Possession As a Metaphor for the Player-Character Relationship

The victims of the house in 5 Days a Stranger are both the game’s protagonist, Trilby, and the player himself.

This discussion contains spoilers for 5 Days a Stranger.

Possession would seem an apt metaphor for gaming given the relationship between the player and the protagonist of a game. I often use the phrase “inhabiting the main character” to imply something like this idea and to distinguish between the way that games differ from other narratives in the way that they relate their audience to the characters in more traditional stories. The player takes control of the character, imposing his will on that character and ostensibly on the story to be told because the player will seemingly now be complicit in shaping the world. A little possession goes a long way in a video game world.

Revisiting the award winning, indie adventure game, 5 Days a Stanger, is initially interesting in this regard, the central plotline of the game focuses on possession. In this case, the classic mystery chestnut of an isolated space occupied by a few characters that keep getting knocked off one by one is complicated when possession becomes the instrument of the murderer, a ghost haunting the house.

The title of the game implies this possession. The game’s protagonist, Trilby, does spend “5 days as a stranger”, since he is “not entirely himself”. Thinking about this from the perspective of the player-character in video games is similarly suggestive. Video game protagonists, like Trilby, are never entirely themselves, as they are always “possessed” by the player.

However, the horror elements of the game are also dependent on this possession. Trilby is initially introduced as a character seemingly very much in possession of himself. He is a thief, but a controlled one, more specifically a “gentlemen thief”. Trilby distinguishes himself from another occupant of the house, another thief named Jim, by pointing out that he (unlike Jim) has a code of ethics that determines his actions and the nature of his criminality. He claims to only steal things that people don’t really need.

This kind of self possession and control erodes over the course of the game’s five days though, as Trilby horrifically realizes (alongside the player who seemingly “inhabits” this charmingly ethical criminal personality) that he is really not in control of himself despite his belief in his own self control. Trilby is the hero of the game, unlocking the mystery at the heart of the house, but he is also a vehicle (through possession) of the violence of a murderous spirit.

This would be less horrific (indeed, it might seem clever and more “intellectual”) if the game contained a meta-narrative element that allowed Trilby, as a character in a game, to realize his own possession by an outside force, the player. But no such meta-narrative exists. Instead, Trilby’s horror and the horror of the game’s plot is based on the dawning realization that possession is an internal invasion, that the external force has so enveloped the victim of possession that it has become an intrinsic part of the “self possessed” individual.

One of Trilby’s fellow “prisoners” in the Defoe mansion actually clues Trilby (and the player) in on this relationship between Trilby and the spirit of the house (and the player and the game) very early on in the game when he says, “Don’t ask me why, but once you get in, the house won’t let you leave”. Given that 5 Days a Stranger is built as a classic adventure game (even its 8-bit aesthetics suggest its throwback quality of game storytelling), the player should realize that, like games other games of this sort, that 5 Days a Stranger tells a very linear story despite the illusion of control that the media of gaming suggests by allowing the player to seem to effect the game world.

While the player explores the house as Trilby and talks to characters and picks up items, using these items and participating in dialogue are all actions necessary to advance the game’s plot. Items must be used in certain prescribed ways in order for the show to go on. The player is not shaping the world so much as become victim of a world that will use the player’s interactions with that world to tell a story that it intends to tell. The house won’t let its victims out until it has accomplished its script. Its victims are both Trilby and the player himself.

In this sense, the idea of possession as a metaphor for the player-character is reversed. It isn’t the player that possesses the character, but the character (and scripts defining his ultimate fate in the game’s world) that possess the player. We don’t choose Trilby, as Trilby’s persona is chosen for us. We are both responsible for his actions and subject to them.

While I don’t believe that Ben Croshaw’s intent was necessarily to shape discussion of who controls who in a video game (the player or the designer), nevertheless, in a post-Bioshock discussion of gaming (where that discussion is now very much a central one), one can easily see that Croshaw’s game fits in nicely with that in creating a disconcerting loss of control for the player and then rubbing the player’s face in it. In Bioshock, this moment comes in the infamous moment when the player’s ability to interact with the world is stripped from him, and he finds that he must kill Andrew Ryan because he has been told to do so. This moment is a revelation of the protagonist/player having naturally subjected themselves to the voice of authority because they are accustomed to following in game instructions. The protagonist/player has been directed towards a particular inevitable end throughout the game, despite the game’s illusions of having some choice in the matter.

In 5 Days a Stranger though, Croshaw seems more interested in merely telling a suspense story that generates moments of horror for the player. However, while 5 Days a Stranger depends on some gory sequences and images that startle the player, nevertheless, the most effective part of its horror is the realization that being led, being possessed makes you a stranger to yourself. The greatest horror in inhabiting the role of Trilby is that you have become a killer and had no idea that you had been led that direction until it is too late to choose to do much about it.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.