#hawksflatass explains things

I had a situation where someone began to exhibit unhealthy dependence. It’s resolved now, but it’s worth highlighting for anyone who might be feeling “off” around someone and can’t quite articulate why.

To start: I am fucking busy. From five a.m. to midnight. Like Cyrus from Trailer Park Boys: “Fuck off, I got work to do.”

This isn’t new. It’s been this way for months.

People who’ve asked for beta reads know this. People I collaborate with know this. People in my servers know this. The person I’m describing knew this.

It’s not a secret. I’m extremely open about it.

And if I’m not busy, I’m dealing with a chronic pain attack. Cluster headaches, specifically. These are no joke. They’re one of the most painful conditions known to medical science and are poorly understood. Seriously, after spending the day in the ER at 14, a doctor burst into the room, plopped his ass unceremoniously onto a rolling stool, and said, “Congratulations, you have cluster headaches, or as we like to call them, suicide headaches. Meet your new best friend!” My life has been an escalating grab bag of rescue meds ever since. I’d rather have a migraine ad infinitum than another month-long cluster.

But throughout all this goddamn busyness, this person would message me snippets, world-building notes, lore, ideas, etc. Stuff I genuinely enjoyed seeing, but, ya know, I’m busy. And sometimes, not wanting to leave them unread forever because I cared about them, I’d skim and give them what scraps of energy I had left. Sometimes, that meant a simple “aww, cute!” or something not fully attuned.

Apparently, that meant I was “distant.” “Walled off.” “No longer warm like I used to be.” “No longer interested.” Surely, I must be rejecting them, right? Because the reality—that I was simply, predictably fucking busy—wasn’t sufficient.

And just to highlight the hypocrisy: this same person started bulldozing me in conversations, immediately pivoting to themselves the second I shared a win and had the unmitigated audacity to say “same tho” when I brought it up.

This, dear reader, is unhealthy dependence. And if you are finding yourself in a similar situation, heed the warning: It can become co-dependence if you let them pull you into a caretaker role. But it doesn’t have to cross over to that if you have firm boundaries.

And yes, sometimes that’s easier said than done. No good person wants to know their friend is hurting.

I struggled to be firm until far later than I should have. I avoided the caretaker role, but I was still too permissive.

If you find yourself in this situation, the best thing you can do is reiterate your boundaries. Be firm, not harsh.

In my situation, what I should have said was:

“I hear that my perceived distance is impacting you. As we discussed earlier, I have a very full schedule. I am not rejecting you, but I do not have the time right now to give you my full attention.”

Do not apologize here. You’re not doing anything wrong by living your life without orbiting someone else. (I personally am still working on this.)

I. Systemized Worldbuilding Or, “Engineering the Matrix”

Worlds are built like operating systems, not playgrounds. For an Affective Writer, worldbuilding often happens through vibes, aesthetics, emotional tone, and imaginative play. The world is a flexible playground designed to facilitate immediate comfort. For a Resonant Writer, worlds are built like core operating systems. Our worlds are not “invented” so much as they are rigorously engineered from a single point outward, through internal consistency, biological logic, and unrelenting chains of cause and effect. These worlds emerge from a deep translation of:

Somatic logic

Internal architectures

Trauma patterns

Sensory memory

Biomechanical plausibility

Environmental constraints

Its system’s architecture is mapped directly from real-world observation. We’re not so much escaping reality, though it may certainly be part of it. We are taking our internal reality, decoding its structural laws, and adapting them to the fictional subject matter at hand. We are translating.

II. Biomechanical Realism

Bodies that behave like bodies, not marionettes of narrative. In Resonant prose, characters are never pulled along by the strings of a convenient plot or feeling we want to experience. We write directly from somatic memory, and our characters’ bodies possess that material reality.

The Somatic Rules on the Page: Characters have weight, inertia, and sensory load. They experience real-time autonomic responses, trauma reflexes, and proprioceptive feedback. Because we experience it for them as we write and put it on the page.

