About the character's we play being parts of us– I feel as a writer, when I write a character that's cruel, or malicious, I have to accept that character is coming from me, it is a part of me, but it's not a part I condone, aspire to, or accept. I've created that character as an honest product of circumstances in the world I'm writing. I could list a whole host of reasons why I may create a cruel or sadistic character, but I think it's more telling to say that I created them *because I can* — because I have the capacity to create.

When we play games, we are playing. As much as we're experiencing a narrative with agency, we are playing. And we are pretending, even if real emotions, logic, or moral paradigms inform our decisions. We have a capacity for play just as we have capacity to create — they are so similar I almost think they're the same thing. So while it's certainly true that characters you've played in games are a part of you, they are a part specifically birthed from your capacity to make things up, explore in a fictional realm, and yes maybe teach you a thing or two, but also to entertain yourself, to have fun. It's powerful, convenient, and remarkably safe as compared to acting out these character experiments in our day to day lives.

Also, that all reminds me of the book American Gods.

Wink's ideas, and the ones in your piece, sound a lot like the occult concept of the egregore – an autonomous thought-form created by group belief. I have things to say about that! And the notion of idea contagion, which is another aspect of sympathetic magick outside the boundaries of this piece. Thanks for sharing and stay tuned down the line!