BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Obsession/Possession of magician-writer by "fictional" creations and the fluid nature of fiction suit identification

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
--
15:01 / 05.09.04
As a companion to impulsivelad's recent thread on writing magick and the nature of hypersigils I would like to start a discussion involving the identification with fiction suits, the fluidity that such an identification carries and the notion of bringing one's "fictional" characters into one's 3D reality via creative means.

A bit of preamble: Though I actually had formed a lot of concrete thoughts on this subject prior to my occult self-initiation and exposure to various metafictional outlets it was Grant Morrison's notion of "fiction suits" that really brought it all into focus and portrayed it in a clearer light. I was intrigued that Morrison had placed himself into "The Invisibles": However, later on Morrison dropped that fiction suit to pursue another, "Mister Six", in volume three. This obviously shows that the nature of fiction suits (like most things in life) is flexible and fluidic, and subject to change on a whim depending on the character of the writer/operator/magician and various circumstances.

I'm wondering here if anyone has ever had a character they've created that has obsessed them to some degree with the point that they began to actually emulate that character in real life. Historically, Morrison is a common example around here but I'm also tempted to think of Symbolist/Proto-Surrealist Alfred Jarry who, in the latter stages of his life, began to assume the identity of his Black King, Pere Ubu (of the classic pataphysical play "Ubu Roi"). I'm sure that there are other examples of this, a character that one writes so long that he/she begins to bleed into "the Real", so the line between fiction and non-fiction becomes blurred.

If "created" characters are in fact tulpas or thoughtforms loitering on the edge of consensus reality patiently waiting to find a medium (writer/artist/playwright/poet whatever) could this be seen as a subtle type of possession and overtaking of the medium? And, furthermore, if said character goes on to influence others, could they be seen as a type of ontic meme? For example, I think of all these Trekkies out there, or people who think and act and dress like characters from the TV show "Star Trek". Could this not be seen as an example of fictional spirits replicating themselves and spreading from one world (creative/fictional) into the world of matter and time? An evolution from the 2D flatworld of the page into a higher stage above (and, when said character attains mythic status, an even higher dimension then the 3D one we're accustomed to?)

Using my own example, "Sypha Nadon" was a name I created some time ago, and I liked it so much I decided to use it in my stories. In fact, over the last eleven years or so I've used that name in almost every project I've ever worked on. At first Sypha's identity was amorphous, that is it changed from project to project (kind of like the character "Cid" from the Final Fantasy game series, who appears in almost every FF game but has a different form/function in each... truly a pixelized John A'Dreams). Later on though Sypha began to assume a more concrete identity, so much so I began modeling myself after himself and began to use the name outside of the fiction world: as an online moniker, for example. However, in the last few months or so I've questioned his ability to be a good avatar so I had him symbolically consumed by flames in a sigil-ritual conducted whilst playing "The Sims". However, some of his identity clung germ-like to other aspects of my nature (for example, I still kept using his name as my online name) so that is why I'm changing fiction suits, switching avatars much as GM did towards the end of the Invisibles run. The notion of old identities discarded for new ones.

My new avatar is the Fabulous Mr. Meaningless and he came to me during the transmitting of my hypersigil project last year. I don't know where he came from inside me (or ouside me, as it were) but I decided as an avatar he was funner to be then Sypha... An esoteric engineer, a clownish prankster from the Dark Side of the Arse, a surrealist with caffine in his bloodstream, a pantolin-cum-scienist obsessed with Research and Dadavelopment, this Gnostician of the Divinty captured my heart. Sypha has been abandoned for him: I now identify with an eyeball headed top-hat wearing Dodo-bodied white-gloved violin-legged fourth-dimensional mutant-imp whose voice is a cross between Fred Schneider and Jello Biafra. A reflection of my other dastes, my surreal/silly/dada/discordia/chaotic/Dalinian side amde manifest, and a move away from the ludicrous ponderous pseudo-goth concrete blonde "bloodletting" extremes of my previous occupier, my first obsession. hese days I find the surreal to be of more interest then the "shadow". It's not a sudden transformation, of course, but a gradual mutation. I'm not sure how this will take shape in the "ordinary" but I'm eager to see the results.

