fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2513 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2513 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

Notes:

Early post!

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 048 secrets from Secret Submission Post #359.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

But most writers write about things they've seen--even fantasists often have characters based on people they've met. Assuming that sociopaths have existed all throughout history, then even if for much of human history no one knew what a sociopath was, it's likely there were authors who wrote a depiction of a sociopath just by writing about their old rival Timothy or their father-in-law Paul. In that sense, we at least can't rule out that there are fictional characters from a time before sociopathy was a known condition who nonetheless are "sociopathic" characters.

(Actually, I think this is what the previous poster meant, the one you said was "speaking in code." I hope this was clearer.)

Edit: I saw your post below about them only being able to identify "sociopathic traits." Does the dividing line really matter? A post above mentioned monomania--that's no longer an existing diagnosis, but an author who wrote about monomania can still be recognized today as writing symptoms of currently defined illnesses.

Edited 2013-11-20 06:59 (UTC)

My grand summation is that a writer can't write what they don't know. I don't mean haven't experienced. I mean literally don't know exist. (I'm not talking about Ray Bradbury predicting headphones by the way.) Like if someone who has never stepped foot in a physics classroom and couldn't add two and two tried to write a thesis on gravity it would obviously be nonsense beyond basic observations like "shit goes to the floor". People are not the same, but similar in the sense that a lot of writers don't have an intense deep understanding of every person, and so they have an image of people as they see them, and then they write them into a story so you end up with a creation a few layers removed from reality. So when you compare that to reality itself you will (probably, probably, PROBABLY) have to twist and stretch and reach in order to get it to line up with anything as concrete as the modern definition will be. It's not reality. It exists on it's own terms.

(I was only referring to that person's last paragraph, which made no sense to me.)

[ SECRET POST #2513 ]

Re: Is this Captain Obvious shit, I dunno

Re: Is this Captain Obvious shit, I dunno