I do not possess the ability to use the whimsical “don’t think about it” logic. I genuinely envy writers who do. I cannot simply write: “He ran.” Instead, the system automatically documents: the physical shifts of weight, the torque of the hips, the specific breathing pattern, the sensory overload, and the kinesthetic feedback of the ground beneath their feet. It’s not a stylistic gimmick or choice, but an inevitability. When you write directly from the body, the body shows up on the page.

III. Somatic Prose

Prose that originates in sensations, not imagination. Somatic prose originates in raw physiological sensation, even when those sensations are prompted by the imagination. It is sensory-forward, interoceptive, and deeply embodied. It tracks respiration, muscle pressure, temperature, olfactory data, and autonomic shifts. This approach creates prose that feels exceptionally dense, granular, and atmospheric. It isn’t about describing what a character sees from a birds-eye view; it’s documenting what their body experiences from the inside out. Standard Prose: “He felt incredibly sad and defeated.” Somatic Prose: “The sudden hollowing of the chest and collapse of his diaphragm hit first, his vision blurring at the edges, before feeling the slight, cold slide into a dissociative state where he watched himself from across the street.”

This isn’t “purple prose,” but an unvarnished transcription of human physiology under stress.

IV. Objective Narrative Distance

The craft technique that keeps us from drowning in our own bodies. Resonant Writers’ routine defaults to close-third, objective-third, or multi-third perspectives with “somatic bleed.” This is a deliberately highly necessary regulation strategy. Why? Because first- and second-person are too close. These narratives collapse the distance between the writer’s body, the character’s body, and the internal part being expressed. This can quickly become...

too raw

overwhelming

too direct

unfiltered

Third-person gives enough distance to regulate, observe, translate, and process without taking us offline. I can still embody and feel what my characters experience: emotions, biofeedback, sensory details. But I’m not writing from a place of ownership. In clinical frameworks like IFS and TIST, blending occurs when a protective or traumatized Part takes full control of the conscious Self, hijacking your thoughts, emotions, and real-world actions. Writing a narrative in the first or second person collapses the necessary safety distance between the author’s real nervous system and the character’s wounds (or, in the case of anchors, whatever they contain for the author). This can quickly become too raw, unfiltered, and unwittingly dangerous. The Third Person Shield: Third-person pronouns provide the cognitive distance required to observe, translate, and process intense somatic material without triggering a real-world system freeze or emotional hijack. I can embody and feel what my characters experience, but I am writing from a place of stewardship, not ownership. Third-person lets me feel the character without becoming the character.

Objective distance, then, is not a stylistic preference, but a regulation strategy. It lets us write without being consumed.

V. “Writing Without My Skin On”

The experience of somatic proximity at its most intense.

When a Resonant Writer drops completely into somatic immersion, it feels, quite literally, like writing without your skin. It is the experience of writing from the inside of a body outward. You are writing from the exact location of the wound rather than circling safely around it. There is zero buffer between raw physiological sensation and the written language. This state feels incredibly raw, exposed, and deeply alive. However, it can only execute when the internal system is regulated. When the environment is safe, the relational field is stable, and the Anchor Character is safely online, the somatic channel can open wide. This deep somatic proximity is the primary engine of Resonant power. But it is also the highest vulnerability, and the ultimate source of our shutdowns. It has a deep cost, and it is the reason we burn out.

VI. The Takeaway

I. What Is an Anchor Character?

Let’s get something clear first. An Anchor Character is not:

A favorite OC

A comfort character

A muse

A blorbo

A projection

A self-insert

An Anchor Character is: A somatic extraction of a core internal part or structure. A character who holds a piece of the creator’s psychological, emotional, or developmental architecture. This makes them intrinsically autobiographical, embodied, specific, somatically tethered, and identity-adjacent. They are a translation. Not a fantasy.

