Acting Up – Using An Appliance´s Trait Against Them






I recall one occasion when a particularly upset girlfriend of mine, Hannah, descended into one of her typical fits of hysteria. Hannah was an actress. She had been involved in acting since she was a teenager and had also appeared in a Royal Shakespeare Company production of Hamlet. She played Ophelia. I found this rather apt. She loses her mind over the Prince of Denmark and drowns. Typical self-centred response. Poor Hamlet. His father dies and his mother shacks up with his uncle. Not only this but his uncle murdered his father and has taken the throne of Denmark leaving Hamlet cast adrift and mired in woe. His girlfriend Ophelia is meant to support him but what does she do? She gets all worked up about Hamlet telling her “Get thee to a nunnery” and climbs a willow tree and falls in the water below and drowns. I found Hannah to be prone to such similar histrionics. I put it down to her being an actress and her desire for everything to be achieved in one take.

She was meticulous in her preparation for her acting. At first, I would help her and play the other parts to help her learn her lines. She was so grateful for my support in this regard, remarking how hard it was to find someone willing to do this and so often. If truth be told, I revelled in it. Not only was her gratitude all good fuel, I am of course something of the actor myself and the opportunity to grab the script and play a part was something I enjoyed. I did not pay much attention to Hannah’s delivery, only listening to what she was saying so I knew when to speak my lines. I was too concerned with ensuring I delivered a masterful performance. This would often draw praise from Hannah and she commented on a number of occasions that I appeared to have missed my calling. I was in agreement.

Of course, over time I grew tired of her repeated declarations of how good my deliver was and I began to look for ways to irritate and annoy her. I knew she put so much effort into her rehearsals and preparation because she wanted the final performance to be outstanding. Whether it was filming for a TV show (she has appeared in a couple of rather good British television dramas) or a stage production of a famous play, her performance had to be the best. I often gained the impression that she was doing this in order to outshine me. I may not be recognised as much as Hannah but that did not mean that what she did was better or more important than what I did. Quite the opposite. She needed to be reminded who was the leader and superior mind in our coupling. I began at first to fluff lines or speak when it was her turn to say her line which drew sighs of exasperation. I delighted in her irritation as I knew that it would soon become annoyance and she would erupt into one of her tirades. I would jump places in the script, says words incorrectly, use the wrong tone for questions and statements and then I began to hide her scripts so she could not practise. A meltdown was inevitable and foolishly she aimed all of this at me. I just continued to make comments that would keep her in frenzy. You would be surprised to see this waif-like lady who usually is the picture of serenity on television react in the way she did. My goodness, did she have a foul mouth on her.

I rarely got angry with her. Her performances were so gratifying and amusing that I just could not generate a spark, even when she was blaming me. It was actually easier to keep trying to get it right and purposefully messing it up again. Several times I had to exit the room under the pretence of being upset so I could lock myself in the bathroom and stuff my hand into my mouth as I collapsed in paroxysms of mirth, her shrill voice echoing through the house.

The occasion that entertained me the most and which I began this post by recalling was when she was rehearsing her part for a six part dark drama that was part of a major channel’s autumn drama selection. It was a fantastic piece of writing and Hannah had a chunky part. I got her so worked up and histrionic as I messed about, murmured the lines, said sections incorrectly and so on that she erupted into one of her fits. As the insults flowed I drank the fuel she poured over me and then she made a strange croak and gripped her throat. Feigning interest, I went to her side and she pointed at her throat, eyes filling with tears. It transpired that she had badly strained her vocal chords and a doctor instructed her to rest them completely. She could not rehearse and was unlikely to be ready for filming. The producers replaced her with another actress and dismayed by her fall from such a prestigious production, I sought out somebody else to entertain me.

91 thoughts on “Acting Up – Using An Appliance´s Trait Against Them

  1. Duchessbea says:

    Oh HG. I feel so sorry for Hannah. Beyond reproach HG. 👊

    1. HG Tudor says:

      She deserved it.

  2. Renarde says:

    I think this article is a very intresting observation in how people perceive then think. I’ve been kind of writing (in my head) an article called ‘The rose-tinted glasses of the Empath’

    It’s about how our affective empathy and to a certain extent our cognitive empathy (but never the contagion strand) ‘filters’ how we approach any kind of audio-visual situation. Just as in this example, a piece of writing that HG has presented us with.

    In other words; we judge a book by it’s cover. And we know we shouldn’t.

    But pretty much every commentator on this thread has done precisely that.

    It’s the oldest trick in the book and on actually writing this it strikes me that what HG has just shown is how we can’t get to grips on DV and DA. Usually, we believe the woman. Not the man. That’s not what the data shows. 1/6 DA victims are male. It’s the female narcs that get caught out by their rampant stupidity that the taint all us lot. So society ain’t really quite sure who to blame. Throw in all the other societal bollocks and that’s it.

    So we begin to read. But we’ve all pretty much formed the following conclusions;

    1 – HG is a narc. Durr
    2 – He is a careful writer. He is.
    3 – He hunts Empaths. Correct

    Therefore he will only hunt Emps.

    Incorrect. He has stated clearly in the past that he has also hunted narcs.

    This is the perception filter. Now, the reader assumes that just because he has dated empaths that this one is because she’s a female. Natural and mostly always correct.

    Incorrect folks. There are many pointers in this article which state exactly the opposite.

    The first is the argument by omission It’s not what HG says it’s what he doesn’t say. There is no mention of the terms IPPS, IPSS, DLS etc etc. Just the vague ‘girlfriend’. No mention he lives with her, of any golden time. Or the quality of that GT. There are vague notions of fuel but it’s just that fuel. Of course the word appliance.

    Note the lack of the usual HG exotica erotica.

    The big red flag though… she’s an actor!!!

    No #notallactors etc but enough. LA is Satan himself!

    I’m pretty sure that this one is a narc. So, I say so what if he wound her up? How many times has she yelled and screamed at others who were normals or empaths? Caused distress? If she was capable of that did it ever turn physical? Therefore it is EXTREMELY gratifying to see one getting (literally) a taste to her own medicine.

    Remember that a Greater’s fuel matrix would be extensive. An Ultras? I shudder to think.

  3. Renarde says:

    Dear HG

    I read this the other day and gasped. Then I laughed. And laughed. In fact pretty much kept on doing so throughout the entire day! (Which was a corker as a very important letter arrived!) Still giggling now.

    Masterfully done. Love the other picture that accompanies this article. Not the masks.