So, now I ask, has anyone else here had a similiar experience with a character they created? If so, how did it bleed into your day-to-day? Did it feel like possession? And did you ever switch fiction-suits? If so, why? Or, if you've never created a fictional character or never had such an obsession, has anyone elses' fiction suits captivated you to such an extent you felt the need to emulate that character's behaviour and, in a way, become that character? If so, do tell.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
20:38 / 05.09.04
So the name change has nothing to do with all the gags about syphilis?
 
 
--
04:27 / 06.09.04
Actually, the Syphilis gags have been used by other online "acquanitances" way before I came here. In fact the popular one used to be Syphilis Nerdon.
 
 
Lord Morgue
07:48 / 06.09.04
All my characters are in some way self-inserts. I bring different parts of my personality to the forefront to write each character- kind of literary method-acting.
 
 
macrophage
13:27 / 06.09.04
Avatars are good stuff - just like trying out different invocations. I'm sure there is alot of articles on the web about people taking it all too much. I've read sci-fi where avatars take on lives of their own - oo ee oo! Fiction suits, multi-mind, masks, etc. Does anyone know if any actors or actresses have become posessed by their characters?? Ha you know what they say the whole world's a stage!!! A wee bit of possession doesn't hurt anybody I reckon unless you are puking pea soup all over the place, as long as you can get back to REALITY!
 
 
trouser the trouserian
13:55 / 06.09.04
anyone know if any actors or actresses have become posessed by their characters??

Keith Johnstone discusses the relationship between possession, acting, and the development of characters (plus mask-work and a whole lot more) in his fascinating & inspiring book IMPRO - well worth a look
 
 
--
14:36 / 06.09.04
I'll have to give that book a look if I ever come across it. Seems interesting... I've read about a lot of actors who go extremely out of their way to get into character, but I can't recall too many examples where it bordered on obsession.

This isn't really related to the thread (hell, if I'm going to do thread rot might as well do it on my own thread) but another thing I've found fascinating about writing as of recent is how very often it comes off as wish-fulfiment, in a way. I'm not a Tom Clancy fan by any means but the guy couldn't get into the Navy or the army so he was pretty much forced to just write about it in his books and live out his dreams that way. On the opposite end of the spectrum, people like Peter Sotos and Dennis Cooper can't kill or rape boys in real life so they write about doing it (well, technically they could, they just don't, either because of personal morals or simple fear of being caught). Once someone asked Sotos why he was a writer and he replied "Limited options", so I think that sums it up pretty well. Actually, I guess in a way this is related to the thread as you have all these writers trying on fiction-suits and playing around in these magical universes they've created, they just don't use that type of terminology. This isn't some grand original revelation, I just find it interesting.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:55 / 06.09.04
people like Peter Sotos and Dennis Cooper can't kill or rape boys in real life so they write about doing it

Are you suggesting that the motivation for people writing about things outside their experience is usually a desire to experience these things vicariously? That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at it...
 
 
--
15:35 / 06.09.04
Well, I should say that's one of the big motivations (not the only one, mind). It depends on the writer, of course. I think transcendence is a key factor in most cases.
 
 
--
15:39 / 06.09.04
Furthermore in the cases listed above I'm just referring to stuff that the authors themselves stated. I definetly think writers should write about things outside their experience. Which is why I was puzzled when Clancy once said he wasn't a woman so he couldn't have a female main character because he didn't know what it was like to be one... I found that to be a cop-out excuse and kind of hypocritical as he's never been in the military either yet he writes about that. I dunno...
 
 
eddie thirteen
00:33 / 07.09.04
I think I get this, though Morrison's notion of "being" King Mob and then Mister Six always struck me as oddly reductive -- in my writing, I find that even the characters I find most objectionable as "people" are just different parts of me. (It could even be that the most objectionable characters are more "me" than I even realize.) I guess I can see what he means if he's talking about Mister Six being who he'd like to see staring back at him when he looks in the mirror. Interestingly, though, I think that a character like Sir Miles -- probably not anyone anybody would want to be -- is a much more fully-realized creation than either Six or King Mob, who both feel more like iconic "types" than actual people. I guess that's maybe the point, and that maybe a true "fiction suit" would have to be something of a tabula rasa if another person were going to occupy it...its history would have to be somewhat vague, its reactions would have to be varied enough that you could do all kinds of things while wearing it without losing the character. Too fleshed-out a character would provide a very limiting fiction suit.