II. “An Open Circuit to My Actual Soul”

For Resonant Writers, an Anchor Character is not simply a narrative device. They’re a direct line to:

The nervous system

The trauma map

The emotional core

The developmental wound

The internal child

The protector

The exile

The unmet need

They’re a unique liminal space where the body speaks, the psyche processes, the history surfaces, and the truth becomes legible. Writing them can feel like... Stepping into yourself Remembering something you never said out loud Touching a wound without flinching Finally being witnessed ... and even self-healing. This is why Anchor Characters feel sacred. And why losing them feels so catastrophic.

III. Trauma Psychology: Why Anchors Form

Anchor Characters emerge because the psyche is doing something incredibly intelligent: It externalizes an internal part into a safe, narrative container. This is a known mechanism across trauma psychology, often found in literature on:

Internal Family Systems (IFS)

Narrative Identity Theory

Somatic experiencing

Trauma-Informed Stabilization Treatment (TIST)

Sensorimotor Psychotherapy

Polyvagal-Informed Narrative Work

Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR)

Earned Secure Attachments

And many more all describe versions of this phenomenon: When a part of the self cannot be safely held, the mind creates an external vessel to hold it. Anchor Characters then often hold a wounded child, a silenced self, an abandoned part, an unmet need, a suppressed identity, or an emotional truth that has nowhere else to go. They are not escapism. They are containment.

IV. Why Anchor Characters Hold Survival Mechanisms

Because they carry their creators':

Emotional regulation

Internal coherence

Sense of continuity

Narrative identity

Somatic truth

Trauma, and the ability to process it

Capacity for self-witnessing

They are not “just characters.” But infrastructure. Writing them isn’t escapism or “playing pretend.” It’s the execution of a survival process. Resonant Writers might find themselves returning to them during periods of stress. Stabilize and process through them. Feel safe in their world. Feel seen by the other characters that see them. Feel held by the other characters that hold them. They are an internal part that finally has a body.

V. Why Losing an Anchor Character Feels Like Losing Yourself

It’s because, in a way, you are. When the somatic channel collapses, and an Anchor Character goes offline, they take things with them:

The emotional processing they enabled

The internal coherence they maintained

The safety they provided to the Part they were holding

The identity thread they carried

This is why the loss feels so destabilizing and painful. It’s the loss of access to part of oneself. And that’s a very real loss.

VI. The Kaskel Example (My Perfect Case Study)

Kaskel is not “just an OC” I like to write. He is a textbook Anchor Character. While the setting is fictional, the architecture of his mind holds some part of my material reality:

Specific developmental wound(s) and trauma map(s)

A precise Parts cluster (a hyper-vigilant protector protecting deeply buried exiles).

Exact fragments of my somatic architecture and sensory framework.

A lived experience with a synoptic mind.

Kaskel is the part of me that was never witnessed; the part that learned to survive by tracking data and, in particular, behavioral patterns in others; the part that is routinely mocked or told it is “pretentious” or “too watchful” because it remembers every detail.

When I write him, I am writing myself in a way that is indirect, clinical, and somatic. When I lost access to him due to an external environment corruption, it was a catastrophic system failure. The container vanished, and the raw data flooded my system unfiltered. It sounds melodramatic. It sounds unhinged. But I promise: It’s trauma physiology. To try to outline this as best I can without using graphics. [Real-World Stress/Threat] occurs. [Raw Data] is parsed by [Somatic Extraction] [Somatic Extraction] passes data to [Kaskel Matrix] for safe processing. IF [Relational Rupture/Data Corruption/Dissolution of Safety] System begins [Fail-Secure Lockout]. Lockout closes communication channels. [Raw Data] floods the CNS.

VII. Why Anchor Characters Are the Core of Resonant Writing

Without Anchor Characters, Resonant Writing as outlined here collapses. They are:

the interface

the processor

the vessel

the mirror

the stabilizer

the translator

the emotional architecture

the somatic conduit

I have heard them called many things. But it all comes down to some core, simple truths. They are the center of gravity. They are the reason Resonant Writers write at all. They are the mechanism through which the internal world becomes narrative. They are the heart of the entire system.

