Joseph Campbell, from The Hero with a Thousand Faces
Text ID: the ultimate experience of love is a realization that beneath the illusion of two-ness dwells identity: "each is both." This realization can expand into a discovery that beneath the multitudinous individualities of the whole surrounding universe—human, animal, vegetable, even mineral—dwells identity; whereupon the love experience becomes cosmic, and the beloved who first opened the vision is magnified as the mirror of creation.
This is one of the best psychoanalytical analysis of the show I’ve seen; I love that this not only acknowledges that Lestat’s mode of self-creation is grounded in theories of the self that predate contemporary narratives focused on authenticity and therapeutic healing (grounded in aesthetics rather than psychoanalysis), but also that it elucidates the differing ways each character constructs their ideas of the self. The differences between how Armand and Lestat navigate trauma, the role of memory in Louis’s identity, the revelations that took place during the sceance — fascinating and well argued.
I have a teeny tiny theory about Rick's childhood. We don't have much information on him before Diane's death but we do have hints into his current psyche that suggest things about his childhood.
Now this is a very small and loose theory because I really don't have much I'm going off here but if anyone has any contributions pleaaaase add them.
It's obvious that Rick has attachment and commitment issues. It's consistent throughout the show. We see tons of occasions where he lashes out at people he loves or tries to deny that he likes them at all. A big part of this is his PTSD from watching Diane and Beth die, but it is something I like to keep in mind during this theory. along with the rest of his obvious issues. Especially his superiority complex which is typically something developed in adolescent years so it's unlikely but not impossible for it to have developed after The Incident. Those kinds of things typically stem from unhealthy childhood dynamics.
In the first episode we see Unity, while Rick is making his request for his giant redhead orgy he says he wants the stadium lined with "any man that looks even remotely like my father," which frankly isn't something someone with a good relationship with their father requests.
Later in the show we have the episode where Rick gets mistaken for those rich people's 11 year old son. He basically jumps at the opportunity to keep playing along. During this time where he has two loving parents we see him act more childish and more at peace than we basically ever see in the rest of the show. Over only two days he grows attached to them enough that he saves a picture of the three of them and actually gets protective of the two when things get violent. Like he's getting proper parental affection for the first time and is being able to just be a happy child.
OKAY SO! I love psychology, so I did a little bit of an analysis on potential reasons for the characters personalities and behaviours. Sorry, I couldn’t think of any for Josh. I hope you like it, and feel free to tell me your own ideas!
Bill - Woman hating
Bill, particularly in the epilogue comic, is shown to have extreme female hating behaviour. In the comics, it's seen that Bill only lives with his mother–constantly nagging him, blaming him, being a general nuisance to him– and his sister, who in the very rare occasion that she's shown, hates him. Two female characters that he has to live with who give him a poor family life. Bill is the only male in the household. What starts off as distaste for the girls he lives with, eventually turns into hatred–as seen several times when he talks about his mother. This can fester into a displaced belief that all girls are the same; his already prevalent incel ideology and pathological generalization that ALL women are this way can very easily turn into hatred. What starts as projection becomes sexist extremism. His refusal to seek therapy after the Eltingville Club broke up, as well as being into anatomically incorrect artistic expressions of female characters in fiction, the fact that he obviously made no attempt to fix himself up, AND the fact he’s still living with his mother through adulthood, only makes his misogynistic ideology a catalyst for an even more extreme hatred for women as a grown man.
Pete - Horror obsession/fetish
[Now this is mostly THEORY. Who knows, he could just be a psychopath. But, even psychopaths get their brain function from somewhere, so hear me out. –]
Pete throughout the comics is shown to have an obsession for horror and gore movies, as well as obvious fetishes for violent behaviours in fiction. My guess is that this may have all come from abuse in childhood. Not much is shown from his family, but it is said that he has multiple siblings, and in the scene after the Eltingville Club trashes Joe's comic book store, it's shown that he's being yelled at, sweared at, and belittled for his interests by his parents. Many people have an interest in horror and scary things, and that isn’t a bad thing on its own. But many people–as an escape from things they are upset, angry, or afraid of–turn to their interests more obsessively as a coping mechanism. As well as this, watching horror and gore would become an outlet for him, and desensitize him so he isn’t as afraid of violence–physical or verbal–by his family or others around him. As much as I despise Freud, this could be a form of “Thanatos”, a morbid fixation– leaning into self-destructive and harmful behaviour. What started as general interest and morbid curiosity became maladaptive coping. And unfortunately, particularly in the hormonal mind of a teenage boy–this obsession can turn to fetish. Especially given some of the stuff that is joked about him liking. This is affective conditioning, where in his case: fear + gore = desensitization, to comfort and enjoyment, and eventually fetish. And once again, his refusal to get therapy as an adult, as well as literally getting a job in a horror production company, leads to it being more intense as an adult. No longer an escape or comfort, simply a sick enjoyment.
