Talk:Fictional portrayals of psychopaths
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Lecter
I dont get it, Hannibal lecter is not a psychopath, he's a sociopathic sadist. I recommend removing the part 'bout Lecter.--Triple-Quadruple 04:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- You do realise that sociopath and psychopath are exact synonyms? Also, how is Lecter a sadist? He kills to devour, after selecting a victim to punish in accord with his perception of how the world should be, (his compulsion) or to survive/escape, he doesn't kill specifically IN ORDER to cause pain or fear. --Zeraeph 12:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Sociopaths are less social than psychopaths, more common, and less threatining. He enjoys the pain of others, esp. Clarice.--Triple-Quadruple 20:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Not true, in fact "sociopath" was created (I think in the 1940 or 50s?) as a new word for "psychopath", because "psychopath" was too confusing as it originally just meant literally "mentally ill" and still did in some parts of the word (like Germany) or in some pieces of legislation (like the UK mental health act until 2001).
-
- I think he enjoys PUNISHING others, when he feels they deserve it (and he tends to be probably right about that). If he kills an innocent it is as swift and merciful as possible and only aimed at self preservation (though the "Red Dragon" shows a potential depature from this pattern, Lecter was only a relatively minor character and unformed). He is very simply stalking Clarice, with, apparently, his own idea of "honorable intent", as becomes apparent at the end of "Hannibal". --Zeraeph 20:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WOW!
Well I shifted this stuff over here, because it was making the psychopathy page unmanageable and yet was important in terms of illustrating the concept. I honestly cannot BELIEVE the remarkable article you have turned this list into.
Tried to post a message to you and couldn't, so I wanted to be sure you saw this...don't worry, I didn't change a thing. It took an AGE to find something that could be construed by some as a minor error in punctuation to change and catch your attention, which is a mark of how good this article is.
Any chance of providing citations (AND sitting on your hands through the politic of FA :o( ) to get this ramped up to featured article status? Because it is a shining example of what an educated enthusiast can do with something that would, otherwise, be very mediocre. Or would you rather be left in peace to go on polishing?
Either way I am permanently impressed. --Zeraeph 12:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] False Entries (you don't have to be a psychopath to be a scumbag, you know)
If the list keeps growing at this rate, it will soon be completely synonymous with the "List of Fictitious Villains" page, in that it will contain the name of every villain in every work of fiction ever made. I feel it should be noted that in the case of many of these characters, it is not made clear in the actual work of fiction whether or not the character is supposed to be a "psychopath" or have a completely different mental disorder, or have no mental disorder at all but rather just be a garden-variety scumbag (there is such a thing as an evil person who is not a psychopath). Reverend Harry Powell (from Night of the Hunter) is not a psychopath, he is a delusional psychotic. Harry Lime (in The Third Man) shows no evidence of psychopathy, other than that he shows no qualms about killing (a trait that is found in non-psychopaths as well, unfortunately). Must every on-screen murderer automatically be labelled a "fictional psychopath?" --Sylocat 07:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fictional psychopaths and the clinical definition
I am not suggesting that all of the characters listed as fictional psychopaths necessarily meet the exact clinical definition of an actual psychopath. I have merely compiled a list in aid of a comprehensive discussion of the various different "types" of stock psychopaths (i.e., stereotypes) commonly found in fiction (movies, books, plays, etc.).
Whether or not the Reverand Harry Powell is a psychopath or a delusional psychotic is a matter of argument. Psychopaths certainly live by corrupt and distorted belief systems but are not manifestly delusional in the clinical sense. Hence, Rev. Powell may in fact be a "mixed" or "ambiguous" psychopath, since in many clinical studies, a person diagnosed with a particular psychiatric condition often presents overlapping, comorbid traits from other diagnostic categories as well. Also note that the section of the article which you are referring to states: "Perhaps more accurate portrayals of psychopaths are...." "Perhaps" means precisely that; it doesn't mean that all of the characters listed are necessarily realistic psychopaths, simply that they do present traits and behaviors which make them prime candidates for such a distinction.
My criterion for a fictional psychopath is not simply a character who commits murder. Some characters I have mentioned (J.J. Hunsecker in Sweet Smell of Success, Gordon Gekko in Wall Street, Francis Begbie in Trainspotting, Randle Patrick McMurphy in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Martin Taylor in Brimstone and Treacle, the Marquise in Les Liaisons Dangereuses, Claggart in Billy Budd, and the protagonist of The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner) are not murderers but are mentioned as possible fictional psychopaths.
It is true that psychopaths are usually stereotyped in fiction as serial killers and remorseless assassins and malefactors of some kind or another. A majority of serial killers do present many psychopathic traits. However, by the same token, I have also pointed out why Jack Torrance in The Shining and Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment would not qualify as psychopaths. Psychopathic automatons, as I call them, are not even human (or, at least, not wholly human) characters; the behavior of such characters is merely presented in fiction as a reflection of psychopathy from a human perspective.
According to the criteria laid out at the beginning of this article, Harry Lime presents as a classic example of the stereotypical "smooth psychopath" of Hollywood cinema. Whether or not a licensed forensic psychiatrist would agree that Lime really is a psychopath according to the accepted clinical definition is beside the point. --Jaiwills 19 August 2006
- Well, it's not that I don't see your point, but with all due respect, that argument is something for a movie forum, not an encyclopedia. You make some good points for your case, but in the process you're taking this into personal opinion and research territory, and that's exactly what Wikipedia is not (see WP:NOT), especially since it's virtually impossible to cite reliable sources on this topic. As is, this article reads more like a movie critic's essay than an encyclopedia article. We should at least follow Ireneshusband's suggested guidelines below, where we should only include characters if they are explicitly mentioned in the relevant work, or a documented, reliable essay or release on the topic by a noteworthy analyst (something we can link to and read). Sylocat 03:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Add "Xenosaga's" Wilhelm? "Pretty Persuasion's" Kimberly Joyce?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_%28Xenosaga%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Persuasion
[edit] The flags; Personal research
Hardly any sources are cited here. The article is very interesting, but it clearly involves a significant amount of personal opinion and personal research, which unfortunately is not appropriate for wikipedia.
Quite apart from anything else, personal opinion is likely to lead to errors. One clear example of this is the treatment of Rutger Hauer's character in Bladerunner. Contrary to what the article says at the moment, he did not show warmth towards a human during his last moments. The reason he chose to spare Harrison Ford's character was because Ford's character had just succeeded in saving himself by a superhuman feat of strength, thus revealing that he was not the human he still believed himself to be. I'm sure a lot could still be said about this, but wikipedia is not the place to do it, at least not until someone says it somewhere else first.
I propose that successful candidates for inclusion (retention) in this list should in future have met one of the following criteria:
- They are called psychopaths in the book/play/movie (or a recognised equivalent term).
- They are described as psychopaths in a respected scholarly work (such as a psychological or film studies paper).
- They are commonly described as psychopaths within popular culture.
Ireneshusband 20:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Agree wholeheartedly. This page needs some major cleaning up, it reads more like a movie critic's essay than an encyclopedia article. Sylocat 03:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
