Do You See What I See?
One of the common themes in my sessions with Dr E and Dr O is their need (note not mine) to have me be aware of what I am. Of course I know what I am. I have always known I was different, special, superior and set apart. I was told as such too, actually it was beaten into me but that is for another time. As ever, I gave them the impression that I was co-operating so I went along with their questioning. After all, they are asking about me so it is at least worth considering. Initially this was all about how I regarded myself. I enjoyed this part and I could have gone on for some time. They reported back to me that I consider myself as more intelligent than most people, that I am more amusing, I am more likeable and more successful. I am also more physically attractive than most people. So far, so obvious. They then also established that I am obsessed with power (who isn’t if they have any drive and ambition – you don’t become President by sitting there do you?). I am also impulsive. I agree. I am arrogant (I call it confidence but what’s in a word?) and I like to exaggerate my success and abilities. I explained I emphasise my success and abilities which may comes across as exaggerated (purely because many people never get that close to such success), but by explaining that to some people is necessary to get people to do what I want.
Things got interesting after that. The perfidious duo had been asking questions of others about how they perceived me. I was fascinated as they told me that the respondent s´perceptions of me were accurate with regard to what I thought about myself. How about that for getting it right? I was rather pleased. Dr O asked,
“Some of those traits could be viewed in a negative light. That is how other people see you. Does that not concern you that they view in a negative manner,” I was asked by Dr O.
I shook my head.
“You label it as negative. I regard those traits as strengths and it is clear that other people do as thy have clearly identified them with me.”
She raised her eyebrows (recently plucked I noticed) and remarked,
“What if I told you that those people do regard those traits as negative?”
I felt the sensation of irritation rising at such a comment. Only the envious would regard such traits as negative. There is nothing wrong with having an excellent conceit of oneself and one which is entirely justified and grounded in evidence. Just ask those I have vanquished and they would tell you. Well, the ones who are still able to speak would tell you.
“If they do then that is envy for you. Or I suppose they are too stupid to recognise the brilliance of what I do.,” I explained.
“Okay, but what if I was to tell you that those people are intelligent and they answered honestly and consistently?” she pressed.
I considered providing a response to this, a detailed explanation of how intelligence does not equate to an ability to understand, that honesty is often mistaken and consistency is a matter of perspective. I considered providing Dr O with such a forensic response but as my quickened mind formed the thoughts and sought to breathe life into them through articulation I stopped myself. No. I am not giving them the information that readily, to do so would be to offer up too much to them, too soon and deny me the entertainment of the good doctor finding this out through application. Let us test them. Let us make them earn their inflated payment. Come on good doctor, you are going to have to do much better than that. No, the detailed reply would be denied to them and instead I would offer them something they will have doubtless encountered many times and would be familiar to them.
5 thoughts on “Do You See What I See?”
Vent Your Spleen! (Please see the Rules in Formal Info)
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Hello, HG. Excellent writing, as always.
I’ve been reflecting deeply on the ending of what you wrote, and I’d like to share my analysis with you and with everyone who reads this article.
When you say:
“What I am is a good thing. The world needs people like me. Now is the time they begin to realise that.”
I understand that you’re not merely referring to the idea that the world needs more Narcissistic Psychopaths / Greater Narcissists (which, in itself, would not be particularly beneficial in the long term—except for themselves), but rather that the world needs more Narcissistic Psychopaths / Greater Narcissists who also share your objective.
If that is the case, then it would imply a world with more intelligent, calculating, and charismatic individuals who possess a deep understanding of human behavior—individuals willing to confront the most powerful manipulators and abusers, and equipped with the tools necessary to defeat them.
If my interpretation is correct, then I can only say that I fully agree with your statement.
You are both willing and able to destroy the bringers of misery, and that is, indeed, a good thing. The world needs more people like you, who are willing and able to destroy the destroyers, so that we may begin to rebuild it.
Thank you very much, HG Tudor.
You are welcome.
I think that people are threatened by those who are ‘different’ from what they perceive as ‘normal’. If something is outside of their perception of ‘reality’, that something is then labelled as ‘bad’.
A CD I enjoy listening to is the soundtrack to the musical based on the 1994 movie ‘The Adventures of Priscilla: Queen of the Desert’.
The two-disc CD (yes, I still listen to CDs; call me old-school) has some great songs and there’s lots of variety. (By the way, psychopaths aren’t the only ones who are easily bored.)
An interesting fact about the movie ‘Priscilla: Queen of the Desert’ is that the story is based on three real-life drag queens from Australia: Cindy Pastel, Strykermeyer, and Lady Bump.
When the movie was made in 1994, these three men who were established drag performers at the time were initially supposed to be the three lead actors. This plan changed once the film attracted a large budget because the filmmakers wanted ‘famous’ actors in the lead roles; that is, actors who were considered to be ‘bankable’. This resulted in Terence Stamp, Guy Pearce and Hugo Weaving – three straight men – being cast as the lead characters.
The movie became a surprise international success. It was lauded at the 1994 Cannes Film Festival and won an Academy award for Best Costume Design.
Interestingly, there is a documentary about the real drag performers on which ‘Priscilla: Queen of the Desert’ is based. This documentary is called ‘Ladies, Please’ and it is available to watch for free on YouTube for anyone who is interested. I think it’s well-worth watching to gain insight on the realities of drag and the irony of three straight men being considered more ‘appropriate’ in a movie about drag queens.
The documentary ‘Ladies, Please’ shows the real-life histories, circumstances, performances, and opinions of the three drag performers. It also shows how two of the men went to the 1994 Cannes film festival and actually met and spoke with the actors Terence Stamp and Hugo Weaving who acted as them in the film.
Now, 30 years after the film was made, it’s obvious to me that the film involves a cruel irony. The drag performers who actually inspired a worldwide hit movie worked hard for years to establish themselves as credible theatrical performers, yet they were overlooked while three straight men reaped the career benefits of being the leads in a blockbuster film about drag performers. I think it is twisted that the very people who made the movie a success were considered to be inappropriate for mainstream audiences.
It makes me think that society in general needs illusions. People want to be entertained, but only as long as the entertainment remains within their limited scope of what they want ‘reality’ to be.
This was an exquisite read! I can picture that flash of disappointment on her face
Regarding your last statement, that the world needs more people like you, what do you thank the world would be like if most of it was narcissistic psychopaths?
I stated more, not most.