Jerry - morals and people-pleasing
Not much to say about him. From the beginning, of course, it's very obvious that he's the most normal, non-sexist character. He quickly becomes a voice of reason in the comics too. Its likely that the only reason he’d get into trouble, and be a bit of a pervert, is because he's a teenage boy who happens to be around people who are awful influences. This observational learning leads him to do bad things, too. Regardless of his good morals. It may also likely be linked to people-pleasing behaviours of people you care about, or internalized peer pressure where–even if nobody is forcing you to–you feel the need to do what others around you are doing. When the Eltingville Club splits up, it's shown that he's the only one upset by losing his friends. Even though they treated him badly, they were the only friends he had. Though, this ends up being good for him. He is the only character who gets therapy, and goes onto doing things that he actually likes. Even still, he has that people-pleasing kind of mentality–when he talks enthusiastically about his good times playing games like DND with other people in adulthood, and his ‘friends’ then shut it down, he just goes quiet and doesn’t attempt standing up for himself. He gets a kind of triggered regression, and goes back to his people-pleasing behaviour.
SO:
Behaviours in adulthood are almost always responses to things built up in childhood. Despite this, characters like Bill and Pete are not characters to sympathize with, at least, when they are adults. Destructive behaviours–internalized or externalized–do not clear up on their own. By refusing to get therapy, and refusing to do any self-assessing or attempts to fix their beliefs and behaviours, they create a space where these things become their entire personality, and by extension, become awful people in general. Past traumas or experiences are never an excuse for violent or perverted behaviours when you refuse to help yourself.
I hope you liked this! I am NOT a psychologist, but yknow.
“Nosferatu as a double of Ellen […] a symbol for Ellen's repressed sexual desire of being in a marriage absent of passion and affection. Ian Roberts notes that “she is very much a plaything of Hutter and the patriarchal society within her repressed self is trapped”. She does not seem to do anything but wait around for Hutter […] she feels dissatisfaction with life. In addition, the affection that she displays for Hutter does not appear to be returned. […] she is stuck in this marriage because gender norms of the time […].
The cinematography portrays Ellen as desiring Nosferatu. […] she is “pining for her beloved”. But there is a subtle uncertainty of who exactly her “beloved” actually is. […] Ellen sleepwalks quite often throughout the film, and dreams often signify repressed desire. […] the [camera] perspective suggests that the person that she talks about is not Hutter, but rather Nosferatu. The “restless sea” is a commonly used symbol of desire and repression. Indeed, Ellen often waits by the sea even though she knows Hutter is travelling by land. This crosscutting reveals Ellen's desire for Nosferatu rather than Hutter. The cinematic subtly of the representation of Ellen desiring Nosferatu reflects her own need to repress this desire because of the gender norms of the time that restricts female sexuality.
[…] Ellen does not sacrifice her sexuality for Nosferatu, but rather she acts on her repressed sexual desire. […] signifies the end of the repression of her sexual desire. The fact that his hand is represented as a shadow signifies the guilt that Ellen feels because this sexual desire should have been repressed.”
— Caitlyn Zimmer; “The Portrayal of Queer Subjectivity in German Vampire Film” (2006)
“I have never been so happy as that moment… as I held hands with Death.” // “Your passion is bound to me.” // “Yet I cannot be sated without you.” // “He is my shame! He is my melancholy!” // “You could never please me as he could.” // “Kiss me! Kiss my heart, my heart! Let him see! Let him see our love!”
i’d like to start w a (not so) vague description of his state in five different stages:
pre-studio band
early studio band
late studio band
withdrawal
reunion + comeback
pre–studio band andrew is defined by insecurity rather than obsession. his ambition exists, but it has not yet hardened into a survival mechanism. he is highly self-conscious, tentative, and deeply aware of his own replaceability, which manifests as passivity rather than arrogance.
