Is anyone interested in fiction typing?

[Nautilidae]

I'm writing an article about personality psychology as it relates to fiction and will aim to be fairly comprehensive in addressing relevant/interesting angles (writing, reading, self-reflection, aspirational identities, etc.). In the interest of prospecting, I have questions for you:

1. Do you have any fond typology-related realizations or memories related to fictional characters? If so, what are they?
   
   
2. Do you have any "controversial" calls with respect to the type of a fictional character? If so, what are they and why do you think you are correct while consensus is incorrect?
   
   
3. Would you agree that literature that is considered "well written" will, more often than not, contain characters who behave/think in a manner that is congruous with the strictures (alchemical as it might be viewed) of personality typology (whatever system suits your fancy)?

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful replies.

 

[JennyDaniella]

I'm writing an article about personality psychology as it relates to fiction and will aim to be fairly comprehensive in addressing relevant/interesting angles (writing, reading, self-reflection, aspirational identities, etc.). In the interest of prospecting, I have questions for you:

1. Do you have any fond typology-related realizations or memories related to fictional characters? If so, what are they?
   
   
2. Do you have any "controversial" calls with respect to the type of a fictional character? If so, what are they and why do you think you are correct while consensus is incorrect?
   
   
3. Would you agree that literature that is considered "well written" will, more often than not, contain characters who behave/think in a manner that is congruous with the strictures (alchemical as it might be viewed) of personality typology (whatever system suits your fancy)?

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful replies.

Interesting thread! I wish you the best in your endeavors for this article!

1.) Yes. One particular character that I have always been incredibly fond of was the main character, Elizabeth Bennett, from Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen; more so now that I am in my early twenties. Though quite fiction, it stuck true to historical settings and societal expectations back then in England. Elizabeth Bennett is a definite INFJ personality. Stubborn, convicted to what is ethical and right, extremely loving and loyal to her family and close friends, bookworm, intelligent, can be snarky sometimes, and a huge listener. I suppose I relate strongly to this character and see a lot of aspects of myself within her—which sounds a bit silly—but though it could be the similarities of the INFJ personality more than anything.

2.) So far, nothing controversial from what I can truly think of. If I do, I’ll make sure to edit it in later.

3.) I do believe so, yes. The interesting thing about literature is the fact that sometimes authors implement their own essence of their personality through the characters or main character they create. Jane Austen has been considered an INTJ, and her creation of Elizabeth Bennett was almost incredibly relatable despite Jane’s type being slightly different that Elizabeth’s—maybe perhaps due to the fact that Jane was a true introvert herself as well.

So yes, literature can be a great way of having characters that can be considered congruous with the general structures of certain MBTI types.

 

[Nautilidae]

Interesting thread! I wish you the best in your endeavors for this article!

1.) Yes. One particular character that I have always been incredibly fond of was the main character, Elizabeth Bennett, from Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen; more so now that I am in my early twenties. Though quite fiction, it stuck true to historical settings and societal expectations back then in England. Elizabeth Bennett is a definite INFJ personality. Stubborn, convicted to what is ethical and right, extremely loving and loyal to her family and close friends, bookworm, intelligent, can be snarky sometimes, and a huge listener. I suppose I relate strongly to this character and see a lot of aspects of myself within her—which sounds a bit silly—but though it could be the similarities of the INFJ personality more than anything.

2.) So far, nothing controversial from what I can truly think of. If I do, I’ll make sure to edit it in later.

3.) I do believe so, yes. The interesting thing about literature is the fact that sometimes authors implement their own essence of their personality through the characters or main character they create. Jane Austen has been considered an INTJ, and her creation of Elizabeth Bennett was almost incredibly relatable despite Jane’s type being slightly different that Elizabeth’s—maybe perhaps due to the fact that Jane was a true introvert herself as well.

So yes, literature can be a great way of having characters that can be considered congruous with the general structures of certain MBTI types.

Elizabeth Bennett makes a lot of sense as eye catching to an INFJ, esp. if you're knowledgable about the time frame of her life. Context adds extra meaning. I agree with Jane Austen as an INTJ. Elizabeth's manner of Fe seemed an aspirational quality for Austen, given what I know about her.

 

[Ginny]

• Do you have any fond typology-related realizations or memories related to fictional characters? If so, what are they?

• Do you have any "controversial" calls with respect to the type of a fictional character? If so, what are they and why do you think you are correct while consensus is incorrect?

• Would you agree that literature that is considered "well written" will, more often than not, contain characters who behave/think in a manner that is congruous with the strictures (alchemical as it might be viewed) of personality typology (whatever system suits your fancy)?

