Narrativism is exploration of character.

Whoa, Nelly! Let me explain.

In old episode of the Simpsons:

Lisa is depressed than usual about her looks. After failing to cheer her up, Homer goes to Moe's. A commercial for the Little Miss Springfield Pageant comes on the TV. He sells his Duff Beer blimp ride ticket for the pageant entrance fee.

The characterization of Homer Simpson is a dimwitted buffoon. By selling the blimp ticket, he proves that beneath that, he is a caring parent who will sacrifice anything for his daughter's happiness.

Check this out:

"Jessie just got out of prison, but while he was in the slammer he boned up on finance and investment, so he's an expert on stocks, bonds and securities, He can also breakdance. He's got a black belt in karate and plays a mean jazz saxophone.”

Sound like a RPG character, doesn't it? But I got it out of a book. It's what a producer once told an actor was a muti-dimensional character. However, this character is flat as a pancake. This is all just characterization. Characterization are any observable traits of the character: manner of speech, style of dress, age, race, education, carreer, etc. But Characterization is like a mask that we all show the world. Deep character or true character is what's behind the mask. True character is only observable by having the character make decisions while under pressure.

Since Aristotle's Poetics, there has been a debate in storytelling over which is more important, plot or character? Aristotle believed that plot was more important. Many since then, believed that character is more important than plot. But the debate is false. Character, deep, true character is plot.Much of the debate is due to confusing character with characterization. True character is only visible when the character makes decisions under pressure. This is what's shown in the Simpsons example, and probably why the producer was trying like a madman to make deep character from characterization. He did not realize it was invisible until the character is under pressure. When the character makes decisions under pressure, it makes the story happen. Because Homer decided to sell his blimp ticket, the plot of the show went this-a-way. If he had decided not to, not only would it have revealed a very different deep character but the plot would have gone that-a-way. Deep, true character is plot. Plot is character.

Therefore, Narrativism is exploration of character. Deep, true character. Not to be confused with the Simulationist exploration of characterization. Premise is important, but premise is more like the frying pan. The meat is the character. You can cook anything in a frying pan, but depending on the meat you're cooking, it's going to turn out differently You cannot address the premise without bringing out the deep character. Premise is, in Egri's words, the distilled meaning of the story. This meaning helps guide the storytelling, but it is not the storytelling. You make a story by exploring the deep character.


”My current kick is: a PC's decisions matter much more than her capabilities.”
Otherkind by Vincent Baker

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: True character is only observable by having the character make decisions while under pressure. ... Therefore, Narrativism is exploration of character.

Jack -

I don't agree.

Narrativist play can involve exploration of character, and will probably involve it as a central feature of play in character-centered narrativism, but it doesn't have to.

Exploration of character can serve the creative agenda of both Gamist and Simulationist play.

So - exploration of character is neither necessary nor sufficient for Narrativism. So the 'is' of your title seems tendentious at best.

Two further thoughts on this:

1) Setting-centered narrativism, like that of the Dying Earth RPG, seems an important counterexample to your claims. Characters in this game are more or less interchangeable, and the narratives produced revolve around the setting instead. Is narrativist, many kinds of exploration of character are out of place given the kind of narrative the game ought best to produce.

2) What is the nature of a player's interest in the exploration of the character? Is the character an object of speculation or a story-creating agent? Sometimes the answer appears to be 'both', which is where your thesis is strongest and where I think many Narrativist-leaning players actually find themselves happiest. But I know a few players (myself early in high school among them) who only care about the 'object of speculation' part, and others who don't care at all about their characters except as tools for making cool stories. The latter I'd still characterize as Nar, but the former seem pretty solidly Sim to me - it's the Dream they're interested in above all.

Best,

Sean

james_west wrote: (2) It might be confusing, if it were the first thing you came across when discovering the concepts. As a rephrasing, it definitely needs some caveats about who's making the decisions, and when they're made. If Homer had a stat 'Selflessness' that he had to roll on when he encountereted the situation, then things would become less clear cut.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Narrativism is exploration of character. Deep, true character. Not to be confused with the Simulationist exploration of characterization.

Sean wrote: Is the character an object of speculation or a story-creating agent? Sometimes the answer appears to be 'both', ...