this insecurity is given shape in the moment where andrew watches the studio band through the door, positioned physically outside of the space he longs to occupy. greatness appears distant, enclosed, and sacred, something to be observed rather than inhabited. in this moment, his desire is not informed by an understanding of cost, but by an idealized vision of belonging and purpose.
the barrier of the door encourages reverence rather than skepticism. the studio band represents meaning, validation, and inclusion, not yet psychological violence. his yearning is human and unexamined, rooted in hope rather than self-erasure.
at this stage, andrew still experiences anxiety as an internal conflict rather than a directive. he wants greatness, but he has not yet accepted suffering as the necessary price for it. discomfort still registers as something wrong, not something meaningful.
he is socially withdrawn but not emotionally vacant. his reserve comes from fear of judgment rather than lack of empathy. he seeks approval – especially from authority figures – but has not earned it yet.
importantly, pre–studio band andrew still maintains a distinction between self and performance. failure threatens his confidence, but it does not yet erase his sense of personhood. his identity is fragile, but it is not fully collapsed into drumming.
that makes the studio band transition feel like a psychological rupture rather than a natural escalation. it marks the moment where insecurity stops being something andrew feels and becomes something he organizes his entire existence around.
when andrew is given the opportunity to play in studio band for the first time, his nervousness briefly transforms into excitement. fletcher’s earlier speech reframes the moment as a rare gateway to greatness, making andrew feel chosen rather than tested. the excitement does not come from musical joy, but from proximity to validation.
except, the excitement does not last. fletcher’s sudden yelling abruptly withdraws the sense of approval Andrew has just received. what moments earlier felt like recognition is revealed to be conditional and unstable.
this reversal teaches andrew that worth is not only external but volatile. validation can be granted and revoked without explanation, making security impossible. the psychological whiplash (no pun intended) trains andrew to remain in a constant state of vigilance.
rather than discouraging him, the outburst intensifies andrew’s determination. the loss of approval creates urgency, reinforcing the belief that he must work harder to regain what was taken. this moment marks a transition from characterization into psychological examination.
by the late studio band phase, andrew’s life collapses almost entirely into the practice room. moving his belongings into the space signals the erosion of any boundary between living and training. practice is no longer something he returns to; it becomes the environment he inhabits.
this physical relocation mirrors a psychological one. andrew no longer alternates between roles or identities – everything is organized around performance. rest, comfort, and privacy are treated as indulgences rather than necessities, reinforcing the belief that total immersion is synonymous with seriousness.
andrew’s approach to practice reflects this shift. his sessions are no longer structured around musical refinement but around endurance. he repeatedly crosses physical and psychological limits, not because they are required for improvement, but because they function as proof of commitment. pain becomes a metric.
this escalation occurs immediately after andrew achieves temporary security within the studio band. becoming a core member offers brief confirmation that his sacrifices have meaning. for a moment, stability appears possible.
that sense of arrival is immediately complicated by the reintroduction of internal competition within the band, ryan connolly returns. his presence reframes andrew’s success as temporary rather than definitive, reinforcing the belief that position and worth are perpetually under review. achievement is revealed to be reversible.
psychologically, the car crash is the moment andrew’s internal hierarchy becomes unmistakable. faced with bodily injury and disorientation, his first priority is not survival or recovery, but performance. the instinct to reach the stage overrides all other considerations.
andrew’s sense of self is so bound to drumming that failing to perform would retroactively invalidate every sacrifice that preceded it. stopping would not simply mean missing a performance – it would mean confronting the possibility that the suffering was meaningless.
the crash exposes how completely bodily limits have been subordinated to psychological necessity. injury no longer registers as a signal to stop, but as an obstacle to be managed. the body becomes disposable in service of maintaining coherence of identity.
seen in this light, the later breakup with nicole is not a sudden turn but a continuation of the same logic. the crash demonstrates that andrew has already ranked performance above survival; emotional connection never stood a chance.
andrew frames the relationship as a distraction, but the deeper issue is that emotional connection introduces vulnerability that cannot be controlled or optimized. intimacy becomes incompatible with a worldview that reduces value to measurable output and external validation.
importantly, this rejection of intimacy is not rooted in emotional absence but in suppression. andrew does not stop feeling; he actively disciplines feeling out of himself. relationships, comfort, and even bodily limits are no longer costs to be weighed, but obstacles to be eliminated.
after the car accident and public failure, andrew is confronted with sean casey’s death and asked whether his name meant anything to him. this moment reframes his suffering retroactively, forcing him to recognize that the system he endured has already produced irreversible damage. for the first time, the cost of greatness is no longer abstract or hypothetical.
