I saved the following as a draft some time ago, and intended it for a thread called "Psychopathic characters in literature." But given this discussion I thought I'd put this here:
Speaking of Shakespeare -- and his famous villain, Iago -- I wanted to strongly recommend watching the 1990 BBC series House of Cards, with its brilliantly acted Iago-esque chief whip character played by Ian Richardson (the original novel is set in British Parliament) in a production that I believe to be far superior to the Netflix produced Americanized version, starring Kevin Spacey (although I admit I only watched the very beginning of the American series, which to me paled in comparison, so it's for you to judge for yourself).
Richardson's chief whip, Francis Urquhart -- whose pet name is "FU," appropriately enough -- has as his partner in crime, as it were, a wife who is something of a Lady Macbeth. The series is based on the eponymous novel written by Michael Dobbs who, interestingly enough, was a former chief of staff at the Conservative Party headquarters. I believe I read somewhere that he'd been sacked, and so there was no doubt some bitterness fueling his frontal attack on the nefarious goings on, which as an insider he would have witnessed first hand. Of course, it doesn't hurt that this writer knows his Shakespeare. Actually, having just looked it up on Wikipedia, it seems Dobbs bases his cunning protagonist on Shakespeare's Richard III, not Iago, and yet to me Iago can't help but come to mind. Especially Ian Richardson's asides to camera, which is never an easy thing to accomplish in film/t.v. productions, but which is done by Richardson with an acuity and effortlessness that would be essential to any good performance of Shakespeare's Iago especially.
[/url]
As to Richard III, it's a character I want to explore at some point. I enjoyed Al Pacino's 1996 documentary, Looking for Richard, which I think makes for a good introduction to the subject. Now that I know its connection to the BBC House of Cards, I'll have that in mind as well.
[End: draft excerpt]
I wanted to add that I agree there is a danger in being seduced by a psychopath's charm as through film and literature, although there is that same danger in life itself. One thing about the role of FU in the above series is that even though he represents policies that are harmful to average citizens he is nonetheless firm in his convictions and willing to see them through to the bitter end, which is also to say he is not a coward.
The idea of "uses of adversity" (a phrase I know from a book I have on runes, but which maybe has a source outside of that), comes to mind. As for FU and people like him, what good qualities, such as the ones I just cited, can we actually take from them?
I'm writing a novel right now, and in some ways I'm in an absolute mess with it. One of my key protagonists is in "hell," and I'm grappling with his potential for good as well as evil.
--actually, objectively speaking, what is "goodness" in the context of a bad soul? I think it's too reductive to simply talk about hypocrisy, which exists, of course, but it's fairly one dimensional. On the other hand, it seems to me that the most interesting characters have within them deep seated contradictions. They may know their own goodness, even, and yet within them it's darkness that gets the best of them.
.. can this be translated into this choice by either persons with or without souls as concerns STS or STO orientation?
.. could a person without a soul choose an STO orientation, while a person with a soul winds up choosing STS?
If that's true, then this soul/soulless divide is fairly tricky then. Just what is it purporting? Just that the universe needs this polarity for balance? (But then what decides who gets what in the soul department?)
As for the true psychopath, how does that play out in terms of this soul/soulless distinction? Could the psychopath be either?
[just some questions that have been rolling around in my head for some time]
one more question:
My novel also has the theme of mind control, which certainly plays havoc with the idea of free will. How is one "permitting" this sort of manipulation to happen? Or are the manipulators breaking some sort of right of free will?
(Is there any material specifically on this?)
diligence said:
How disappointing. I watched the old BBC series and the first season of the new one. I found out about the propaganda here, as I was wondering whether to continue watching or spend my time doing something more productive personally (i.e. reading). Looks like I win out.
It was a pretty fine show; I found it more 'exact' than Dexter or the Sopranos for example. It seems like Dexter's writers didn't know what a psychopath was (or how to write a show, but that is personal opinion), and the Sopranos' writers didn't understand the difference between a psychopath and a secondary psychopath (though they are great writers).
diligence, I thought Sopranos had great writers, as well. It's been a long time since I saw the show, but I thought that when the therapist finally decides Tony is untreatable it's that she's stating that the psychopath is untreatable, since they are always manipulating the therapist, etc. How does the secondary psychopath play into this? Isn't Tony an actual psychopath? If he's a secondary psychopath is that more treatable? Where is it in the series that you feel the writers got this distinction wrong?
Generally speaking, I think there are pitfalls in writing such characters since, as a writer, you start getting seduced as well. A part of you is rooting for some kind of redemption, and yet the reality of the true psychopath isn't something redeemable. I think that's difficult to accept sometimes. Maybe that's why in film/fiction there is this purporting of a psychopath through his/her actions, say, and yet the writer is bringing more empathy to the situation given he/she has been seduced by his/her own creation!
.. and so we see characters that are maybe a bit too human to be doing these inhuman things.