    Thank you

    1. HG Tudor says:

      Thank you.

  4. Chihuahuamum says:

    Not very empathetic of me but this story made me laugh. I could just envision you laughing in the bthm HG. These hysteric sorts are easily instigated into reacting. You had more fun getting a negative response than the positive. Also im sure there was a lot of jealousy and envy involved too. Like the ballet dancer. Both having their own audiences and in the spotlight. The spotlight always needs to be back on the narcissist.

  5. mommypino says:

    HG will Hannah be in the Asylum of the Grotesque and will her school and cadre be there as well?

    1. HG Tudor says:


      1. mommypino says:

        Thank you HG.

      2. Bibi says:

        HG, I have trouble keeping up with all your girlfriends. I want to see this list.

      3. Renarde says:


  6. Claire says:

    So basically you replaced Hannah straight away after the horrible accident that happened to her ?
    Poor girl, I don’t want to imagine her loss! Lost voice , lost job, loss of income. With all my respect to the present online version of you, HG your act was extremely brutal. Unless she was another Leslie but still no excuse to mistreat another human being in such a sadistic manner . At the end she was not a serial killer who doesn’t deserve any mercy.

  7. Violetta says:

    As soon as you started that routine, she ought to have found someone else to run lines with. What professional actress puts her performance let alone her vocal chords at risk for the sake of Love?

    Ophelia my left glute. That’s the time to channel Kate the Shrew.

    1. NarcAngel says:

      Interesting. I expressed something similar on the Ice Cold with Alex article and got accused of victim shaming.

      1. Violetta says:

        I was dating a film student years ago and we went to an audition before a date on Valentine’s day. Right before I go in to do my monologue, he hands me a dozen roses, while I’m muttering “not now,” and trying to remember the lines and get in character. Of course we got in an argument afterwards.

        Yes, I’m ungrateful, selfish, blah-di-blah. He’s a FILM STUDENT; he knew perfectly well I was trying to concentrate. All he had to do was wait til afterwards when I could focus on him and the flowers.

        Was this supposed to inspire me to creative heights, throw me off and sabotage the audition, or it didn’t matter as long as he was controlling the situation?

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Assuming this individual was a narcissist, then consciously he thought he was doing something pleasant by handing you the flowers. Unconciously, he was seeking control and fuel, because you were focused on something else and not him, which wounded him. His lack of emotional empathy and sense of entitlement meant he just distracted you with the flowers. He did not consciously think “Oh she is not concentrating on me, I feel I do not have control, I must gain control, I know I will give her these flowers as lovely gesture so she has to respond to me.”

          1. Violetta says:

            I don’t believe he was a full narc, but he was very controlling. Once gave me hell because some guy on the opposite subway track was looking at my legs and he wanted me to duck behind a ramp.

            “Who cares what he’s looking at? I’m YOUR date, not his.”

            “He’s going to start something.”

            “Only if you keep glaring at him. You know better than to make eye contact on the IRT.”

            “Why can’t you just obey me?”


            Naturally, when he eventually broke off contact, I was devastated, pretending to be normal at my temp job, then coming home and curling up on the floor in fetal position, howling. When a neighbor banged on the door, wanting to know if I was alright, I said I was preparing for an audition and was sorry it became loud enough to disturb anyone.

            My logical mind (what there was of it) knew I had probably dodged a bullet, given some other incidents, but I still spent a few months going through what–ironically, given the original post–I called my “Ophelia phase.”

      2. WiserNow says:

        I remember that because I was one of the people who said that Alex was not responsible for her own abuse.

        I still think that way. People who blame the targeted person for staying with their abuser don’t truly understand the psychological effect of being an empathic person in that dynamic.

        The targeted person does not think, “I am being abused and I need to exit this situation.” Their empathic nature prevents that. It is not stupidity or blindness. By their very nature, empaths instinctively want to hold on to the relationship, they want to preserve the attachment and they believe there is some good in the narcissist.

        There is a reason why narcissists deliberately seek out empaths. It’s because empaths will hold on and they will often work to ‘restore’ the positive aspects of the relationship or endure the relationship for other reasons. They will not let go until they see it’s *really* irreparably harmful for them. That’s if they ever do let go. Or, even if they do exit the relationship, they will still ‘want’ to believe that the narcissist is not beyond changing.

        1. HG Tudor says:


          The debate arises once knowledge has been acquired.

          1. WiserNow says:

            Thank you HG.

          2. HG Tudor says:

            You are welcome.

        2. Lorelei says:

          Wiser—this was good to read. The relationship wasn’t loving or good—I “hoped” cordial would suffice or even exist and kept clinging on hoping for suitable behavior. I can’t believe I was stuck in thinking a miracle would strike and fix it. It was delusional.

          1. WiserNow says:

            Thanks Lorelei. I know what you mean. It is delusional.

            There were times in my relationships that I “knew” I was getting the short end of the stick. I was fully aware of it and I even resented it and was angry about it and had mental gymnastics in my own mind about it. But I kept going back to try and make things work, again and again. That was deluded thinking.

            Empaths keep trying or hoping for a positive outcome. They don’t like conflict and they want to restore peace and harmony. If the narcissist hoovers or love-bombs, the empath will ‘believe’ that is the evidence that the narcissist does really care and that the control and abuse and red flags were something that can be overcome, or forgivable because of the narc’s early childhood experiences or whatever.

            Looking back, this empathic hope is delusional emotional thinking. At the time though, it makes total sense. It is the decent thing to do. It is the honorable thing to do. It is the way to hold the relationship/family together. It is the way to show the narcissist that you care about them, forgive them, accept them, etc etc.

        3. NarcAngel says:

          That’s fine except that I never said she was responsible for her own abuse. Or stupid. Or blind. You and others decided that I was blaming her. I said my empathy had to stretch to understand why after the ice was not available several times (it was not an isolated incident) when she was an athlete and it was required, and when he showed up hours late without it and no excuse (demonstrating his disrespect and lack of empathy) that she continued to disregard her own logic and neglected to make other arrangements. She was aware after the first and second time. I did not say that I had no empathy or that it was her fault. That was projected onto me.

          My comment this time however , was because I have seen a few comments since that article where someone offers something similar but it is passed over and not turned into what transpired on that article when I commented. I found that interesting.

          1. WiserNow says:


            You didn’t actually ‘say’ that Alex was responsible for her own abuse, but by raising that point in the first place, the unspoken message or suggestion was that you thought Alex should have known better or realised sooner. Your ’empathy had to stretch to understand why…she continued to disregard her own logic’.