1. Fictional typing has become an automated process, in whatever format. Sometimes, when I cannot go further with a specific system, I move to another. This happened when I read The Ables last month. But my fondest memories will always be those I made when I started being confident enough to type, and I began with a book series I had by then read twice over already. (I don't think it would mean anything to you if I said what it was.)
2. Most calls are controversial when it comes to supporting characters. My worst call was probably Sherlock, but that had been a mixture of reasons: people arguing conflated or mistook the incarnation for/with the orginal written character, me not being precise in my picture of Ni-Ti loop vs Fe PoLR and reading the actor rather than the character, who does seem to be INFJ.
   I since recluse myself from public fictional typing (unless someone is very wrong), but well, see above. I see it as a sort of memento mori, if you substituted the verb to die with to be wrong.
   
3. I believe good writers will write characters from experience with other people. Therefore, what would result is the character being a facsimile of a real person as seen by the author. It would then depend on the author's perception whether it would be a typological fit. Some authors, however, put less experience into the characters, making them flat and archetypical. This may result in successful typing as well, but I wouldn't consider them as particularly lively - they are merely tools, a means to an end. I guess that is what happens when authors value the message of their work more than making their characters human. This second type of author is merely a hypothetical theory of mine, since I don't remember having encountered such literature before.
   Of course, the author will always put their own life into the work, but perhaps not as much into the characters themselves (at least not all of them). I think the periphery of the story may be most telling of the author's type: the story in itself, its structure, theme/topic, perspective, dialogue-thought-description ratio (each with their own specific focus on detail), etc.

 

[Nautilidae]

1. Fictional typing has become an automated process, in whatever format. Sometimes, when I cannot go further with a specific system, I move to another. This happened when I read The Ables last month. But my fondest memories will always be those I made when I started being confident enough to type, and I began with a book series I had by then read twice over already. (I don't think it would mean anything to you if I said what it was.)
2. Most calls are controversial when it comes to supporting characters. My worst call was probably Sherlock, but that had been a mixture of reasons: people arguing conflated or mistook the incarnation for/with the orginal written character, me not being precise in my picture of Ni-Ti loop vs Fe PoLR and reading the actor rather than the character, who does seem to be INFJ.
   I since recluse myself from public fictional typing (unless someone is very wrong), but well, see above. I see it as a sort of memento mori, if you substituted the verb to die with to be wrong.
   
3. I believe good writers will write characters from experience with other people. Therefore, what would result is the character being a facsimile of a real person as seen by the author. It would then depend on the author's perception whether it would be a typological fit. Some authors, however, put less experience into the characters, making them flat and archetypical. This may result in successful typing as well, but I wouldn't consider them as particularly lively - they are merely tools, a means to an end. I guess that is what happens when authors value the message of their work more than making their characters human. This second type of author is merely a hypothetical theory of mine, since I don't remember having encountered such literature before.
   Of course, the author will always put their own life into the work, but perhaps not as much into the characters themselves (at least not all of them). I think the periphery of the story may be most telling of the author's type: the story in itself, its structure, theme/topic, perspective, dialogue-thought-description ratio (each with their own specific focus on detail), etc.

I'd definitely not be hard on myself about Sherlock, esp. if you're talking about the BBC version. He's absolutely played by an INFJ and, perhaps more importantly, much like the psychopath character, "Dexter" he has been deemed psychologically/medically impossible. I enjoyed watching both series, but the qualities of each seem to be an amalgamation of things the authors figured would produce a catch-all for the common person's aspirations. People want to imagine they can be cold and calculating because most people are cowards and gullible. They do not, however, want to give up their moral high ground (which is good, I suppose), and this is why they accept the contrived devices in the lives of both men (Watson for Sherlock, Deb & his children by marriage for Dexter) as believable anchors to non-psychopathic functioning. It's not very realistic.

You responded as I expected a 1w2 would. My So is an INFJ 1w2, so I recognize some patterns.

 

[Ginny]

I'd definitely not be hard on myself about Sherlock, esp. if you're talking about the BBC version. He's absolutely played by an INFJ and, perhaps more importantly, much like the psychopath character, "Dexter" he has been deemed psychologically/medically impossible. I enjoyed watching both series, but the qualities of each seem to be an amalgamation of things the authors figured would produce a catch-all for the common person's aspirations. People want to imagine they can be cold and calculating because most people are cowards and gullible. They do not, however, want to give up their moral high ground (which is good, I suppose), and this is why they accept the contrived devices in the lives of both men (Watson for Sherlock, Deb & his children by marriage for Dexter) as believable anchors to non-psychopathic functioning. It's not very realistic.

You responded as I expected a 1w2 would. My So is an INFJ 1w2, so I recognize some patterns.

I'm not. You asked about one instance, which I provided. I am way past it, but it has taught me something about people.