![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tealinDiscovered this article via Tumblr:
The article in full details an experiment which is, sadly, though necessarily for science, much more limited than the leading paragraph suggests ... but it's interesting nonetheless. It explores the notion that people can set themselves aside whilst reading about another person, and take on that person's identity, that this can linger with a person well after they've come back to the real world, and have an affect on their opinions and choices.
For most people reading this blog, who've probably had experiences in fandom, this should come as no surprise. I think anyone who read a lot as a child can pick out two or three books or characters which played a significant role in making them who they are. As I have been led to believe (and anyone with experience in developmental psychology is welcome to correct me on this), role-playing is an important part of establishing one's identity in childhood, as you try on different characters like costumes, see what you like, what serves you well, what you can learn from. Everyone touts the importance of role models, but unlike real life role models, you can see into a fictional character's head. Not to mention they come in a wider range and are generally more interesting than the adults one is likely to meet as a child. I suspect a large number of idiosyncratic people discover for the first time that there are other people like them in the pages of a book, rather than real life. The fact the effect is stronger with literary characters than ones in films doesn't surprise me either – narrative prose often gives greater insight into the character's thoughts and emotions, and its ability to stimulate all the senses (albeit through the imagination) gives it an experiential edge over film. It doesn't surprise me at all that such a thing can extend into adulthood, as our identities are constantly evolving, and we are by nature an imitative species.
I know the study had a limited scope, and I appreciate what it did quantify. In my own experience, though, there's an important variable that wasn't apparently looked at here, at least according to the article, though I admit it may be unscientifically subjective: 'Putting on' the character is something one is far more likely to do if one identifies with some aspect of the character already. A skillful writer can finagle a connection between a character and a reader who have almost nothing in common, so it's not like this pairing has to be specially tailored, but if you can't find some way into the character, emotionally, situationally, or some other way, you will not be tempted to try them on for size.
I have heard a few actors say that playing other characters gives them a stronger sense of who they themselves are – it would not surprise me at all if this was related to why, in my experience at least, avid readers have a stronger sense of identity and greater self-awareness than those who don't read. Even if we don't literally take on another character, the mental exercise performs the same function. I know my own path of self-definition has followed a string of fictional characters, whether I'm trying to absorb traits I admire or taking warnings from characters who resemble my dark side too closely. As I've matured I feel like I'm winnowing myself down, character by character, sanding off things that 'aren't me' or filling in previously undetermined grey areas. Occasionally life experience will open me up to characters I wouldn't have identified with before and I will grow in their direction, or at least make a more definite map of the new frontier. But I've always had to have that kernel of identity, that one thing with which I can relate, the one stepping stone we can both stand on and I can see things from their vantage point. I don't know if the benefits of 'experience-taking' could be derived from a character I didn't connect with in some way, no matter how lucid the prose.
Unfortunately this doesn't solve one small but enormously repurcussive problem in my life at the moment. Complicating this problem is that I don't know whether it's a cause or effect – it might be both. It's probably both. But I don't know how to solve it. My problem is: the characters I'm relating to these days are marginalised, frustrated, arrogant, acerbic pisspots who think they're smarter than everyone else. What's a girl to do?
I think I have an appointment with Bill Wilson.
Psychologists Discover How People Subconsciously Become Their Favorite Fictional Characters
Psychologists have discovered that while reading a book or story, people are prone to subconsciously adopt their behavior, thoughts, beliefs and internal responses to that of fictional characters as if they were their own.
The article in full details an experiment which is, sadly, though necessarily for science, much more limited than the leading paragraph suggests ... but it's interesting nonetheless. It explores the notion that people can set themselves aside whilst reading about another person, and take on that person's identity, that this can linger with a person well after they've come back to the real world, and have an affect on their opinions and choices.
For most people reading this blog, who've probably had experiences in fandom, this should come as no surprise. I think anyone who read a lot as a child can pick out two or three books or characters which played a significant role in making them who they are. As I have been led to believe (and anyone with experience in developmental psychology is welcome to correct me on this), role-playing is an important part of establishing one's identity in childhood, as you try on different characters like costumes, see what you like, what serves you well, what you can learn from. Everyone touts the importance of role models, but unlike real life role models, you can see into a fictional character's head. Not to mention they come in a wider range and are generally more interesting than the adults one is likely to meet as a child. I suspect a large number of idiosyncratic people discover for the first time that there are other people like them in the pages of a book, rather than real life. The fact the effect is stronger with literary characters than ones in films doesn't surprise me either – narrative prose often gives greater insight into the character's thoughts and emotions, and its ability to stimulate all the senses (albeit through the imagination) gives it an experiential edge over film. It doesn't surprise me at all that such a thing can extend into adulthood, as our identities are constantly evolving, and we are by nature an imitative species.
I know the study had a limited scope, and I appreciate what it did quantify. In my own experience, though, there's an important variable that wasn't apparently looked at here, at least according to the article, though I admit it may be unscientifically subjective: 'Putting on' the character is something one is far more likely to do if one identifies with some aspect of the character already. A skillful writer can finagle a connection between a character and a reader who have almost nothing in common, so it's not like this pairing has to be specially tailored, but if you can't find some way into the character, emotionally, situationally, or some other way, you will not be tempted to try them on for size.
I have heard a few actors say that playing other characters gives them a stronger sense of who they themselves are – it would not surprise me at all if this was related to why, in my experience at least, avid readers have a stronger sense of identity and greater self-awareness than those who don't read. Even if we don't literally take on another character, the mental exercise performs the same function. I know my own path of self-definition has followed a string of fictional characters, whether I'm trying to absorb traits I admire or taking warnings from characters who resemble my dark side too closely. As I've matured I feel like I'm winnowing myself down, character by character, sanding off things that 'aren't me' or filling in previously undetermined grey areas. Occasionally life experience will open me up to characters I wouldn't have identified with before and I will grow in their direction, or at least make a more definite map of the new frontier. But I've always had to have that kernel of identity, that one thing with which I can relate, the one stepping stone we can both stand on and I can see things from their vantage point. I don't know if the benefits of 'experience-taking' could be derived from a character I didn't connect with in some way, no matter how lucid the prose.
Unfortunately this doesn't solve one small but enormously repurcussive problem in my life at the moment. Complicating this problem is that I don't know whether it's a cause or effect – it might be both. It's probably both. But I don't know how to solve it. My problem is: the characters I'm relating to these days are marginalised, frustrated, arrogant, acerbic pisspots who think they're smarter than everyone else. What's a girl to do?
I think I have an appointment with Bill Wilson.