            This makes me think that ‘logic’ as explained on this site is not equally applied to both narcissists and empaths alike.

            We can see the behaviour of narcissists with ‘logic’ and we understand their behaviour because HG has explained it thoroughly and gives us examples and illustrates all the different ways narcissists do what they do.

            That doesn’t mean the behaviour of narcissists *IS* logical. Their need for constant control no matter what is not logical. It’s a form of delusion. They act in unrealistic and instinctive ways. Lying and deceiving and pretending to care is not ‘logical’ behaviour. We understand the logic behind it because HG has explained it in a logical way.

            If we turned this lens of logic onto the empath instead of the narcissist, we would be able to see that the empath’s behaviour is also “not logical”. The need to believe that there is love in everyone and that people are inherently good is a form of delusion. Just like narcissists, empaths behave in unrealistic and instinctive ways. If someone explained the logic behind the empath’s behaviour in the same clear and thorough way that HG explains the behaviour of a narcissist, we would understand the behaviour of an empath in the same logical way.

            Both narcissists and empaths behave in instinctive ways that are not logical. We can understand the behaviours of both if we apply logic.

      3. Violetta says:

        NarcAngel, I searched for that article, and I’m inclined to agree with you. I did gymnastics in high school and college, and while I couldn’t stand up to criticism of my personality (thanks to years of teachers ignoring flagrant misbehavior by favorites while scolding me for my “attitude”), anything that threatened my participation in sports or, later, theatre, would get a battle. I felt that those activities were somehow outside my apparently worthless self, it was a miracle I got to do them at all, and there was an obligation to defend the craft even if I couldn’t defend ME.

        1. MB says:

          I haven’t had the time lately to follow the blog the way I would like. I haven’t followed this thread much either. But since NA opened the floor for thoughts about her participation on the blog, I feel compelled to comment. I don’t have a dog in whatever fight this is so don’t see me as choosing sides because that is not the case. I like most everybody here and have had worthwhile interactions with many. I treasure having this special outlet and hope it stays here for a very long time. The fact that these discussions even take place is a testament to the value of this forum.

          I have always found NA to be sensible and fair. She has asked me some very thought provoking questions and she says “no need to answer”. Meaning she wants to help, not judge or get in my business. I appreciate having input from the outside looking in. Sometimes my ET doesn’t allow me to see the forest for the trees. She is very direct and some don’t get” her I suppose. I personally love her and appreciate her contributions both serious and humorous. Especially humorous! If we could be IRL friends, I’d consider myself lucky indeed.

          I’ll share this from Brené Brown’s work. A Teddy Roosevelt quote that features prominently: “ It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

          Brené says she doesn’t listen to her critics that haven’t been in the arena. But the feedback she receives from those that have been is invaluable. Not saying that others haven’t been there also, but Narc Angel HAS been in that arena, and what she has to say is important to me. She’s not throwing rotten tomatoes from the cheap seats.

          Except at the seagulls that fly over. I do have to disagree with what you said there NA. I don’t think you impact negatively upon them. They get the fuel they are looking for and it is damn hilarious!

          1. Violetta says:

            I just wish this blog had existed when I was dealing with people I now realize were narcs functioning on various levels. I not only would have had the benefit of HG discussing why they do it, but I would also have felt less alone. I knew about avoiding physically abusive relationships, but I didn’t understand psychologically abusive ones, or realize how many I’d encounter in the workplace, not just my personal life. I really didn’t grasp how many people will place destroying another human being above everything: even their own success or profit.

            Why do they target us? Because we feel things deeply. That is a GOOD thing, in a real, non-narc relationship, and it is also a good thing in actors (see Emily Lloyd in “Wish You Were Here”–it’s like she’s missing a layer of skin and is too reckless to find something to protect her). To narcs, however, it’s a big bullseye on our backs. Narcs can take a beautiful thing and transform it into sulfuric acid.

            So do we stop feeling deeply, if that were even possible, or at least try to FAKE shallow, and possibly scare off other empaths who might make good co-workers or romantic partners?

            Or do we just get better at spotting the narcs, and don’t open up too soon just because it SEEMS perfect?

          2. MB says:

            Violetta, we continue to learn and flex our muscles of weaponization. We learn to detect toxic people and reduce or avoid our interactions with them. I’m glad you found your way to narcsite!

      4. Bibi says:


        I remember that thread and I never thought you were victim shaming. Why Alex didn’t make the connection is a legit question. Nothing shaming about it.

        In the case of both Alex and Hannah, they allowed their emotions to interfere with their Sense of Self. And by that I mean their genuine passion and purpose.

        I imagine that for Hannah she felt that HG ‘got her’ artistically and so the thought of replacing him with another was absurd and would only result in a great loss of that artistic connection/understanding. This is why I was so clung to the gay Mid Ranger–in the beginning, he just ‘got me’ and seemed to understand my work, and see through to my soul. He used to say things like, ‘I sometimes think about what you were like as a child…’ I loved him. But he did not love me. Not even a little.

        It was a very deep artistic/creative connection. Hence, when he became disinterested for 4 and a half years and refused to engage in anything and would rather watch junk on NF and read celebrity bios, I could not understand why this was happening. ‘I’m not your sycophant!’ He would say.

        What? That’s not what I want! I go to him because he is NOT an asskisser.

        As I mentioned, I had a creative support system, so he was not my only source for feedback, but not getting it from him not only hurt me deeply, but it also felt like a great loss, as I was missing out on his little nuances that he was capable of seeing.

        It is difficult for artists to find others who ‘get them’. You’re not going to get great feedback by someone who only reads Harry Potter and only watches the new Joker movie. That is an elitist opinion on my part, but I have found it to be true. (Note: engaging in those things for fun is not what I mean, as I have my light kitschy stuff I enjoy as well, but rather someone who engages in ONLY that.)

        Hannah just let her dick boyfriend upset her too much. Sorry, HG, but this was a dick move on your part. The important message is not to idealize anyone–esp. a narcissist and don’t convince yourself that he is the ‘only one who could _____’.

        While I do mourn the loss of the ‘connection’ I shared with the Mid Ranger, my intellect knows that clearly he did NOT get me–not in the way I imagined anyway, because if he did, he would not have behaved in such a manner. There would have been no word salad.

        Hannah felt a deep artistic connection with HG but he did not share in that connection. Yet he made it seem like he did, which is why she freaked out and let her emotions take over. Intellect will say that he actually wasn’t the great reading partner she thought. Had her ET been less, she would have been able to find someone else.

