The Psychology Of Reading

[Chinahand]

I suspect this will be a short topic, but this Blog post (by a descentent of Charles Darwin of all people!) made me think.

 

Where the wild things are

I'd never really thought of it like this, but Joyce Carol Oates nails it:

 

Reading is the sole means by which we slip, involuntarily, often helplessly, into another’s skin, another’s voice, another’s soul.

 

I came across this quote here, where it kicks off a very interesting meditation - by a psychologist, not a novelist - on how empathy works in fiction. One of the most interesting things it mentions is that people who don't empathise easily in real life have a stronger empathic response to characters in a movie if they think they're fictional, than if they think they're real. The suggestion is that empathy in real life is dangerous for people like this (and we probably all are like this to some degree, sometimes): it involves relaxing your guard, becoming vulnerable to someone who may take advantage, or whose pain may destroy us, whereas empathising with fictional characters will do no worse than, say, make you cry at the end of the novel.

 

I think its got interesting angles in both the "films which make me blub" thread and even the one on Psychics and empathizing with someone now past away and so who now only exists in fallable memory where it can be subject to all the interpretations the brain is wont to.

[Skeddan]

One of the oldest tricks used by screenwriters is the 'undeserved injustice' early on. This is an easy way to win audience sympathy for the protagonist/hero and develop empathy (which is often easier to gain given conventions which mean audience anticipates the hero will win through in the end, and that empathy will be rewarded).

 

The psychology of this has also been used in psyops like 'The Man Who Never Was' / Operation Mincemeat. The photo of the sweetheart back home gives positive light, a nasty rude letter from a bank manager about an overdraft added to empathy with the fictional character - again sense of undeserved injustice. It aroused vicarious identification with character and emotional engagement, adding to suspension of disbelief. This was a work of fiction, but they didn't know it when reading it - and led to Germans relaxing the guard and successful invasion of Sicily.

 

The value of skills in literary field for intelligence services has been recognised since its beginnings in Elizabethan times - it's essentially about audience manipulation - and the psychology of that is indeed very interesting. Film-makers like Sandy Mackendrick (Man in White Suit, Whisky Galore) were involved in Political Warfare - e.g in the 'Psychological Warfare Division'.

 

What's a concern is when politicians use these techniques (including psychology and arts used in advertising and marketing), and do so in 'dishonest' ways ("we slip, involuntarily, often helplessly...") Perhaps this is still 'white propaganda', but we see emotive appeal taking the place of reason and good judgement. Perhaps this is nothing new - All the world's a stage, and politicians players too.