andrew’s decision to testify against fletcher and leave the conservatory is not an act of empowerment so much as an act of psychic exhaustion. he does not reject fletcher’s ideology because he has outgrown it, but because he can no longer survive within it. withdrawal replaces ambition, not clarity.
the scene in which andrew breaks down is crucial because it reveals what remains after the system is removed. he does not cry out of relief, but out of loss. without drumming, he is not free – he is unmoored. the structure that harmed him also gave his life coherence, purpose, and identity.
fundamentally, andrew still misses drumming, even knowing the damage it caused. this attachment complicates any reading of the dropout as healing. his grief is not just for the abuse, but for the meaning that abuse provided. pain and purpose have become psychologically entangled.
in this phase, andrew is neither obsessed nor ambitious. he is hollowed out. the absence of pressure does not restore balance; it exposes how completely his sense of self had been outsourced to performance. what remains is not peace, but vacancy.
andrew’s reunion with fletcher does not represent closure or forgiveness, but re-entry into a familiar psychological structure. fletcher offers andrew something he has lacked since dropping out: a clear hierarchy, a defined role, and the promise of meaning through performance. the pull is not emotional attachment but psychological coherence.
although andrew initially approaches the situation with distance, the invitation to perform reactivates the same conditional logic that once governed him. fletcher once again positions himself as the arbiter of legitimacy, reestablishing the dynamic of approval and threat. andrew is not naïve to this manipulation, but awareness does not equal immunity.
the final performance functions as a culmination of andrew’s internalized conditioning. his return to the stage initially appears catastrophic, but it quickly becomes something else. by cutting fletcher off and initiating the final piece himself, andrew seizes control of the performance. for the first time, he is not reacting to fletcher’s cues but imposing his own.
the exchange of recognition between andrew and fletcher at the end does not signal mutual respect or resolution. it reflects shared belief: that greatness is forged through annihilation. andrew is not freed from fletcher; he temporarily surpasses him by embodying his ideology more completely than fletcher himself.
the final exchange of recognition reflects this shift. fletcher does not regain control, but he recognizes himself in andrew. andrew’s victory is real, but it is achieved entirely within the system that once destroyed him.
having traced andrew’s behavioral arc, it becomes possible to examine the psychological mechanisms that sustain it. what appears, on the surface, as ambition or obsession is better understood as a gradual restructuring of identity, motivation, and meaning.
andrew’s psychological structure initially rests on an insecure but differentiated ego. he experiences himself as lacking, but that lack is comparative rather than existential. inadequacy is painful, yet it does not threaten the continuity of selfhood. desire for excellence operates as an extension of identity, not its sole justification. the ego, while fragile, remains plural.
as pressure intensifies, insecurity is no longer tolerated as passive discomfort and is reorganized into vigilance. the ego begins to orient itself around anticipation rather than reflection. evaluation is no longer episodic; it becomes ambient. this marks the first shift from identity as experience to identity as performance-monitoring system.
psychoanalytically, this is where the superego begins to dominate. initially externalized as authority, it is gradually internalized and amplified. the superego does not merely prohibit failure; it demands suffering as proof of legitimacy. its voice is absolute, punitive, and uninterested in proportion. effort must hurt, or it does not count.
andrew’s psychological destabilization is accelerated by the strategic alternation between deprivation and recognition. rare praise does not function as reassurance; it functions as exposure. each instance of approval temporarily lowers his psychological defenses, creating a fleeting sense of safety that has not been structurally earned. this induced vulnerability makes subsequent castigation more severe.
because affirmation is infrequent and disproportionate, it carries excessive emotional weight. when it appears, it suspends threat long enough for hope to surface. the psyche momentarily believes coherence is possible. this belief is then abruptly withdrawn, intensifying shame and urgency. the injury is not merely the criticism itself, but the collapse of the safety that briefly seemed attainable.
at this stage, self-worth becomes contingent. the ego loses temporal continuity and is reconstructed moment to moment through outcomes. success produces brief integration; failure results in fragmentation. there is no stable internal object to return to, only oscillation between coherence and collapse. this creates a dependency on constant activity, as stillness threatens disintegration.
clinically, this pattern resembles a compulsive achievement schema reinforced by intermittent validation. the unpredictability of reward intensifies attachment to the system that delivers it. uncertainty does not weaken commitment; it deepens it. the psyche learns that proximity to approval is more tolerable than certainty of absence.