        1. NarcAngel says:

          Thank you for recognizing that Bibi.

          1. WiserNow says:

            NarcAngel, Violetta and Bibi,

            I understand what you are all saying and you have stated your views clearly, however, they are coming from *your* perspectives. They are valid points of view, but they do not represent what Alex and Hannah’s perspectives were. You are saying that Alex and Hannah “should have” done x, y or z, because that is what *you* would have done.

            It is interesting to me that you seem to accept or understand HG’s behaviour with statements like:
            – “he did not share in that connection. Yet he made it seem like he did”
            – “he showed up hours late without it and no excuse (demonstrating his disrespect and lack of empathy)”.

            HG is operating in a way that – on the surface – makes no sense. Why did he pretend to care for someone and then deliberately cause them harm? His actions are based on faulty emotional thinking that makes him think he ‘needs’ to have control.

            In the same way, Alex and Hannah were operating in a way that made no sense.

          2. HG Tudor says:

            It is not faulty emotional thinking. It is the application of logic. Control is necessary for me and my kind, it is not for you. We are different.

          3. WiserNow says:

            A narcissist sees other humans as ‘appliances’. A narcissist ‘needs’ control at every moment. A narcissist feels criticised for reasons that are benign to a non-narcissist.

            These behaviours may seem logical in a narcissist’s mind because a narcissist thinks in that manner, but they are not logical behaviours.

            For example, reacting with explosive rage when someone says something that anyone else would regard as making a comment or an observation. That reaction is not a logical reaction.

            That’s what I mean by faulty emotional thinking.

          4. HG Tudor says:

            From your perspective. Not from ours. This is what many of you find hard to understand, this is why I explain what our perspective is, so you do understand. This is why I explain that so much in the world is about perspective and not objective reality. A major part of what I do here is provide you with our world view, it is not an agreeable or correct one (from your perspective) but that is not the point, it is not about attaching a value judgement to it, it is about conveying it to you. As NA explained in a separate post, in other words, it is not about endorsing what I and my kind do, but it is about UNDERSTANDING it, so you can then help yourselves. If you do not understand it, you are unable to deal with it.

            Logic is based on perception.

            1. The narcissist must maintain control in order to survive and thrive. That is logical to the narcissist. Not to you, but it is not your need for control, it is ours. Of course you think it is not logical, it is not logical to you.
            2. Somebody with a nut allergy must avoid ingesting nuts in order to avoid an allergic reaction which could lead to anaphylactic shock. That is logical to the allergy sufferer.

          5. Pati says:

            HG,so from your perspective you are never wrong. Do you ever compromise in situations ?
            What about constructive criticism? Does it cause fury ! I find my N always has to be right in all situations even if he is wrong .

          6. HG Tudor says:

            Constructive criticism is Challenge Fuel, it does not cause fury.

            You have fallen into the same mistake others make Pati. He is not wrong. There is no such thing as objective right and wrong. When you think he is wrong, he is wrong in YOUR intra-subjective reality, but he is right in HIS intra-subjective reality. You and many, many others make the repeated mistake of thinking your worldview is the ONLY worldview. This makes you judge us through YOUR worldview, so, for instance, you think that the narcissist knows he is telling a lie because in YOUR world you know when you are telling a lie. He does not know in HIS world.

          7. Pati says:

            I agree HG they are in their own world .to me it’s not reality but to them it is .its frustrating when he is telling a lie and I know he is I have proof he tries to gaslight me and makes me think I am crazy! I feel provoked for no reason . Then the next day everything is rosey in the garden. He has no insight . I am telling you my family member with Schizophrenia has more insight than him. Too bad NPD cant be treated.

          8. Pati says:

            HG, so when he is gaslighting he doesnt know he is actually doing that because in his eyes he is telling the truth. Hopefully I can grasp this.

          9. WiserNow says:


            Each person’s own perception is that their own instinctive behaviour is logical.

            To you and other narcissists, it is logical to treat other people as appliances.

            To me and other empaths, it is logical to treat other people as humans.

            To normals, it is probably logical to not get so worked up about such things.

            (To people without a nut allergy, it is logical that they can eat nuts.)

            We all “perceive” that our own behaviour is logical.

            In *your* mind, you are behaving logically because you ‘need’ control.

            In *my* mind you are not behaving logically because you ‘need’ control.

            So where does TRUE logic lie?

          10. HG Tudor says:

            It does not. There is no objective standard.

          11. NarcAngel says:

            We are all giving our perspective – you included. How is it that you alone know what Alex and Hannah’s perspective were and that ours do not represent them? To my knowledge we have all in this conversation been victims have we not? Where is this higher understanding of the empath that you apparently have come from? Not everyone is/was blind and unknowing. There are many who say in real time they knew they were continuing in abuse but stayed for various reasons, not just that they knew after the fact. Do you think you know better that they did not?I don’t blame them. I say that if they can identify what those reasons are/were it would take them a long way in helping themselves to heal and to avoid being ensnared again.

            I don’t accept HG’s behaviour. I observed what he did and her response to it. You decided that I accept it. I acknowledge that HG’s actions make no sense TO US. Trying to understand both sides of an issue does not mean acceptance of abuse. That is ridiculous. I just don’t believe we have to take sides. I believe we can process information and identify ALL of the roles in the dynamic to act on solutions that will benefit us instead of just continuing to point fingers at the narcissist and waiting for them to accept responsibility, which is unlikely at best and keeps you stuck in misery waiting for it. But then as in your response to Violetta: you knew all that was coming and received it as blah, blah blah.

          12. WiserNow says:

            Yes, we are all giving our perspectives. I didn’t say that I alone know what Alex and Hannah’s perspectives were. But I also didn’t say that my empathy had to stretch to understand why she didn’t use her logic.

            The reason I responded to both you and Violetta is because you both regard that HG has better logic than his girlfriends. To you, HG is talented, he is doing what he does because that is what he needs to do as a narcissist. He is being a ‘proficient narc’ etc. While Hannah ‘should’ have been more aware. Hannah ‘should’ have found another person to practice her lines with. Hannah ‘should’ have protected her voice and been more vigilant about her acting and her craft.

            I didn’t say that I *know* why Hannah and Alex behaved as they did. I also didn’t say that we have to take sides. I didn’t decide that you accept HG’s behaviour. But I also didn’t hear you say that your empathy needs to stretch to understand how a boyfriend can logically cause his girlfriend harm and then callously and quickly move onto another girlfriend.