Back on track, though, I've found that writing particular characters does bring out certain qualities in me, both good and bad...I may just be suggestible or impressionable, but yeah, a prolonged amount of time in a fictional character's head does affect me. I found when writing a story about a seductive lesbian vampire I suddenly got WAY more attention from random, poetry-writing, sexually ambiguous goth girls, for one thing (although, sadly, I have since found that I cannot reactivate whatever set of pheromones said story released in me at will...I've tried). More to the point, though, I'll take on personality tics of characters I'm writing with whom I especially identify, as I'm actively writing them. It's not really a conscious thing, though.
 
 
--
02:25 / 07.09.04
Sometimes I do that when I read other people's stuff eddie. Like, right now I'm reading Harvey Pekar's stuff for the first time and on other forums I find myself acting very down-to-earth, modest, making little observations about life... the opposite of my usual chaotic starry-eyed style. Oddly enough regarding the Invisibles I identified with Sir Miles the most... His violence repelled me but he was one of the only characters plagued by things like guilt, narrow-mindedness, existential fear... I short, as you noted, perhaps the most human of that whole bunch.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
07:15 / 07.09.04
Here's Charlie Chaplin's own description of how he 'found' the character of the Little Tramp:

"On the way to the wardrobe I thought I would dress in baggy pants, big shoes, and a cane and a derby hat. I wanted everything to be a contradiction; the pants baggy, the coat tight, the hat small and the shoes large. I was undecided whether to look young or old, but remembering Sennett had expected me to be a much older man, I added a small moustache which, I reasoned, would add age without hiding my expression...
'...I had no idea of the character. But the moment I was dressed, the clothes and make-up made me feel the kind of person he was. I began to know him, and by the time I walked on stage he was fully born. When I confronted Sennett I assumed the character and strutted about, swinging my cane and parading before him. Gags and comedy ideas went racing through my mind...
'...My character was different and unfamiliar to the Americans. But with the clothes on I felt he was a reality, a living person. In fact he ignited all kinds of crazy ideas that I would never have dreamt of until I was dressed and made-up as the Tramp.'
and
'I realised I would have to spend the rest of my life finding out about the creature. For me he was fixed, complete, the moment I looked in the mirror and saw him for the first time, yet even now I don't know all the things that are to be known about him'.

(quoted from IMPRO, p145).
 
 
Lord Morgue
10:03 / 07.09.04
"anyone know if any actors or actresses have become posessed by their characters??"

David Bowie. Every time he acts, he becomes the character. It never really leaves him until he assumes a different role. Identities like Ziggy Stardust, Alladin Sane, the Thin White Duke, were his own version of "fictionsuits", probably stemming from his own dalliances with Crowley.

Björk. The director of "Dancer in the Dark" said she doesn't really know how to act, she just emotes- all her suffering in that film was real, and that's why she'll probably never make another.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
11:03 / 07.09.04
It strikes me that this talk of "fiction suits" is really just a way of describing the processes that every writer and every actor engages with every time they write or take on a character. I suppose this happens to a greater or lesser extent depending on factors such as the skill and personal approach of the person in question, but to my mind what you are describing is not overtly magical in a spooky occult sort of way. It's just another, slightly buzz-wordish, way of talking about something that all creative people tend to do all of the time. The mechanism of magic are really close to the mechanisms of creativity.

Taking on the fairly loose definition of the term "fiction suit", in the sense that its being used in this thread, you could easily make a point that every character in every book written by every writer, is a "fiction suit" of that writer. They wrote them. They are therefore an aspect of them, in some sense. I remember reading an interview with Morrison where he talked about all five members of the original Invisibles cell being an aspect of his personality that he identifies with to a greater or lesser extent. I think that's fairly normal really. I reckon you'd be hard pushed to write a novel with multiple protagonists without those protagonists ending up as expressions of your personality, perhaps latent aspects, but aspects nonetheless. Otherwise those characters wouldnt really be convincing.

Same with actors, I dont think you can convincingly portray a character without becoming that character, to a greater or lesser extent. In a way that's not too far removed from magic. And I'm not only talking about method actors here either, although that's possibly the closest to magical concepts such as invocation.

Most writers have experienced the phenomenon where their characters seem to come alive and start writing themselves, taking the story off down different unplanned routes and so on. I'm not sure whether its best to view this phenomena as "tulpas" floating around in ideaspace and being given expression through the story, or as latent or not-so-latent aspects of the writers personality emerging through the writing process. Either way, I'm not sure that the term "fiction suit" is really describing anything more than what every writer does all the time.