this cycle produces a trauma bond rather than allegiance. attachment forms not through care, but through oscillation between threat and relief. the psyche becomes oriented toward the source of both harm and validation, interpreting endurance as loyalty and suffering as proximity. escape feels less tolerable than continued exposure, because exposure at least preserves the possibility of recognition.
as internalization completes, external authority becomes redundant. the superego now operates autonomously, surveilling thought, sensation, and behavior without interruption. this produces chronic hyperarousal. the nervous system remains in a state of anticipatory threat response. calm is reinterpreted as vulnerability. rest becomes suspect.
the body’s role shifts accordingly. somatic signals lose their regulatory meaning. pain, fatigue, and injury are no longer interpreted as boundaries but as challenges to be overridden. the body is reframed as an instrument rather than a subject. this reflects a process of self-objectification in which embodiment is subordinated to symbolic continuity.
philosophically, this marks the triumph of instrumental reason applied inward. the self is no longer an end in itself, but a means toward an abstract ideal of greatness. what cannot be optimized is devalued. what resists measurement is eliminated. plurality is treated as inefficiency.
relational capacity deteriorates in parallel. intimacy requires mutual recognition, unpredictability, and shared vulnerability. these conditions destabilize hierarchical value systems. attachment introduces needs that cannot be scheduled or subordinated. as a result, emotional connection is not merely deprioritized but actively disciplined out of awareness.
this suppression does not indicate emotional absence. affect remains intact but unexpressed, diverted into performance. feeling is allowed only insofar as it fuels output. grief, tenderness, fear, and longing are treated as noise unless they can be transmuted into discipline. this creates emotional compression rather than emotional loss.
over time, identity collapses fully into function. there is no longer a distinction between self and role. existence is justified retroactively through endurance. meaning is derived not from fulfillment, but from survival within the system. suffering becomes the primary narrative thread through which coherence is maintained.
this dynamic generates moral injury. andrew is compelled to violate his own emerging values in order to remain viable within the system. empathy, relational responsibility, and self-preservation are repeatedly subordinated to performance. the harm is not limited to what is done to him, but extends to what he must consent to becoming. guilt accumulates not from failure, but from survival.
as these violations repeat, the psyche adapts through learned self-erasure. aspects of the self that interfere with endurance are gradually suppressed. tenderness, ambivalence, and need are not resolved; they are disciplined out of awareness. identity is narrowed not by loss of capacity, but by strategic disavowal.
this process does not eliminate vulnerability; it privatizes it. distress is no longer expressed relationally but metabolized internally as discipline. suffering becomes silent, efficient, and self-directed. the self learns to disappear without dying.
eventually, the system exceeds the psyche’s regulatory capacity. withdrawal from structured evaluation does not produce relief but vacancy. the ego, long scaffolded by threat and reward, loses orientation. affective flooding occurs as suppressed emotion resurfaces without containment. distress emerges not because the damage has ended, but because the organizing principle has dissolved.
psychoanalytically, this phase reflects ego depletion rather than insight. the superego loosens not through resolution but exhaustion. ambition does not transform into self-compassion; it collapses into absence. what remains is not freedom, but unstructured grief.
this vacancy creates susceptibility to reattachment. when a familiar evaluative structure reappears, it is experienced as coherence rather than danger. the psyche gravitates toward the known architecture of meaning, even when that architecture has proven destructive. awareness of harm does not negate the need for structure; it merely complicates it.
in the final stage, the ideology no longer requires enforcement. it has been fully assimilated. control appears internal and autonomous. assertion replaces submission, but the value system remains intact. worth is still conditional. sacrifice is still mandatory. annihilation is still reframed as transcendence.
philosophically, this represents completion rather than liberation. the self achieves coherence by eliminating everything that cannot be instrumentalized. ambiguity is resolved. plurality is abandoned. what is gained is clarity and intensity. what is lost is humanity understood as multiplicity.
andrew’s progression is not a descent into madness, nor a rise into greatness, but a narrowing. the psyche stabilizes around a single organizing principle that consumes all others. he does not disappear; he becomes exact.
the tragedy is not that he suffers, but that suffering becomes the language through which his existence is allowed to mean something.
just watched teenage sex and death at camp miasma, it’s a perfect movie - stay tuned for this trans girl’s cryptic and hyperanalytical write up of how to bypass academic defense mechanisms and experience ego dissolution by creating a safe space to explore repressed desires