            If we are going to understand HG’s behaviour than we should also understand the behaviour of the people that are in relationships with him.

          13. NarcAngel says:

            “They are valid points of view, but they do not represent what Alex and Hannah’s perspectives were.’

            You have no way of knowing that. You decided that.

            “you both regard that HG has better logic than his girlfriends”

            Wrong again. I recognize that HG has DIFFERENT logic than his girlfriends. You decided I thought it was better.

            “But I also didn’t hear you say that your empathy needs to stretch to understand how a boyfriend can logically cause his girlfriend harm and then callously and quickly move onto another girlfriend.”

            Duh! That is because my empathy does NOT stretch to understand how he can do that. He is a narcissist and that is what they do. That does not mean I have empathy for him in doing that. It doesn’t mean I condone it. I don’t admire him as proficient for doing it – that is what you again have decided. I’m clear on what he is and the hurt he causes. I was looking at the time at HER behaviour – not his, AND I DO NOT BLAME HER.

            You often see what you FEEL instead of what is written or intended.

          14. WiserNow says:


            Nobody has any way of ‘knowing’ precisely what Alex and Hannah’s points of view were. Neither I nor you ‘know’ that. We can’t go into their heads and have exactly the same thoughts they had in that specific situation.

            I haven’t ‘decided’ anything. You are reading my words and placing your own slant on them.

            About HG, you say, “He is a narcissist and that is what they do.”

            Well, guess what? Hannah is an empath and how she behaved is what empaths do.

            As an empathic person, I can understand Hannah’s behaviours. I can understand that she is probably honest, and so, she didn’t instinctively suspect that HG was being dishonest. She probably cared about HG, so she instinctively believed that he cared about her too. She was probably tenacious and wanted to maintain the relationship, and she was probably hopeful about their relationship.

            HG has written about the character traits of empaths.

            So, if the instinctive behaviours of empaths are pointed out again and again, why do you seem surprised that Hannah or Alex don’t see HG’s behaviour clearly?

            As an empathic person who has been in similar situations before, I can relate to her. That is why *my* empathy CAN stretch to understand why she stayed with HG in that situation.

            You say you do not blame her and yet this article (and the one about Alex) has you questioning the empath’s reasoning and logic. Whether you are aware of it or not, you are placing the responsibility of avoiding abuse on the empath.

            You are saying that you CAN understand the narcissist but you CAN’T understand the empath.

          15. NarcAngel says:

            It’s probably pointless to continue discussion when you refuse to even own up to your own words in quotations and you previously note that your reception and expectation is “blah blah blah” but here goes: I’m not putting a slant on them – here’s a few in black and white.

            “You both regard that HG has better logic than his girlfriends”.

            Your words. What is unclear there that you have decided what I do or do not regard? There is no slant and you are incorrect.

            “Nobody has any way of ‘knowing’ precisely what Alex and Hannah’s points of view were. Neither I nor you know that”.

            Yet previously you claimed to know what Alex and Hannah’s points of view were NOT by stating this:

            “They (mine and Violetta’s) are valid points of view but they do not represent, what Alex and Hannah’s perspectives were”

            Which is it then?

            Then this:

            “As an empathic person, I can understand Hannah’s behaviours”
            Followed by a lot of what she PROBABLY felt. Is that because that’s what you felt? Could she have felt something else that you can’t imagine? Do you think I am an not an empath?

            Well I am. Now what? Why do you think I am here? We have different ways of approaching things. Your experiences appear to have you concentrate more on the understanding of the empath. You validate the pain and confusion that come from those experiences and offer comfort. I understand that also, but my experiences have me with the approach more of a standing over an empath and saying: Get up. I know you can. This will not destroy you. You are stronger than you know if you will look inside to see why they got in. Narcissists are not magical or omnipotent. They mirrored your awesomeness and you will find that again. Isn’t there room for both approaches WiserNow?

            I believe if you were honest with yourself, you have an issue with me understanding ANYTHING about the narcissist, so you interpret that as acceptance of their behaviours and that I am blaming the empath. You couldn’t be more wrong, but you continue to allow this belief to colour what I say. Understanding them is key to dealing with them. That does not mean acceptance or championing all of their behaviours. It only means that I am open to understanding all sides. You must conveniently miss all of the comments where I am understanding of the empath and also the fact that I gave a large part of myself to protect my mother and siblings (and many others in my life). You are focusing on the wrong thing. In your view I try harder to understand the narcissist. True. I do that because I already have an understanding of, and value and appreciate the worth of empaths, but to have a better understanding of the narcissist means being weaponized against their impact – not acceptance of. Blame (on either side) is pointless and ineffective as a weapon – it effects no change. Understanding both sides does.

          16. WiserNow says:


            Thank you for your comment. It is not pointless to continue this discussion. I am grateful for your time and effort in replying.

            Regarding your following statement, I’d like to answer your question:
            “my experiences have me with the approach more of a standing over an empath and saying: Get up. I know you can. This will not destroy you. You are stronger than you know if you will look inside to see why they got in. Narcissists are not magical or omnipotent. They mirrored your awesomeness and you will find that again. Isn’t there room for both approaches WiserNow?”

            Is there room for both approaches? Yes, there is *room* for both. Will both be equally effective? I am not sure they will be on every empath.

            You say your approach is to ‘stand over’ an empath and say, “get up. I know you can.” I believe you when you say that you want the empath to be stronger and to be weaponised and I believe that you don’t actually ‘blame’ the empath. However, the *effect* (on my emotions) of you presuming the empath needs to ‘get up’ is that you think the empath is in a lowly position to start off with. It suggests to me that you think the empath is behaving in an ‘inferior’ way and not simply in a ‘different’ way. (Again, I may be wrong about your actual intention, however, that is the ‘effect’ of your words.)

            This impression I’m getting through your words manifests in a response of defensiveness. It makes me want to point out that an empath’s behaviour doesn’t need to change because it is ‘inferior’. The empath’s behaviour needs to change because the narcissist is incapable of changing.

            When you say that I ‘validate the pain and confusion’ that empaths experience and offer comfort instead, I feel that this approach is more likely to ‘de-stress’ an already stressed person and validate an already invalidated person. To tell an injured person to ‘get up’ and ‘I know you can do it’ is well-meaning, but it asks them in essence to ‘be better’ than they actually are. It results in feeling criticised.