Some of the ideas that Morrison has touched on interviews, and more so in Animal Man, involving interplay and feedback between our world and these created fictional worlds, is interesting. The concept has resurfaced in books like Flex Mentallo and The Filth a bit as well, considering a fully fleshed out imaginary universe as a kind of parallel dimension that you can interact with, like the negative zone in the Fantastic Four or something, or one of the weird dimensions that Dr Strange buggers off to occasionally. I think there's some potential for really interesting insane sci-fi magic stuff along those lines, and I think his mention of trying to "swap places" with the character of King Mob should probably be looked at from this perspective.

However, whenever people talk about "fiction suits" on here it always seem to refer to either the login name they are currently using on the internet, or a poorly developed wish fulfillment character they just invented for themselves. Of course, you could perhaps unfairly argue that "King Mob" is a wish fulfilment character but that whole process he's described in interviews comes across as being fairly unselfconscious and organic in its development and unfolding. And therein lies the difference I reckon.

It's not really my area of magic, but all the same, I'd like to see people taking these ideas off in new and interesting directions and actually pushing the boundaries of "fictionaut" magic, in a way that is genuinely innovative and exciting, rather than something that's overly derivative of another writer/magicians ideas and speculation. All of these ideas focus on the extremely blurry lines between magic and creativity, which makes it at best weird and at worst depressing, that there seems to be such an absence of new energy and original ideas being brought to this feild.
 
 
--
17:35 / 07.09.04
I've noticed recently that you've been playing the "unoriginal" card a lot. One wonders what you do find original... Even if something is unoriginal, as long as it works to some extents and gets results then I feel it's doing it's job. A lot of people on here gripe about how sigils are passe or old-hat or cliche... who cares? As long as people are getting them to work in their own life, I think that's all that really matters, not how cool or new or ultra-original something is. To expect every single magician out there to be on the cutting-edge of the latest in magick is kinda unreasonable, I think (and one could argue how difficult it is to be truly original in these postmodern times). That doesn't mean one shouldn't try, of course. I mean, so many magick books out there are so banal and trite. It's hard to stand out in a crowded field.

In response to what else you said, I think that an act as simple as changing an online name can be enormous in scope (much like a butterfly beating it's wings and causing a hurricane ala chaos theory). I think any small act of change can lead to bigger things, for that matter. I do understand what Morrison means when he said that he wanted to enter the world of the Invisibles, wanted to live in that world of spies and conspiracies and what not. I wanted to do the same thing with my own hypersigil, though the details were different. Swapping places is interesting. I'm starting to wonder if a writer could, somehow, achieve mass change by swapping his current personality with that of the fictional avatar, so that his/her old form would be trapped in the "fiction" world whereas the "fiction" character would take over the creator's form in this world and be free to roam (similiar to the time where I thought that one could banish personal demons by setting it to music and "trapping" it on a CD, in which case it becomes neutralized). I need to do more research in this area though.

Of course, every writer puts a bit of him/herself in all the characters, but generally certain characters end up more like the creator then others. I don't think there's anything particularily spooky about it. As you noted there is a thin line between magick and creativity.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
19:13 / 07.09.04
I've noticed recently that you've been playing the "unoriginal" card a lot. One wonders what you do find original...

Something with a bit of spark to it.

Something that I read and think “fucking hell! I never thought of looking at it like that before!”

Something that gets me excited and makes me think “Shit! I wish I thought of that!”

Something that keeps me awake all night thinking of the possibilities.

Something that raises the bar.

Something that advances the field.

Something I haven’t seen a million times before.

It doesn’t have to be “cool or new or ultra-original”. It just has to be exciting and inspiring. Enough to make me envious of not having come up with it myself. I want to be surprised. I want to click onto barbelith and be astonished at what people are doing with magic, how they are thinking about it, how it is transforming their lives.

I want to feel intimidated and inspired to try harder with my own stuff.

I want to see new perspectives, new versioning, new refreshing ideas on what magic is, what it can be, what can be done with it, how it fits into our lives, how it relates to the world around us, where it’s come from, where it’s at, where it’s going. The best minds of our generation of magicians coming together to discuss ‘the profession’ and seeing what happens. Seeing what can be done.

