed old bastard! The fish is too big for the fucking boat!!"; and

"Oh, for crying out loud, I get it already!! You got your balls shot off on the Somme and now you'll never be able to get it up again, no matter how hot the bitch may be. Huge fucking tragedy for you. For the world, not so much."; and the ever classic

"You're not special. You're not crazy. You're just like everybody else. Get a job, you lazy, conceited whores!!"

**edit**

oh, and i dont analyse characters any more than i analyze mysteries. its just not my thing. if their psychology intrudes enough into the story for ME to notice it, its probably bad writing.
Well, this isn't a hobby for everyone. :)

although i DID enjoy what wouk did in "the caine mutiny" where it seemed to be about how crazy captain queeg was but in the end its about how the psychology of the crew worked and how military discipline is undermined by the work of one (?) man.
I love that story. Brilliant work. Fabulous psychological playground-cum-minefield. :)

Frasier Crane and family. Dad's a case of arrested development, Frasier is a narcissist, Niles - I don't know what to say about Niles.

The movie with Gregory Peck is just as good and a lot shorter.

And in regard to understanding the psychology, I just want to underscore what I think your point is -- that the WRITER has to understand the psychology, not the reader. IF the reader wants to analyze the characters, just for the hell of it, then he should be able to diagnose the characters in the way the writer intended, if the writer did a good job. But the characters should not appear "on stage" wearing signs around their necks listing their clinical disorders.


yeah

the writer has to understand human nature.

i wonder about budding writers these days. we spend so much time with artificial people--books, tv, movies--that it must be hard to get enough experience with actual human beings to be able to overcome the skewed impression we grew up with.

hell i wonder about PEOPLE who seem to think that life should somehow follow the path of soap operas and work hard to keep up the level of drama that they see on the TV.

yeah

the writer has to understand human nature.

i wonder about budding writers these days. we spend so much time with artificial people--books, tv, movies--that it must be hard to get enough experience with actual human beings to be able to overcome the skewed impression we grew up with.

hell i wonder about PEOPLE who seem to think that life should somehow follow the path of soap operas and work hard to keep up the level of drama that they see on the TV.

Now we're back to plot driven vs character driven stories :D

yeah

the writer has to understand human nature.

i wonder about budding writers these days. we spend so much time with artificial people--books, tv, movies--that it must be hard to get enough experience with actual human beings to be able to overcome the skewed impression we grew up with.

hell i wonder about PEOPLE who seem to think that life should somehow follow the path of soap operas and work hard to keep up the level of drama that they see on the TV.
I agree. I think that could account for the current flavor of bad in the thousands of bad books/movies/tv shows that get made every year.

Now we're back to plot driven vs character driven stories :D
Plot driven story: A guy got up in the morning and went to the bathroom. His wife shot him dead while he was pissing. She caught the next bus out of town. The end.

If even plot-driven stories were nothing but plot, the libraries would have a lot more shelf space available.

Plot driven story: A guy got up in the morning and went to the bathroom. His wife shot him dead while he was pissing. She caught the next bus out of town. The end.

If even plot-driven stories were nothing but plot, the libraries would have a lot more shelf space available.

If you want to be that reductionist. Yes.

Though I like to feel it provides a useful distinction

Now we're back to plot driven vs character driven stories :D

All stories are character driven, just most of them suck at doing it.

If you want to be that reductionist. Yes.

Though I like to feel it provides a useful distinction

All stories are character driven, just most of them suck at doing it.
What Smunkee said. :)

Levee, plot-driven versus character-driven is a useful distinction, but not perhaps the one you think it is. In the publishing business, "plot-driven" describes stories in which the outcome of the story is (a) external to the characters and (b) dependent on the series of events that make up the plot - A leads to B leads to C leads to D, etc. Examples might be suspense thrillers or murder/crime mysteries like The Hunt for Red October or The Maltese Falcon. "Character-driven" describes stories in which the internal or interpersonal experiences of the character(s) are most important, and in which there need be little to no plot action or the action is always subordinate to the character's inner condition. Examples might be so-called "mainstream" (i.e. non-genre) books as The Catcher in the Rye or Mildred Pierce or Cousin Bette.

The one thing both kinds of stories have in common, though, is characters. Even a plot-driven story needs strong characters, or else it may as well be as reductionist as my example. A plot without characters -- i.e. a story that isn't about people -- is just a list of events that we have no reason to care about.

Plot driven story: A guy got up in the morning and went to the bathroom. His wife shot him dead while he was pissing. She caught the next bus out of town. The end.


I think Hemmingway wrote that story...

Wallace (of Wallace and Grommit fame) is an orally fixated neurotic, who uses cheese as a mother substitute.