            In order to have the mental clarity to understand and change their behaviour, a person needs to gain emotional stability first. If an approach manifests in feeling criticised or defensive, it becomes more difficult to reach emotional stability. Change is possible after acceptance of one’s actual behaviour. Acceptance of one’s actual behaviour arises when they feel safe or calm or validated.

            Again NarcAngel, I appreciate your views and our discussion. I don’t think it’s pointless at all and I welcome the ability to become more aware by reaching better understanding.

          17. NarcAngel says:

            By saying “get up” I am not saying the empath is inferior and in a lowly position at all. I am recognizing that they have been beaten down by a narcissist and have lost their strength and forgotten their worth (as many have testified to feeling) due to their treatment. I am reminding them that they still have it, others recognize it and believe in them, and are willing to help (albeit in a different way than you might offer). I am doing that while extending a hand. No, it will not be equally effective on all empaths and I recognize that, because we are not all the same and respond to different things. Thus the belief in different approaches. Some people respond to it and others don’t. You appear to be in the latter camp but that does not mean that it doesn’t resonate with others. Not everyone here has interpreted my actions as you have. I don’t want empaths to be “better” as I don’t believe they are less than to begin with. I want them to remember how awesome they were before they were beaten down and made to believe they were less than by the narcissist. I agree that the empath does not need to change because they are inferior. They need to change for their own well being because leaving it up to a narcissist to change is futile and they will continue to be victimized. If I thought empaths were lowly or inferior I would not have spent a lifetime stepping in to help others and there would be no point in me being here. It’s ironic that you think I view others as less than when you have always given me the impression that you think me less than as an empath because I don’t behave in the way that you think I should. Had that occurred to you? I bet not, because I don’t believe you to be asserting that I am not an empath, only that you think I could be more effective as one if only I would take your counsel.

            I appreciate your wanting to become more aware by having a better understanding. I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I hope you at least have a clearer picture where I am concerned. I am not your enemy.

          18. WiserNow says:


            ..and I am not your enemy either.

            I acknowledged there was room for both approaches and explained in a (hopefully) calm and rational way why the approach of questioning an empath’s logic may not work well on every empath.

            I don’t expect you to take my counsel and that is not my wish or even the reason why I am making the points that I have made. As far as I am concerned, you are free to do and say as you wish. However, if I feel strongly enough to reply to you and to disagree with something you have said, I will do so.

            As an empath that was made to feel ‘wrong’ over many years, looking back, the information that finally did get through to me in a cognitively influential way and helped me to feel ’empowered’ included:
            – thorough, non-judgemental explanations (such as HG’s articles)
            – scientific knowledge or research regarding the brain or behaviour
            – compassionate or validating advice or conversation
            – discovery of other people’s experiences and accounts of similar emotional responses

            All I am saying is that questioning, criticising or insinuating, such as, ‘why did you do that?’, or ‘couldn’t you see that you were being abused?’ or ‘doing the same thing and expecting different results is madness’ etc, didn’t reach me in a way that was influential in making me understand what was truly happening. Nor did they help me to see or understand how I could change my own instinctive behaviours. Hearing these sorts of things just made me feel ‘wrong’ again and reinforced the confusion and resentment.

            I am not saying this in order to criticise you personally. I just feel that it does more harm than good to point out the empath’s ‘failures’ or to question why they don’t change.

            This is why:
            – it perpetuates the self-blame and critical inner-rumination that empaths are already prone to do naturally;
            – it reinforces the stereotypical public notion that an abused person is not worthy of compassion because they ‘should have’ left the relationship sooner etc

            I understand you and I said that I believed your intentions are good. You can continue to do and say as you like NarcAngel, however, it helps all of us to understand each other a little better.

          19. NarcAngel says:


            You are a mass of contradiction.
            I point it out in your quotes and you fail to acknowledge them but rather just pick another point and peck that to death.

            You have also not acknowledged that you have/had the wrong perception of me. For example after I fully explain that I do not view the empath as lowly or needing to be better, but that I say get up because I realize they have been knocked down by the narcissist and I wish to show them they have strength to recover and I believe in them – NOT because of anything you believed prior to my explanation.

            You eventually concede that there is room for both approaches, but not really, because you then add that my approach will not work with every empath. Yes, that’s quite the point of having different approaches isn’t it? I do not believe that it will, and I do not approach all empaths that way. You go on to say what worked and did not work for you. What are you not understanding about not all empaths not being like you?

            You say I can continue to do and say what I like (I do, but thank you for your permission) and that you do not expect me to take your counsel, but you continue to bang your hammer about what you THINK resonates with others based on what worked for you. Once again – you are not representative of all empaths. You commented some time ago that it was not a criticism of me but that perhaps I should reconsider my approach. You have since repeatedly interpreted incorrectly what I believe or mean even when I explain. You once said that if I didn’t like something that I could just scroll on by, but then here you say if I say something you don’t agree with that you will comment. Double standard much?

            But let’s go back to the beginning. Your misinterpretation and belief that I blame the victim (despite the fact that I’ve repeatedly explained that your perception is wrong and I have provided my ACTUAL thoughts rather than the ones you project on me) would suggest that you are not as interested in understanding each other as you suggest. You have addressed my approach on more than one occasion over the course of time and continue to do so while saying I can say what I like.

            I get that I’m not your cup of tea, but you appear to be making it personal and addressing me under the guise of sticking up for other empaths who are negatively affected by my approach. Where are they all then?

            If I am negatively affecting people here (other than the narcissists and instigators that fly in on occasion) with my comments I would truly like to hear from them and will reconsider my approach and/or involvement here on the blog.

            The floor is open if HG will allow.

          20. HG Tudor says:

            The floor is indeed open and I will state that NA has been a consistent and fair commenter on this blog for some time. You may not always agree with what NA writes, but she is neither bigoted or unkind.

          21. WiserNow says:


            Yes, the floor is indeed open and by that, it would seem that we are *all* entitled to express our ‘intra-subjective perceptions’. I appreciate the opportunity to do so.

            For what it’s worth (because it seems clear that although the floor is open, some people’s attitudes are clearly off limits ) I didn’t say that NA *was* inconsistent or unfair or bigoted or unkind. If that is what you think, then they are *your* misguided interpretations.

            In any case, I have said what I believed and made my points as clearly and impartially as possible. I am not in this discussion or on this blog to ‘win’ anything or claim any kind of ‘victory’ over anyone. I am here to gain better understanding, both for myself, and to add to the breadth of experience and understanding that is already here.

          22. HG Tudor says:

            I did not state that you stated she was bigoted or unfair or inconsistent, others have stated as such or insinuated as such and since the floor is and was open, I made this point. NA is a valued contributor.