I want to see a Temple that is a melting pot of sorcerors and sorceresses and those inbetween, from all around the world, of every culture, tradition and perspective. Sharing ideas, exchanging viewpoints, comparing notes. Discussing theories and methodologies by which the technologies collectively known as “magic” can be used to effect real change at a personal, local and global level. Perhaps inadvertently conjuring the blueprints for new generations of magicians to take on into the next hundred years, or even better, pick apart and rewrite themselves.

Maybe a lot to ask, but fuck it. Maybe you’re satisfied reading threads about using the power of meditation for penis and breast enlargement, but I’m not.

Even if something is unoriginal, as long as it works to some extents and gets results then I feel it's doing it's job.

I’m glad your thought processes are utterly alien to mine.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
19:30 / 07.09.04
so many magick books out there are so banal and trite. It's hard to stand out in a crowded field.

If your approach to magic is similarly banal and trite, then I guess it probably is.
 
 
---
20:03 / 07.09.04
I'm starting to wonder if a writer could, somehow, achieve mass change by swapping his current personality with that of the fictional avatar, so that his/her old form would be trapped in the "fiction" world whereas the "fiction" character would take over the creator's form in this world and be free to roam

This is what Morrison actually did with King Mob, i read it in one of his interviews. Those Kabbalah correspondances could come in handy for this type of thing, by using different spheres for different avatars. For instance Jack Frost could be seen as Tipareth, King Mob as Geburah, Ragged Robin as the balancing Chesed, etc etc. I've tried a little of this myself and it's powerful stuff, but if you do try it it usually helps to like i pointed out above, balance one sphere's avatar with it's corresponding one. For instance, if you have a fictionsuit for Tipareth, have one for Yesod to balance, one for Hod, one for Netzach and so on. Experienced Kabbalastic writers probably go all the way from the bottom to the top of the tree with each character in the story, Alan Moore possibly employed a similar type method himself for Promethea, which i'm yet to read but am looking forward to it.

If you do this, you'll find that the characters sometimes teach you the magick in the same way that they write themselves, it's neat stuff.

I should get back to my story.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
20:43 / 07.09.04
similiar to the time where I thought that one could banish personal demons by setting it to music and "trapping" it on a CD, in which case it becomes neutralized

I like that, actually. You could, for instance, do something like buy a drum (or other instrument) as the tool to be used in banishing personal demons, or whatever your intent is. Dedicate the drum to the work you are about to perform. Get it blessed by an appropriate God/dess for the work ahead. Paint stuff on it relating to what you’re going to do. Learn how to play the drum to the best of your ability, treating the entire learning process as a magical act. The better you become at playing the drum, the better you will be at using it as a magical weapon for subduing your demons. Use something like the shamanic journeying method, or similar, to confront your demons, learn about them, find out what makes them tick, and ultimately learn a specific drumbeat whilst on your journey that will bind them. A different drumming pattern to control each of your personal demons. Perhaps look for some binding lyrics and words of power whilst you’re journeying with the drum as well. When you have the binding songs sorted, record an album. One track for each demon. Burned onto CD and trapped forever like General Zod and his mates in Superman 2.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
20:44 / 07.09.04
well Gypsy there you go - putting fictional characters on the Tree of Life - now that's really original. What more do you want?
 
 
---
21:16 / 07.09.04
well Gypsy there you go - putting fictional characters on the Tree of Life - now that's really original. What more do you want?

I didn't intend this to be original, obviously it's been done time and time again, i was just suggesting it to the thread starter because he said a while back that he thought his memorization of the Kabbalistic correspondances wasn't really something that he could find a use for. Just offering a suggestion.

[threadrot]
I would love to come out with original, new and creative ways of using magick, it's what i aspire to, and Gypsy L's post has a lot in common with why i'm here, but i'm still learning the absolute beggining's of something that could actually be the direction i'm supposed to be heading in so i'm not exactly at the cutting edge. I'm basically learning foundations at the moment, and could be doing this for a long time. I'd rather be grounded and realistic than make an idiot of myself like i've done in the past.
[/threadrot]
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
21:48 / 07.09.04
but i'm still learning the absolute beggining's of something that could actually be the direction i'm supposed to be heading in so i'm not exactly at the cutting edge. I'm basically learning foundations at the moment, and could be doing this for a long time.

