![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
stardust_rifleI wound up stumbling across this one Old Internet Article about soulbonding and soulpuppeting; you can read it here.
And I sort of got to thinking about (note; i will be using the term "soulbonder" in a pretty weird way here, so if that bothers you, feel free to peace out) the difference between authors who's characters talk to them, and authors who's characters...don't. (Or, for the purposes of this discussion, "soulbonders", and "soulpuppeters", respectively.)
Because I've seen discussion from the latter, of them sort of assuming the "my character did X" was just an elaborate metaphor, or people being cutesy, and getting horribly shocked when they get it explained to them that no, for some authors, their characters do literally have their own opinions on things and make decisions on their own that their authors have no control over. (And then some of those soulpuppeters accuse soulbonders of lying or being mistaken or trying to seem special.)
And I think it's a really interesting neurotype difference! It's weird as fuck!
Inviting comments on the topics below the cut:
> This is probably a plurality-adjacent experience, but I've never really seen it talked about as that besides a few offhand mentions in posts made by people who are talking about how flexible the definition of plurality is.
> And as someone who has both headmates and also has their characters talk to them, they are definitely not the same thing. I can't quite pin down the difference other than a bunch of faffing about about "well they're not as people/as independent as my headmates" or "most of my muses are p-zombies, while my headmates aren't", which doesn't quite get at it. Would like possible input from people who are in the same boat as me?
> I want a better term for this distinction than "soulbonders and soulpuppeters" (because those words already mean something else) or "authors who's characters talk to them/"write themselves"/are somewhat independent of their author and authors who's characters...aren't that" (because that's really long)
> Is having your characters talk to you more common in authors who are plural in other ways? Is it related to disassociation?
> IDK I just want more input from other writers/plural-adjacent folk.
And I sort of got to thinking about (note; i will be using the term "soulbonder" in a pretty weird way here, so if that bothers you, feel free to peace out) the difference between authors who's characters talk to them, and authors who's characters...don't. (Or, for the purposes of this discussion, "soulbonders", and "soulpuppeters", respectively.)
Because I've seen discussion from the latter, of them sort of assuming the "my character did X" was just an elaborate metaphor, or people being cutesy, and getting horribly shocked when they get it explained to them that no, for some authors, their characters do literally have their own opinions on things and make decisions on their own that their authors have no control over. (And then some of those soulpuppeters accuse soulbonders of lying or being mistaken or trying to seem special.)
And I think it's a really interesting neurotype difference! It's weird as fuck!
Inviting comments on the topics below the cut:
> This is probably a plurality-adjacent experience, but I've never really seen it talked about as that besides a few offhand mentions in posts made by people who are talking about how flexible the definition of plurality is.
> And as someone who has both headmates and also has their characters talk to them, they are definitely not the same thing. I can't quite pin down the difference other than a bunch of faffing about about "well they're not as people/as independent as my headmates" or "most of my muses are p-zombies, while my headmates aren't", which doesn't quite get at it. Would like possible input from people who are in the same boat as me?
> I want a better term for this distinction than "soulbonders and soulpuppeters" (because those words already mean something else) or "authors who's characters talk to them/"write themselves"/are somewhat independent of their author and authors who's characters...aren't that" (because that's really long)
> Is having your characters talk to you more common in authors who are plural in other ways? Is it related to disassociation?
> IDK I just want more input from other writers/plural-adjacent folk.
