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.

Thursday, June 27, 2019


“Enduring Love” by Ian McEwan (post 5): Three additions to the theme of the protagonist’s self-dividedness

After the first twelve chapters, I have three additions to the theme of the protagonist’s self-dividedness. One is Clarissa’s criticism that Joe is emotionally cut off, because “You’re making calculations that I’ll never know about. Some inner double-entry bookkeeping…” (1, p. 111).

The second is the issue of bisexuality, whose possible relation to multiple personality I discussed recently. So far, nobody has raised the issue of homosexuality as it relates to Jed Parry’s psychotic delusion of mutual love between him and Joe (the protagonist).

Why hasn’t Joe asked Jed if he is homosexual? Why hasn’t Joe told Jed Parry to leave him alone because he, Joe, is not homosexual? Why hasn’t Clarissa raised the issue of why this man is harassing Joe, the man she lives with? Why hasn’t Joe asked Jed Parry if homosexuality is consistent with Jed’s avowed religious beliefs? In short, why hasn’t the issue been raised by any of them, unless they all tacitly assume that everyone is bisexual?

The third possible addition to the theme of the protagonist’s self-dividedness is the question he raises about his own memory. He says he has “a quarter memory” (1, p. 95) having to do with the “the key word…curtain” (1, pp. 95-96). He doesn’t know what it means. And when Jed Parry makes the psychotic allegation that Joe is sending “signals” to him, Joe thinks that maybe there is a connection to curtains, “a curtain used as a signal” (1, p. 98). I don’t know what will be made of this later in novel, but a puzzling inaccessibility of memories, as if a person had multiple memory banks, is a basic issue in multiple personality.

Added June 28, 2019: In chapter 14, Joe (protagonist) suddenly recalls that the curtain as a signal was part of a case report by French psychiatrist De Clerambault, regarding a French woman who had never met, but loved, King George the Fifth. She had the delusion that the king loved her in return, and thought that he used the curtains in the windows of Buckingham Palace to signal to her. Thus, the prototypical case of de Clerambault’s syndrome was heterosexual, and the object of the delusion was a king (1, p. 133), not a freelance writer.

1. Ian McEwan. Enduring Love. New York, Nan A. Talese/Doubleday, 1997.

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.