That's cool with me. I want to see great stuff posted on barbelith, but ultimately, as far as I'm concerned, the purpose of discussion here is to make us all collectively into better magicians than we would be without that discussion.

If I happen to get a bit aggressive and argumentative with someone in a thread, its only because I feel passionately about the subject under discussion. I won't shy away from saying exactly what I think of an idea/concept that's being talked about, but I certainly don't want that to come across as me somehow trying to censor or come the thought police with anyone who thinks differently from me.

I want my own views and opinions on magic to be challenged, intelligently and creatively. I'll strongly argue my perspective on things, but I'm not the Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not calling round your house selling you my specific outlook on reality and magic like it was a set of encyclopedias. I'm just expressing my outlook on things, and hoping to have my perspectives modified by exposure to other peoples ideas and the fruits of their experience.

If I tell you to fuck off and grill your tiny occult cock under a microscope, that's just my way of saying: "convince me that my opinions are misguided"
 
 
--
22:22 / 07.09.04
Gypsy Lantern, I wouldn't say our thought processes are utterly alien... I hate kiss-asses myself and I don't mind people arguing, otherwise most threads would get dull after awhile. Regarding originality, I was mostly playing the devil's advocate: I'd rather read, watch, or listen to something original then something derivative. I can't even count how many times I've read something and thought "I wish I had thought of that". Sometimes I think it's eaier for someone who hasn't read a lot of books to write a book: They simply don't have a bar to compare themselves to and thus aren't concerned with bringing their craft to a new level. Whereas I've listened to hundreds of CDs, read even more books, and thus have more of a challenge because there's just so much mind-boggling original talent out there.

Anyway, you've been on Barbelith longer then I have so you know it better, obviously. I think you may be right when you say maybe you're asking for too much from it. I feel (and maybe I'm wrong) that a good part of the population that comes here is fairly new to magick (maybe they've read a few books, or the Invisibles turned them on to the subject, or whatever) and that would account for the "newbie-esque" nature of some of the threads... Hell, my first thread ever on here was about sigils, so I should know. But surely you must concede that it's important that one knows the foundations of magick (as Eion suggested) before they can really come up with mind-warping, life changing ideas? I just think sometimes that more advanced magicians are a little too hard on things like wicca or sigils or discordia or things like that... I still find people's observations on that stuff interesting cuz I'm still fairly new to the game myself, having only been practicing for a a little over two years. I don't think just discussing magick online is enough, which is one of the reasons why I'm choosing to involve myself in group magick at the moment: I'm hoping I'll get reinspired practicing with people in real life rather then the solo stuff I usually do, which as of recently has left me very bored.

Actually, arguing about originality has always been a bit of a stumbling block for me as it's kinda hard to gauge just how original something is. Who was it that said "All great artists steal?" Godard or someone? When I first read "The Invisibles" it blew my mind, I thought it was the most original thing ever: I got the William S. Burroughs references and the De Sade stuff but so much of it was new for me. Then I began looking at the reference materials (Philip K. Dick, McKenna, RAW, Kenneth Grant, and all the other shit that inspired it) and I came to the conclusion that a good amount of the comic was just GM doing his own spin on the stuff that inspired him (kinda like Tarantino's films, which I also enjoy). I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this, as I think the writing holds up, but I think if you look CSI-hard enough at any original idea you can detect a trace of something else that inspired it.

Threadrot: Hey! Gypsy Lantern actually admits to liking one of my magical ideas! There must be a full moon or something. Seriously though, I'll have to look into some of your suggestions regarding the music thing, as my method of handling it at the time was very crude, primitive and not really thought out, probably because it was one of those impulsive things. I've actually wanted to buy some type of drum for awhile now, even though I prefer electronic instruments mostly.

Yet more threadrot: Eion, coincidentally I just started reading Promethea today. Just finished the first eighteen issues in fact... Afterward had one of those "Shit! I wish I had written this!" moments as mentioned above. I know what you mean about trying to appear grounded now: When I first started practicing my attitude at the time was "Oh, I'm going to be the most powerful, interesting magician ever! I'm going to totally change myself into some super-illuminated flawless uberhuman!" Naturally this was a woefully misguided viewpoint as I quickly learnt and ironically it seems that once you actively try changing yourself the harder it is to do (I've found). I think magick takes a long time to get right... I don't think it's something you can jump right into and instantly master, though maybe I'm wrong.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
22:44 / 07.09.04
Aaanyway, enough of all that till the next time I upset everybody.