            I am content to clarify however that you were not making such a statement about NA.

            I endorse your desire to learn here and gain understanding from this place.

          23. WiserNow says:

            Thank you for your reply HG.

          24. HG Tudor says:

            You are welcome.

          25. WiserNow says:


            Now, *you* are making it personal. You have your views and I have mine. I have expressed mine clearly and stated why I don’t agree with yours. I think that’s enough. I have said what I wanted to say and my point was never to ‘win’ but to explain why I believe your views suggest that the targeted person is to blame for their own abuse and how your views can be detrimental for the targeted person.

            If you are unable or unwilling to simply say, “I can see your point” instead of going into some kind of personal win/lose ‘battle’, then that’s your problem and not mine.

          26. Violetta says:

            Calling HG a “proficient narc” was hardly intended as a compliment. I’m actually puzzled by his limited ambition: he could manipulate entire audiences as an actor (or a demagogue), yet he confines himself to an actress here, a gymnast there. And he seeks the ones who might put him before their craft. HG does not reward devotion to himself.

            I can relate to the woman whose high heels tripped her on the cobblestone walk (both HG’s idea), because it doesn’t look as if she were asked to make such a choice, nor does it seem to be part of a developing pattern. Obviously, women of previous generations who were pressured by society to put marriage and family before any career or achievement were in a different position from women now (depending on country and culture).

            I find it more difficult to relate to someone when someone she trusted has shown repeated signs of threatening a craft she’s worked at for years. There *is* a pattern, and she *can’t* trust him anymore. As Fool Me 1 Time’s name indicates….

            It’s not just a question of gender. Read CS Lewis’ “The Great Divorce.” There’s a character who spent her entire marriage sabotaging her husband Robert in the name of “helping” him, and would clearly like to spend her afterlife doing more of the same. It was a lot more difficult to get out of a bad marriage in those days, and Robert’s fate is appalling. There must have been comparable destruction of maiden aunts and bachelor uncles who were dependent on a dysfunctional family, exploited as unpaid housekeepers, baby-sitters, and handymen because there was nowhere else for them to go.

            People have a little more freedom now. It hurts to recognize that someone you thought was on your side isn’t, but again, if you have trouble with self-esteem, at least esteem your craft, and defend it. Or esteem your kids, and defend them.

            HG clearly demonstrated he didn’t owe them any loyalty. At what point were they prepared to acknowledge that they owed him none in return?

          27. HG Tudor says:

            You do not know what I do in my professional life, so to say I have limited ambition is incorrect and based on forming a view without the full facts.

          28. Renarde says:


            Regarding your comment re: there is no definitive logical standpoint, I was about to be cheeky and say ‘I’m sure Pythagoras would have something to say about it!’. Then I remembered matrices.

            Discovered/created at some point in the 19th century I think by a French mathematician, he created an entire branch of mathematics for reasons that escape me.

            Normal algebraic notion states clearly that x = y + z and x = z + y

            Any day of the week. It works. It holds true. Pure maths. Not so in matrices

            x = y + z DOES NOT equal x = z + y

            Bizarre but there you go. Matrices largely fell by the wayside as an irrelevance. Even though the rules created worked at some level. Once you understood the operator and how it functions.

            Then, with the advancement of Quantum Mechanics, they did come back as it explained away particle behaviour. Believe me, I know. An entire maths module on the fucker at uni. I remember sitting in that exam. Once you understood the rules, it was OK. Had the fucking fright of my life when heavily engrossed in it, I heard a ‘Psst! Psst! Ren! Show me the answer!’.

            I’m not sure what I was more horrified at tbh. The fact that at any moment someone might perceive me to be cheating (and thus get ME disbarred) or that the guy who asked was Greek. I thought they were meant to be good at maths!

            But anyway, I would argue that logic always has to be a construct. It must have rules but the rules don’t necessarily follow our normal ‘work-a-day’ logic for the vast majority of people.

            Do you understand the rules of the game?

          29. HG Tudor says:

            I am the rules of the game.

          30. Renarde says:

            Then the question is, do we understand you?

          31. HG Tudor says:

            Do you mean, me, HG, or my kind?

          32. Renarde says:

            Oh! Good question!

            HG, you’re an Ultra. I utterly believe you are, you’re no Greater. Hopefully I’m wise enough to say that there must be things about you that I dont understand. Has to be.

            Probably a long time off but it would be really interesting to read how an Ultra operates.

          33. HG Tudor says:

            You are reading much about how an Ultra operates, Renarde and there is more to come.

          34. Renarde says:

            Ahh, thankyou HG.

            And for your illumination.

          35. HG Tudor says:

            No problem, Renarde.

          36. Violetta says:

            HG: But would you take over the world, as I’m sure you’re fully capable of doing, or would you get distracted trying to make your secretary cry?

          37. HG Tudor says:

            I would do both. Then make the world cry and distract the secretary with its tears.

            Happy now?

          38. Violetta says:

            HG: Thrilled.
            Clearly, you are capable of multitasking

          39. HG Tudor says:

            I can walk and chew gum.

          40. Violetta says:

            I can’t.

        2. Violetta says:

          Here’s the other thing–they weren’t just running lines. I’ve asked people to help me get off book just by giving me the last half-dozen words of the cue line, even highlighted it to save time.

          HG was ACTING. Very well apparently, but what if his interpretation was different from the cast member in the scene? I’ve played some roles more than once, and you have to react to what your scene partner is giving you, even if it’s not exactly how you played it before. In fact, this makes playing the same role in multiple productions bearable, since you’re constantly creating.

          If GH was giving her something her actual scene partners weren’t, the performance she was working up might make no sense. Look at Olivier’s Hamlet, then Mel Gibson’s, then Branagh’s– you couldn’t react to all three of those the same way.

          Btw, the Kevin Kline Great Performances version is the first one that really made sense to me. Not just dithering, like so many melancholy Danes, but trying to sort out what’s real and what isn’t in a corporate gaslighting hell.

          Btw 2: “I grew tired of her repeated declarations of how good my deliver was”– how is that even POSSIBLE, HG?

      5. Renarde says:


        Did you? I think I know what you said there. Surprising how people think. isn’t it?

    2. Claire says:

      Some really passionate ones – who breath acting in a positive way , who are talented and sensitive humans Source : my extended family. She trusted HG , it is another story that she put off her limits and went to a nervous breakdown.