Jack -

I don't think that answers my objection. I can be interested in having my character confronted with difficult choices and deeply morally charged circumstances in order to serve the sole purpose of finding out more about that character. Focus on exploration. If I don't care about the moral challenge except as it reveals more about my character, and if I don't give a rat's ass whether an even remotely interesting story is produced out of such a challenge, then it's not Narrativist-leaning play.

Best,

Sean

Oops. My edit cross-posted. Sorry.

Sean wrote: I can be interested in having my character confronted with difficult choices and deeply morally charged circumstances in order to serve the sole purpose of finding out more about that character. Focus on exploration. If I don't care about the moral challenge except as it reveals more about my character, and if I don't give a rat's ass whether an even remotely interesting story is produced out of such a challenge, then it's not Narrativist-leaning play.

Hi Jack,

Character, deep, true character is plot.Much of the debate is due to confusing character with characterization. True character is only visible when the character makes decisions under pressure.

Jack,

As far as I'm concerned, you're right on the money.

This is a thought I had recently: Nar play is about the *internal* struggle of a character. Which choices the PC makes during play is what produces story.

Sim and Gamist play revolve around struggles, and often produce "story", but the struggles are *external*. The internal life isn't really touched on.

Sean,

I think your statements only reflect back what Jack and I would call Nar play. Now, you may not want to call it Nar play -- and who the hell am I to tell you what to call what you play. But if explroring the premise, whether through a character or through a toaster, for whatever reason (to explicitely explore the premise or simply because your grooving on PC who is exploring Premise) and you're making such exploration a priority -- it's Nar play. Remember, the players don't have to have the Premise of the game taped to their foreheads for all the other players to see and be reminded of during the course of the game. It's the addressing of, and prioritizing of Premise that makes it Nar. Jack's point is, and I've extended it, is if we're prioritizing the internal battle of a character, we've got Nar play, because then we've got internal choices going on, and that means we're addressing a premise.

As to your point that if you're not worried about making a story (rat's ass or not), it's not Nar play... That's just off the map. That's not a definition of Nar play. Addressing a Premise as a priority is.

I think Jack's nailed it clean and simple.

Christopoher

Hi, Chris.

Like the narrativism essay, I think the issue of stance is neither here nor there as far as this goes.


Hey, Christopher K. (just to keep it clear who I'm addressing here)

Thanks. Most of what I've said here comes almost directly from Story by Robert McKee. An excellent rescource for anyone, and the book the Jessie example came from.

Sean wrote: 1) Setting-centered narrativism, like that of the Dying Earth RPG, seems an important counterexample to your claims. Characters in this game are more or less interchangeable, and the narratives produced revolve around the setting instead. Is narrativist, many kinds of exploration of character are out of place given the kind of narrative the game ought best to produce.

The Dying Earth RPG nails Premise to Setting rather than Character, or at least that's what I tend to see, inspired somewhat by some unfinished conversations with Ron (as well as some asides in his essays).

John, if you had said "without involving moral choice by the players" (instead of characters), I would agree with you - but a game does not have to be heavy into exploration of character, or even involve moral choice by the characters, to accomplish this. What it has to do is have a group of people collaborating to play in a way that addresses moral questions (premise, 'story', whatever - I don't think those questions matter here). You can do this with little or no exploration of character involved, and I think that the Dying Earth RPG could be enlisted to produce just this kind of play, though my experiences with the game have been more of the 'exuberant adolescent' variety. Whether it's 'story' or 'premise' or 'morally charged theme' or whatever that you're addressing through play, this does not require identification with your character, nor even any especially deep exploration of characters beyond what they contribute to the addressing of premise. I think characters can be mostly props in Narrativist play. (And in the other two broad creative agenda.)

Christopher - I believe that I've focused on heavy exploration of character in games with different GNS priorities. But I don't see what's incoherent about a player wanting to explore character just to find out more about that character, who's not interested in addressing premise (again - I really think the 'story' vs. 'premise' thing is a red herring in this discussion). He (or she) likes a narrativist-leaning GM because the GM puts his character in 'tough situations' that make him 'really think about what his character's like', but doesn't care at all about how his decisions address premise, or make story, or whatever - he's just interested in getting to know his character as well as possible, to discover as many things about his character as possible. So here the GM's Narrativist agenda (challenge player with situations premise-rich or pregnant with narrativist possibilities, or whatever) is serving the player's Simulationist agenda (discover as much about my character as possible), but it doesn't follow that they're trying to get the same thing out of the game. One sort of frustration that can come out of this kind of mismatch is that the Sim-leaning player makes decisions that are disappointing from the point of view of addressing premise or making story, because he's just not thinking about what would be cool or interesting - he's trying to do what he thinks the character would really do.