I think all that stuff about learning to play a drum, and burning demons onto a CD is really relevant to the subject of fictional magic. It’s creativity functioning as magic. Writing a really great song that also has a magical intent behind it. I like the way that something like that can be picked up by anyone. You don’t need to be master occultist to buy a djembe and learn how to play it. The whole “shamanic journeying” aspect could be as simple as playing the drum while thinking about your personal demons. Getting to the point where the music, and therefore the magic, takes over and seeing what comes through. Improvising with the drum and seeing if you come up with a rhythm that clicks in your head as something powerful enough to bind one of your demons. It can be more complex than that as well, but that’s really all you need.

The magic doesn’t happen cos you’ve read the right books or learned the right phrases or been through the right initiations. It happens in the personal commitment, honest effort and investment you’ve put into learning a musical instrument as a magical process. It happens in the weird shifty magical moment that you somehow come up with the best song you’ve ever heard. It’s all about letting go enough so something else can take over, but being crafty enough to direct whatever comes through into something tangible. Be it a song or a spell or both. Same process for writing, art, acting and probably every creative endeavour you could think of. The drum could easily be replaced with a guitar, keyboard, trumpet, decks or whatever. Quite like the idea of dedicating the instrument in question though. Bringing it before an appropriate entity and asking for it to be blessed. Painting appropriate stuff on it. Consecrating it as a magical tool.

The basic method isn’t specific to binding personal demons either, you could use the same methodology to come up with banishing drum patterns, healing patterns, cursing patterns, or whatever. The songs you develop could function as an entire workable, personal and extremely potent system of magic in their own right.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
22:47 / 07.09.04
"All great artists steal?"

Nah, all great artists version.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
23:10 / 07.09.04
I think you may be right when you say maybe you're asking for too much from it… I feel (and maybe I'm wrong) that a good part of the population that comes here is fairly new to magick…

I know, I know. But if you didn’t want to be a part of an occult community where the basic assumptions, theories and methodologies of magic (chaos or otherwise) are open to being mercilessly picked apart in the hope of broadening and raising the accepted level of occult discourse, you could choose from any number of occult web forums where that doesn’t happen. You stay here because it’s good, interesting stuff happens here, and I think that happens - at least in part - because of the arguably unrealistic demands and expectations that are placed on the people who contribute to it.

"Oh, I'm going to be the most powerful, interesting magician ever! I'm going to totally change myself into some super-illuminated flawless uberhuman!" Naturally this was a woefully misguided viewpoint

Well, it is, but I wouldn’t entirely lose sight of that either. Better to fail gloriously at perfection than to succeed modestly at mediocrity, and all that.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
23:29 / 07.09.04
Now that Sypha & Gypsy have (to some extent) kissed and made up, can we go back to the topic in hand?
Sypha, you said:
I think that an act as simple as changing an online name can be enormous in scope

Err, can you give me a concrete, down-to-earth example of how? Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't quite grasp how just 'changing an online name' can bring about any radical shifts in identity. Like your new posting handle "Fabulous Mr. Meaningless" still reads, to me, like the old one and seems to have the same interests (i.e. Peter Sotos).

I've had a lot of fun over the years showing different personas to the world and through that process, doing stuff I might not otherwise have done, but most of this activity has been either in face-time or over the phone (try working for a phone-sex company for a few weeks and you'll learn a lot about creating characters).

I've occasionally created 'characters' - very different from me in biography & tastes - in order to gain a new perspective on a subject, and effectively channeled them - its not like possession, though IME. On one occassion, I sent two articles to a magazine (one by me and one by 'x'), had both published, and had one of the sub-editors later raving to me about how 'good' a writer he thought 'x' was - in fact he did say he thought 'x' was a better writer than me - "A more mature voice" I think was his tactful phrase. Some mates of mine who worked on the title were in on the joke, and we managed to build 'x' up until quite a few people believed he was real.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
23:40 / 07.09.04
Now that Sypha & Gypsy have (to some extent) kissed and made up

I’m not kissing that fucker

can we go back to the topic in hand?

Gladly
 
 
illmatic
10:24 / 08.09.04
Someone kiss him, he might turn into a prince.

I think that an act as simple as changing an online name can be enormous in scope

Mm, really? Wouldn't just be the same old comfort zone with a new lick of paint?

