BASIC CONCEPTS

— When novelists claim they do not invent it, but hear voices and find stories in their head, they are neither joking nor crazy.

— When characters, narrators, or muses have minds of their own and occasionally take over, they are alternate personalities.

— Alternate personalities and memory gaps, but no significant distress or dysfunction, is a normal version of multiple personality.

— normal Multiple Personality Trait (MPT) (core of Multiple Identity Literary Theory), not clinical Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD)

— The normal version of multiple personality is an asset in fiction writing when some alternate personalities are storytellers.

— Multiple personality originates when imaginative children with normal brains have unassuaged trauma as victim or witness.

— Psychiatrists, whose standard mental status exam fails to ask about memory gaps, think they never see multiple personality.

— They need the clue of memory gaps, because alternate personalities don’t acknowledge their presence until their cover is blown.

— In novels, most multiple personality, per se, is unnoticed, unintentional, and reflects the author’s view of ordinary psychology.

— Multiple personality means one person who has more than one identity and memory bank, not psychosis or possession.

— Euphemisms for alternate personalities include parts, pseudonyms, alter egos, doubles, double consciousness, voice or voices.

— Multiple personality trait: 90% of fiction writers; possibly 30% of public.

— Each time you visit, search "name index" or "subject index," choose another name or subject, and search it.

— If you read only recent posts, you miss most of what this site has to offer.

— Share site with friends.

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

“Along Came a Spider” (post 3) by James Patterson (post 4): Why is the “cool beans” scenario, extrinsic to plot, unknown to Alex Cross, in this novel?

As mentioned in one of yesterday’s posts, the novel’s Prologue says: Sixty years before the present story, a baby was kidnapped by a twelve-year-old boy, who, proud of his evil deed, said to himself, “Cool beans.”

Sixty years later, in the present story, a kidnapping is committed by a young man, who sometimes thinks of himself as “the bad boy,” and, when proud of an evil deed, may say to himself, “Cool beans.”

In yesterday’s post, I said that the “cool beans” scenario could be accounted for by the reincarnation of the first kidnapper’s evil soul into the evil kidnapper of the present story. However, this novel is not a tale of the supernatural. The hero, Alex Cross, is a down-to-earth detective and psychologist. Reincarnation is an inappropriate interpretation.

The most interesting thing about the “cool beans” scenario is that it is extrinsic to the novel’s plot. Alex Cross never knows of it. It plays no part in any police or psychological investigation. So what is it doing in this novel?

I have faced this situation with many other novels. My conclusion is this: When there is something in a novel that makes no sense in terms of the novel’s own story, when it is unwarranted and gratuitous, then I consider it a reflection of the author’s personal psychology.

The gratuitous thing in this novel is a bad boy whose pet phrase is “cool beans.” My hypothesis is that this describes one of the author’s alternate personalities.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for taking the time to comment (whether you agree or disagree) and ask questions (simple or expert). I appreciate your contribution.