I am, of course, trying to analyze some of my own past experience in the above paragraph. On the other hand, I think I've gotten it pretty right, and in any case I don't see what's wrong with the conceptual possibility I describe even if I'm wrong about my own play.

I'm also pretty sure that I've played in games where everyone had a pretty explicit Narrativist agenda, so I'm not worried about me 'not really being Nar' or anything dumb like that. This is a theory thread, so I'm just holding out for what I think the theoretical possibilities are. I think that what Jack describes is probably symptomatic of the most common and maybe even the most enjoyable form of Narrativist play. I just think that you can have a hard-core focus on Exploration of Character which is stimulated by but not motivated by addressing of Premise (which is Nar at the service of Sim, hence Sim), and that you can have hard-core conscious addressing of premise in which characters are only a relatively unimportant part of the imaginative space in which this is taking place.

Hey, Sean

If I'm not mistaken, the bone of contention here seems to be at what point does it become Nar and at what point does it become Sim, right?

I'm not sure what you mean by "identification with your character" but as far as "especially deep exploration of characters" what does "especially deep" mean? I don't think it needs to be very deep. Just something past the mask of characterization. The Homer Simpson example isn't especially deep, only took a few minutes of screen time, and was little more than the payoff for a subplot. (And has been largely ignored in future episodes as new writers come in keep the buffoon characterization and don't show anything past that)

One sort of frustration that can come out of this kind of mismatch is that the Sim-leaning player makes decisions that are disappointing from the point of view of addressing premise or making story, because he's just not thinking about what would be cool or interesting - he's trying to do what he thinks the character would really do.

Hmm. Interesting. I don't even agree with that, Jack.

If 'what the character would really do' is a tool at the service of narrative plausibility, a springboard for ideas for how to address Premise, then yeah, that's Nar.

But if 'what the character would really do' is a fundamental constraint on action - if the question you're asking is 'what would this character do?', period, without any concern for how the character's action addresses premise, or for the way that that decision is going to make for a more interesting story - then I'd say it's Sim.

The question I ask here is one about the goals of play. 'Addressing premise' or 'making story' or whatever has to be a goal of play (conscious or otherwise) for it to be Nar play. I think. If that's right, then you don't necessarily hammer down too hard on the 'what would this character really do?' question. Rather, to me at least, it's 'what can this character do to create story (address premise, etc.), right here and right now, in this game?'

Probably there are cases where it's vague which of these two is going on (the borderline you refer to), which is why you have to look at broader segments of play sometimes to figure out what people's preferences are.

Jack Spencer Jr, repeating what creative writing books all over the world are saying! (Jack, please note, I'm being facetious. I think your observation is dead on.)

*****

Sean wrote: If 'what the character would really do' is a tool at the service of narrative plausibility, a springboard for ideas for how to address Premise, then yeah, that's Nar.

But if 'what the character would really do' is a fundamental constraint on action - if the question you're asking is 'what would this character do?', period, without any concern for how the character's action addresses premise, or for the way that that decision is going to make for a more interesting story - then I'd say it's Sim.

Cruciel wrote:

'why does the player think this is what the character would really do?'

One possible answer: Because it displays the maximal degree of logical consistency with previous decisions made by the character and the description of the character previously written down. If that's not Sim, I don't know what is.

Another possible answer: Because it's what, given the player's overall sense of what the character is like as a functioning element within a narrative whole, would best address premise, or carry the story they're using the character to make forward in the coolest way, or whatever. Narrativism.

Probably lots of people think that they're choosing on the first ground when they're actually choosing on the second. Maybe this is because they think choosing on the second ground is somehow less reputable, even though many of them would have/are having way more fun when they choose that way. Maybe in turn they think that because they were taught mistakenly that (1) was the 'right' way to role-play. All that may well be true, but it doesn't mean the first decision-type doesn't exist.

I'm weighing in with Sean here.

I agree with Jack that this deep exploration of character is one of the typical hallmarks of narrativism, but I think it goes to far to say that it is narrativism, and Sean is right that it goes too far in both directions.

Exploration of character, beyond mere characterization, is quite possible in simulationist play; you can play a game that is entirely about figuring out who this character really is. Play a slaveholder in the antebellum South just to understand slavery from that perspective, and go deeply into his beliefs, motives, and understandings, and you're doing exploration--discovering what this kind of person was like. If you don't go beyond that to attempt to deal with the morality of the situation, you're probably never getting narrativist, even if some of your choices look a little like that and a theme emerges.

Meanwhile, addressing premise can happen in a game in which there are no characters to explore--I'd wager a well-crafted game of Universalis could be built around a premise without ever having anyone explore any character in any depth or detail. I can imagine play in an antebellum setting in which the "character" elements are all political and social and other collective entities struggling over the status of the slaves, in which there is never one single individual who matters to the created events, and yet very deep questions about slavery are asked and answered through play. (Caveat: I've not played it, so I'm going by what I've read.)

Character exploration is a red herring.

--M. J. Young

I agree with Jack: for Narrativist play to happen at all, the characters absolutely must do what they would do. Violating your character's integrity, no matter how cool, can't address Premise but only sabotage it.

A variable missing from this conversation so far is: which character?

I propose that Narrativist play depends on full-integrity full-dedication full-engagement play of the right characters, where "right" means hooked into conflict across the moral line of your Premise.

A Sim game, then, might be based on full-integrity full-dedication full-engagement play of characters who aren't hooked into any such conflict.

("Full" in full-integrity etc. means "to whatever degree is appropriate for your particular game.")

Potentially, you could build a Narrativist game on the strength of its character creation rules alone.

The Dying Earth, it seems to me, is a case where the bulk of the conflict / moral line / Premise stuff lives in the Setting, not the characters - but the characters absolutely have to be hooked into it for Narrativist play.

-Vincent

M. J. Young wrote: Exploration of character, beyond mere characterization, is quite possible in simulationist play; you can play a game that is entirely about figuring out who this character really is. Play a slaveholder in the antebellum South just to understand slavery from that perspective, and go deeply into his beliefs, motives, and understandings, and you're doing exploration--discovering what this kind of person was like. If you don't go beyond that to attempt to deal with the morality of the situation, you're probably never getting narrativist, even if some of your choices look a little like that and a theme emerges.

James 2:18 wrote: But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

Meanwhile, addressing premise can happen in a game in which there are no characters to explore--I'd wager a well-crafted game of Universalis could be built around a premise without ever having anyone explore any character in any depth or detail. I can imagine play in an antebellum setting in which the "character" elements are all political and social and other collective entities struggling over the status of the slaves, in which there is never one single individual who matters to the created events, and yet very deep questions about slavery are asked and answered through play. (Caveat: I've not played it, so I'm going by what I've read.)

Sean wrote: Cruciel wrote:

'why does the player think this is what the character would really do?'

One possible answer: Because it displays the maximal degree of logical consistency with previous decisions made by the character and the description of the character previously written down. If that's not Sim, I don't know what is.

Hey, Vincent

I a little fuzzy by what you mean by "right character" Would you mind dumbing it down a shade for me? ;)

Hello,

Exploration of Character is Narrativist play ... if you're committed to that mode of play. Which makes the argument, as far as I'm concerned, rather circular.

The only thing that changes that in your discussion, Jack, is your use of the terms "deep" and "true," which sound like value judgments to me and not especially useful for making a point. Why can't a fully Simulationist play-experience be "deep" and "true?"

Note that I'm speaking very far from my own preferences, because experientially I agree with you. But me-the-experiencer (and typically pretty Narrativist-biased) isn't me-the-thinker. The thinker says, "Jack is stating his preferences" and that's that.

Also, I discuss The Dying Earth and the sources of Premise for playing it in the Narrativism essay; I'm not sure why people are confused about that here in this thread. I consider Premise in playing this game (with all provisos about texts vs. play) to arise from Situation.

Sean, you and I discussed this at length at RPG.net as well.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: The only thing that changes that in your discussion, Jack, is your use of the terms "deep" and "true," which sound like value judgments to me and not especially useful for making a point. Why can't a fully Simulationist play-experience be "deep" and "true?"

Premise through Situation - right. Those discussions were very confusing to me, Ron - I felt like I saw something that you understood, but I couldn't quite grasp your explanations in that particular case. I think I've got it now though.

Jack, have you read Universalis? I think MJ is right in the sense that that's about the clearest example I can think of where a game could be Narrativist from the get-go without any special emphasis on exploration of character. Dying Earth is a harder example, though I think it's a good one too.

On the flip side, I think that a player could be interested in having a character morally challenged, in having their character's Character explored in a very deep way, without being interested in the story or addressing of Premise coming out of it. This is the hard-core fringe of Simulationist Exploration of Character, Immersive Exploration for its own sake.

Vincent, I guess I can't really agree with you, though what you're saying is true under some interpretations. Let's say that relative to any given situation, there are some actions that are demanded of a particular character given what is known about him or her, some that are ruled out, and a middle set that are optional. In the case of actions that are demanded or ruled out in a strong way, virtually all games, even some of those with a Gamist creative agenda, are going to get messed up a little bit when players go against them. This is because they damage the shared imaginative space in which the creative agenda is being worked out.

But what about that middle set, where you have multiple choices that are consistent with a character, but none necessarily mandated by it?

The Gamist choice is the one that best facilitates Stepping On Up;

Some Simulationists will sit back, think even harder about the character, setting, etc., until they really feel like they know the right thing for the character to do. In thinking this way they are trying to narrow the action space by pushing some of the choices - all of which seemed prima facie consistent with the character - into the 'demanded' or 'ruled out' boxes, and make their choice that way.

Whereas I think a Narrativist will sit back, contemplate their character within the broader arc of the story, consider how they want their character to address premise in that situation, and choose that way.

I think this has a mirror in real life too. Sometimes you take a job because it's the job that best fits you and your nature and desires; sometimes you take a job because it's one that will improve your social standing and resources; and sometimes you take a job because you think you'll be a cooler or more interesting person, or because you think it would be a morally good thing to do to work that job. In the second two cases, we sometimes tend to think the person who doesn't consider their own nature and desires at all is either 'selling out' or 'not being realistic'; but of course not all jobs chosen for reasons of coolness or moral idealism are unrealistic choices for the person in question, and not all jobs that make us more powerful and respected constitute selling out either. In the first case, you're sticking to your guns, trying to be who you think you already are, no matter what; in the other two cases, when those choices are made responsibly, you're deciding that who you are fits the choice well enough that you can satisfy those other values as well. Sometimes this works out great, other times it fails: in all three cases, you grow and change through the decision, and find out better who you are in the process.

"Egotism leads to loss of friends", Egri's example of a premise, not a statement of morality but about character. So yes exploration of character leads to narrativism but I do see a little hole for left for Sean's position in here. If we turn that statement into a question, Does egotism lead to loss of friends?, it is looking for a specific outcome the loss of friends. A simulationists question in his exploration of the same character would be what does egotism lead to?

There is a subtle difference there , so subtle I'm not sure they really say different things once play focuses the question on situation. Both have chosen egotism as the focus of their question, and since the premise need not be worked out in advance neither is limited to a specific outcome in actual play.

Ron - the Dying Earth example from the Nar essay didn't stand out to me at the time because I wasn't familiar with the Dying Earth RPG. But now that I look at it, I don't see what makes it Narrativist. Below is the section you quote from the game:

Many Dying Earth stories revolve around a closed community, which may be either a small settlement or an isolated workplace. In its isolation, it has developed its own highly-structured, sometimes legalistic, always peculiar rules. Without outside influence, and with the stout enforcement of its codes, the group has survived for a long time. When the protagonist arrives, the locals try to enforce the rules on him, assimilating him into their bizarre system. Instead, the hero ... takes action which utterly disrupts the delicately-balanced harmony of the community. ... the community, the basis of its rules destroyed, collapses.

[now for play]

When creating an adventure, dream up a bizarre rule or activity on which a community's existence depends. Figure out at least one way in which the PCs could wreak havoc on the community by disrupting the activity or subverting the rule.

Then create a reason for the PCs to do so ... [actually, the entire character creation process for this game takes care of this detail - RE]

lumpley wrote: I agree with Jack: for Narrativist play to happen at all, the characters absolutely must do what they would do. Violating your character's integrity, no matter how cool, can't address Premise but only sabotage it.

A variable missing from this conversation so far is: which character?

I propose that Narrativist play depends on full-integrity full-dedication full-engagement play of the right characters, where "right" means hooked into conflict across the moral line of your Premise.

lumpley wrote: A Sim game, then, might be based on full-integrity full-dedication full-engagement play of characters who aren't hooked into any such conflict.

Hello,

Maybe I should clarify: guys, make up your own minds about playing The Dying Earth. There's really not much point to justifying my thoughts about it; you know that what I think is not sacred.

The point is not whether DE is or isn't Narrativist-facilitating. The point is whether Narrativist play is or isn't about Exploration of Character per se.

I don't see much meat in it, so I'll just sit back and let everyone else reveal what I'm missing.

Best,
Ron

Sean wrote: Jack, have you read Universalis? I think MJ is right in the sense that that's about the clearest example I can think of where a game could be Narrativist from the get-go without any special emphasis on exploration of character.

On the flip side, I think that a player could be interested in having a character morally challenged, in having their character's Character explored in a very deep way, without being interested in the story or addressing of Premise coming out of it. This is the hard-core fringe of Simulationist Exploration of Character, Immersive Exploration for its own sake.

I agree with Ron, and personally feel that nothing interesting has been said here.

Mike

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:

M. J. Young wrote: Exploration of character, beyond mere characterization, is quite possible in simulationist play; you can play a game that is entirely about figuring out who this character really is. Play a slaveholder in the antebellum South just to understand slavery from that perspective, and go deeply into his beliefs, motives, and understandings, and you're doing exploration--discovering what this kind of person was like. If you don't go beyond that to attempt to deal with the morality of the situation, you're probably never getting narrativist, even if some of your choices look a little like that and a theme emerges.

Looking at the slaveholder, now how do you get into his beliefs, motives and understandings? You could listen to what he has to say. Heck, you could even go into his head and thoughts, but this stuff is not deep character either. Why? Because there's no pressure. The pressure is essential. Beliefs untested are not addressing premise.

Hiya,

Mike, you're over-re-phrasing me a little. I don't think the thread has "nothing interesting" in it. I do think that M.J. pretty much nailed down all the corners on the issue, and I also think that it's perfectly all right for people to work out their ideas through dialogue. No need to dismiss it, eh?

Best,
Ron

M. J. Young wrote: Ah, but we aren't talking about addressing premise; we're talking about exploring character, and trying to explore that character deeply.

M. J. Young wrote: Just because you're applying pressure and making choices to explore character more deeply does not mean you are addressing premise. You could create a conflicted situation merely to consider how this character would act. Suppose a slave boy who was your character's primary playmate growing up runs away; that could be fraught with premise, but it could be merely a way of digging into who this character is and how he thinks and why he does what he does.

What makes it narrativism is that the players care about the premise; what makes it simulationism is that the players care about the information.

John Kim wrote: To take an example, I read "Richard Scarry's Please and Thank You Book" to my three-year old. This clearly addresses moral issues, but offers no insight into character.

Ron Edwards wrote: Exploration of Character is Narrativist play ... if you're committed to that mode of play. Which makes the argument, as far as I'm concerned, rather circular.

Hi Ian,

You're misreading me rather drastically.

I am saying that Narrativist play requires Exploration of Character, and that sometimes it prioritizes it. However, you can substitute Gamist or Simulationist straight into that sentence and those will be correct too.

In other words, I am disagreeing with Jack, or rather, saying that he is presenting a logical circle: "If I want to play Narrativist via primarily Exploring Character, then I will be Exploring Character to play Narrativist."

My answer: Well, yeah. But that's not a feature of Narrativism, that's a feature of any Creative Agenda.

Best,
Ron

Cool. The way I was reading it seemed to be far too extreme given the theory in general.

Ron Edwards wrote: In other words, I am disagreeing with Jack, or rather, saying that he is presenting a logical circle: "If I want to play Narrativist via primarily Exploring Character, then I will be Exploring Character to play Narrativist."

Hi Jack,

I suggest we take this as a two-part process. There's this thread, in which you've isolated this "deep character" point that you want to make. The best thing to do is to sit back, construct exactly the phrasing about "deep character" that you want to use, and then construct whatever point or inquiry that you want to make about it. Then start a new thread about that. This one, I think is best left with the noble history of generating the issue.

Best,
Ron