My main problem with all this stuff is it acts on a symbolic/semantic level inside the participants head. The changes aren't grounded in "face time" or real world interaction. By which I don't mean the internet. The net isn't the real world.

I suppose it's possible that if one identifies heavily enough with the character one's writing, the changes might "spill over", and you might end up behaving differently, but a) there's a strong chance they won't because you're not really confronting anything and b) y'know, it seems the long way around. Why not just identify something you want to change and attempt to change it by for instance, doing things you find difficult, confronting fears etc without the fictional justification?
 
 
illmatic
10:36 / 08.09.04
I think "spill over" sounds a bit more-freaky-deaky occult than I wanted it to, imples there's a mysterious "process" in the background - "encourage" is probably a better word.
 
 
---
19:54 / 08.09.04
That's cool with me. I want to see great stuff posted on barbelith, but ultimately, as far as I'm concerned, the purpose of discussion here is to make us all collectively into better magicians than we would be without that discussion.

Yeah i know what you mean, i have the same view myself. Also when i said i'd rather be grounded and realistic i was meaning my own lack of ability to do that in the past rather than complaining at anyone else's posts, the way i wrote it didn't really convey that though.

I know what you mean about trying to appear grounded now: When I first started practicing my attitude at the time was "Oh, I'm going to be the most powerful, interesting magician ever! I'm going to totally change myself into some super-illuminated flawless uberhuman!"

Same here, then i realized that i had to learn how to become that good if i wanted it, it sucked when i first found that out but i accept it a lot more now, understanding some of the reasons why it takes time to learn.
 
 
Skeleton Camera
23:57 / 08.09.04
Same here, then i realized that i had to learn how to become that good if i wanted it, it sucked when i first found that out but i accept it a lot more now, understanding some of the reasons why it takes time to learn.

One of the most powerful things "magic" did for me was defuse that sort of romanticism. I still have aspirations and ambition, but now they are much more....genuine than simply wanting to BE something. The aspirations involve DOING things, realizing ideas or creating specific projects, with the "role" involved coming secondarily.

That said, we pull on a hundred fiction suits a day. And they are all tremendously vital and practical. If you want to make yourself into a whole-new-you-badass-superspy, go for it. Send us photos, too! More often, though, you just want to have the balls/ovaries to confront someone, or the charisma to convince someone of your side, or any other "mundane" things. You begin to practice magic and get a sense of just how flexible and plastic reality can be. That means you, walking through it with every moment, can so much as SNEEZE and set off a thousand things.
When I first found out fictionsuits et al, I had a very extravagant idea of what they were and what could be done with them. But the power of such a thing, I think, comes from honing the extravagance razor-sharp. To a point which, on a daily basis, can cut through your own bullshit and open some breathing room in your slice of Self-Other.

From here, if you want to employ a fictionsuit as a device for dramatic change, it takes time. And action. Stay away from the online names, in fact, and stick with face-to-face interactions. Let your new suit assert itself, preferably through behavior, also through appearance or statement (ie, informing other people of this new suit).

Fictionspace will come this weekend, when I'm less exhausted.
 
 
Char Aina
01:39 / 09.09.04
anyone know if any actors or actresses have become posessed by their characters??

yeah.
desmond llewelyn apparently spent some time very much being Q from the bond films, and i remember hearing tales of other, similar instances. mr spock, i believe, infected the body of leonard nimoy outisde of 'office hours'. neither of these were on purpose though, so maybe they dont count.

these kind of examples feel more important to me, as they act as a warning.

if you are getting purposely possesed by a spirit you'd best remember to banish, or at least make sure its one you can deal with being for a while. one who is in the habit of keeping his job and not murdering his wife, y'know?
 
 
---
04:07 / 09.09.04
One of the most powerful things "magic" did for me was defuse that sort of romanticism. I still have aspirations and ambition, but now they are much more....genuine than simply wanting to BE something. The aspirations involve DOING things, realizing ideas or creating specific projects, with the "role" involved coming secondarily.

Yeah it's kind of the same thing about status that i was talking about in another thread, i think it's ok to think that you could be amongst the best in what you do as long as you don't obsess with the role. Like you said yourself it's something that comes after the doing part. I like to think that things like the ego, status, roles and whatever else can in many ways be turned to aid the greater good, there's a lot of energy there that can be used if directed in the right way.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply