Mr. Robot Wiki

Edit Request

Archived comment(s) from Mr. Robot:

Talk:Mr. Robot/@comment-ZeroBased-20150821223444
22:34, August 21, 2015 (UTC) by ZeroBased
Talk:Mr. Robot/@comment-ZeroBased-20150821223444/@comment-LeverageGuru-20150822071258
7:12, August 22, 2015 (UTC) by LeverageGuru

Speaking to this subject purely as a huge fan of the series (rather than a staff member) - I would say there needs to be two separate pages, one for Elliot's real, deceased father, and one for Elliot's delusion of his father. Elliot may be "seeing" his "father," but it is not actually his father. On the flip side, it may not be his actual father, but the delusion is so real to Elliot (and to the viewer) that it warrants its own recognition as a character - since it is not a flashback of the actual person, but a twisted version woven together with part of Elliot's own personality. For the actual deceased father, I would say use an image either from a flashback scene, or from the pictures Elliot views on his computer screen.

XD1@ 11:31, September 4, 2015 (UTC)

Dissociative Indentity Disorder NOT Psychotic Disorder

Elliot does not suffer from delusions and paranoia, he suffers from dissociative identity disorder (DID). Mr. Robot is NOT a delusion (which is an idea) or a halluciation (one or more of the 5 senses detecting something that isn't there), but an alter identity, specifically, an introject of his father. Therefore, Mr. Robot is not a psychotic manifestation of Elliot's mind, but is Elliot as a different personality. The show does a good job of telling the narrative of someone with dissociative identity disorder, except for the fact that alter identities are not halluciations--a common misconception of DID. Please update your records to show that Elliot has has DID (dissociative identity disorder), not psychotic symptoms. Thank you.

Note: how do I know this? I have DID and was misdiagnosed as psychotic years ago. Heliocopters (talk) 13:09, October 3, 2016 (UTC)

You cannot diagnose a fictional character based on your own experiences. We have to go by dialogue and what the producer says, which is what is included in the article. It may be incorrect based on your interpretation, but the fact remains, according to the show, and frequent interviews with Sam Esmail, his symptoms are paranoia and delusions. BTW, when an admin reverts you, don't simply turn around and restore the edit. That will just get you blocked and/or the article locked. --LeverageGuru (talk) 17:16, October 3, 2016 (UTC)
FWIW: According to an interview on Popular Science , Sam Esmail patterned Elliot's mentality on disassociative identity disorder, and consulted with a psychiatrist to ensure that the portrayal was relatively grounded. (Plus, another psychiatrist consulted by Vulture diagnosed Elliot with a "severe disassociative disorder", specifically not psychotic behavior.) With that in mind, I think it'd be fair to unlock this page and take another run at it.
Tsercele (talk) 16:26, November 23, 2016 (UTC)
What lead to the article being locked was that the editor above you was making edits based on his own interpretation of the character, not based on what was said on the show. Esmail is rather vague on the degree to which he based Elliot's character, and thus Mr. Robot's manifestation, on any one disorder; rather he talks about people he knew and what was consistent with social anxiety disorder and dissociative identity disorder. I'm agreeable to unlocking the article as long as the text is consistent with dialogue, not based on after-the-fact interviews, and especially not on some website's attempt to diagnose a fictional character. That's fun reading, but has no validity. --LeverageGuru (talk) 18:53, November 23, 2016 (UTC)
I feel like it's a little reductive to describe Mr. Robot as "only" a delusion. So much of the conflict in Season 2 is Mr. Robot trying to defend the validity and purpose of his existence - he's uniquely tied to Elliot, but still capable of interacting with other people and pursuing his own goals. His physical presence may be a hallucination, but he's still a person in his own right. We can't authoritatively authoritatively attribute his existence to DID (because as you say, Esmail has been vague), but I think it's fair to say that he is a distinct identity, with his own personality, motivations and memory.
Tsercele (talk) 20:52, November 24, 2016 (UTC)
To provide an in-universe justification: in eps1.0, Krista Gordon asks specifically about the "men in black", identifying them as a step on the slippery slope. The man in black is a one-dimensional delusional archetype: the bad guys who are always watching. In contrast, in eps2.2, Krista asks whether Mr. Robot is "the only person you interact with", asks whether she can talk to him, and says that "we have to accept the fact that he is a legitimate existence in your life." She doesn't consider Mr. Robot a delusion; she identifies him as a person unto himself. Tsercele (talk) 22:38, November 24, 2016 (UTC)

"Cult leader" parallels

Regarding the comparison to David Koresh: Elliot draws the comparison in eps1.1 ("Your David Koresh shit won't work on me"), and Esmail specifically mentions Koresh as a character inspiration used in planning with Christian Slater. Elliot also compares him to Charles Manson in eps1.91, discussing emotional manipulation and "cult leader tactics". Sorry, should've cited clearer.

Tsercele (talk) 22:03, November 24, 2016 (UTC)

Why not just describe the cult element and leave individual names out? It's not a level of detail that's really needed. --LeverageGuru (talk) 19:00, November 26, 2016 (UTC)
Sure thing! Tsercele (talk) 19:54, November 26, 2016 (UTC)

Proposed neutral phrasing

How about this:

"It eventually becomes clear that Mr. Robot is a construct within Elliot Alderson's mind. His persona is an idealized representation of Elliot's deceased father, Edward; where Edward was unwilling or unable to take action, Mr. Robot was created to inspire war against E Corp and incite historical change. In some situations, Mr. Robot will take control and act through Elliot, thus explaining his direct interactions with other people."

Would this be okay? I feel like it provides a more nuanced description of Mr. Robot's origins, without using clinical terms. --Tsercele (talk) 17:21, December 2, 2016 (UTC)