      1. Renarde says:


        Where does it say she had a breakdown? I mean a genuine one rater than a fit of histrionics?

        She lost her voice. I used to lose mine every year in my profession. It’s very annoying as upper managers would use any excuse to get rid of you. Stressful too and actually really bang out of order.

        However, I would temporarily lose my voice because of my work. Overuse. She lost hers because she had little control over her ignited inner fury.

    3. Bibi says:

      I actually thought the same thing. She should have found someone else to help her or just say never mind. Not victim shaming, just saying what I would have done. As example, I always relied on the Mid Ranger for feedback/critique about my creative work. He was very much my ‘go to’ and then he did the whole, ‘I’m too depressed to read anything’ for 4 and a half years, not telling me what the problem was.

      While I was upset that he refused to look at my work, I most definitely sought outside sources. I had others to read it and give feedback but of course I wanted his opinion, which he would not give.

      This would be akin to me only using him as my lone source for creative feedback. I am actually a bit surprised that an artist would put you above all else. Certainly she could have found SOMEONE?

      But my guess is, and here is where I empathize with her–HG gave great readings and in the beginning, he seemed like nonpareil in terms of a practice partner. My Mid Ranger was very much this way. Highly intelligent and insightful, that another reader would feel ‘2nd rate’ by comparison. (Could be somewhat true and also somewhat ET at work.)

      So she wanted HG to do it b/c anyone else would have made her feel at a loss. Yes, I had other sources that I could seek out, but there were nuances within his feedback and I valued. Hence, he knew this and why he took it away.

      This is why I think she got herself stuck.

      1. Violetta says:

        Probably right. There are actors who make YOU better when you have them as scene partners. If her castmates weren’t actually as good as HG, she could use the energy he gave her in rehearsal to compensate.
        Once again, HG puts a genuine talent (he clearly has many) secondary to being a proficient narc.

        1. WiserNow says:

          Perhaps Hannah placed her genuine acting talent secondary to being a proficient empath?

          If HG is ‘entitled’, even worthy of praise for being a deliberately lousy boyfriend, why should Hannah be reprimanded for being an instinctive empath?

          Really?! Now HG is a cool guy because he’s a “proficient narc”? Jesus.

          I know what I’m going to hear next… “..but narcissists can’t change and empaths need to accept that.. blah blah blah”

          Both narcissists and empaths act on unconscious instinct during these dynamics. Empaths have the ability to change but change is not instant or easy.

          1. Violetta says:

            I’m not praising HG. I’m actually somewhat sad at the waste or (from an empath point of view) misapplication of talent.

          2. WiserNow says:

            Whose wasted talent are you sad about – Hannah’s wasted acting talent, or HG’s wasted supportive boyfriend talent?

          3. Violetta says:

            Both, of course.

          4. Violetta says:

            WiserNow: Correction: I don’t give a toss about HG’s wasted supportive boyfriend talent. It’s his theatrical talent that’s a loss. Yes, I know he uses it in daily life all the time, but just imagine him as Richard III, seducing Lady Anne over the corpse of her father-in-law, whom he murdered (along with her husband). People often wonder how Lady Anne could be so gullible, but they wouldn’t in that production!

          5. WiserNow says:


            Thank you for both of your replies. It’s interesting to me how you have read an article about two people (HG and Hannah) and it appears you have sympathy and admiration for HG (for his many ‘talents’), while you don’t think anything much of Hannah except that she was either gullible, illogical or not a very good actress.

            You think so much of HG that you don’t even “give a toss” that he is an abuser.

            It’s more important that he would make a wonderful villain for you to watch on a theatre stage.

            Maybe he would make a great villain on stage because he wouldn’t be acting…?

          6. Violetta says:

            Actually, the hardest characters to play are the ones closest to you. I always loved comedies of manners because I didn’t have to do any digging into painful areas.

            I can’t blame Hannah for being gullible, since obviously HG doesn’t show his true colors to his girlfriends/victims the way he does here.

            As for being illogical, we ALL are, except for our host, or we wouldn’t be here.

            As for Hannah, it’s clear she WAS a good actress, as HG himself acknowledged, but I, for one, question her dedication. You don’t let down an audience or cast and crew by putting your boyfriend before your ability to perform a part to which you’ve committed. If you can’t respect yourself, respect the craft.

      2. Renarde says:


        There might be a very good reason why she can’t get anyone to help her.

    4. Renarde says:


      Interesting that you say she loves him. Why do you assume that?

      The kind of actress who risks her prime instrument for the sake of a few fluffed lines is not a very smart one.

      1. Violetta says:

        I almost spelled it “Lurve” to indicate sarcasm. Not
        sure this is about her not being smart–she was controlling in her own way, but not as good (or evil) at it as HG. Once he started making a hash of things, whether she thought it was deliberate or accidental, she needed to find another scene partner. It’s convenient if your Significant Other can help you, but if he can’t, you find someone else, and don’t worry about “how things used to be.”

        If he’d been her director, she had a fair complaint–he could and would go from superb to a bloody nightmare, if he wanted.

        I can, however, understand her frustration if she tried to talk him into entering the industry or offered to use any connections she had to get him a foot in the door–that voice alone!

        1. Renarde says:

          Violetta (Nice name btw)

          Ahh, I see. Oh how silly she was. But then again, whilst actors can be very perceptive when it comes the mimicking emotion, they can be utterly tone deaf on others. Emma Thompson springs to mind. Her mother is just as bad.

          But ahh! The Voice! I understand completely. 🙂

    5. Renarde says:


      Both of them sound frightful! They need to be a bit more like Silent Bob I feel. Sort of did the right thing but was usually a bit hopeless. Especially at…urm…speaking up!

      (Sorry! I was trying to think of a Wills’ but my knowledge ain’t that good. I’m not frickin’ googling it. Have my pride!)

      However, however…could be worse there. HG might have ended up with a female of a twisted, hunchbacked, visually distorted character from a certain Scottish play. (Disclaimer; may be green.)

      Why DO people pretend (act) on way and do the precise opposite? Still baffles me. Despite all of this. What HG has written.

  8. Bibi says:

    “My goodness, did she have a foul mouth on her.”

    This made me laugh. She sounds a lot like me.

  9. Pati says:

    HG did you provoke Hannah so much(upset her) to the point that she got laryngitis from screaming at you?
    Did you do all this for negative fuel because your were tierd of the positive one?

Vent Your Spleen! (Please see the Rules in Formal Info)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Previous article

Dealing With The Proof

Next article

15 Seductive Spikes