VIII. The Takeaway

Anchor Characters are not optional. They’re not aesthetic or a trope. They are the deepest mechanism of Resonant Writing; the place where the Self becomes story. They are the reason:

writing feels like survival

loss feels like grief

shutdown feels like death

safety feels like access

rupture feels like collapse

characters feel like critical organs

worlds feel like memory

I. Somatic Writing

Writing that originates in the body, not in the imagination. Somatic Writing is not a genre or aesthetic but a documented mechanism. For Resonant Writers, the creative process begins in:

interoception (internal bodily sensation)

Autonomic state (where the nervous system sits on the survival state spectrum)

Aomatic memory (trauma and experience stored in the body)

Emotional patterning

Parts clusters (sub-sections of the psyche holding specific psychological data)

Physiological coherence

The physical body generates the data. The mind translates that into narrative. This is why Resonant Writers may describe writing as: “dropping into a body.” “syncing with a character.” “feeling the scene before it’s seen.” “translating sensation into prose.” It’s not a metaphor, but interoceptive processing.

II. Interoception: The Core Mechanism

The sense that tells you what’s happening inside your body. Interoception is the brain’s ability to read:

heartbeat

breath

muscle tension

gut sensation

temperature

visceral emotion

autonomic shifts

For most people, interoception is background noise. For Resonant Writers, it’s a primary creative interface. Characters emerge from this internal data, built off of autobiographical fragments, internal Parts, nervous system patterns, and somatic memories. This is why the characters feel alive, specific, and irreplaceable to the creator. Whether reading or writing, interacting with these characters is interacting with a somatic pattern.

III. Why Resonance is Embodied

Because the nervous system decides what stories can be accessed. The autonomic state determines:

what memories are available

what emotions are accessible

what characters are online

what worlds feel "real"

what narrative threads can be followed

When regulated, the system opens. Similarly, when dysregulated, the system closes. This is why phrases like... ... “I can’t get into their body” ... “The world feels far away” ... “I can’t hear their voice” ... “The connection is gone” Are said sincerely. They mean it literally. Because it is gone. The nervous system has executed a fail-secure and withdrawn access.

IV. Third-Person Distance: Why It Helps

The cognitive trick that reduces somatic overwhelm. Third-person POV creates self-distance, which:

lowers emotional intensity

reduces physiological arousal

increases cognitive clarity

allows safer access to somatic material and traumatic experiences It’s true, it’s documented.

This is why a Resonant Writer may prefer close third, shifting third, third-person multiple, or third-person limited with somatic bleed. It’s a regulation strategy for accessing challenging or emotionally arousing materials and life experiences. First-person can feel like jumping into a frozen lake. Third-person is like standing on the dock with the thermometer. You can still measure the temperature without risking hypothermia. Where first-person and second-person can feel like it’s too much embodiment and emotional load, third-person gives enough distance to stay online.

V. Why Characters Go Offline

The neurobiological explanation. Characters can go offline as part of a normal creative iteration, and that is not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about the involuntary, painful shutdown. Characters disappear when the somatic channel collapses. This can happen when:

the nervous system enters shutdown

the body perceives threat

allostatic load is exceeded

relational rupture destabilizes the system

a Parts cluster becomes activated or dormant in the real world

the interoceptive signal is disrupted.

When the channel collapses, it’s felt as a character’s disappearance, emotional tethers dissolving, or the world going dark. This is not “writer’s block.” It’s not “losing interest.” It’s not “dramatics” or “lack of discipline.” It’s a neurobiological severing of access. You can argue the character didn’t die, but the pathway to access did.

VI. Why Emotional Rupture = Creative Shutdown

The body treats relational instability as a threat. Resonant Writers are wired so that relational safety, emotional stability, and CNS regulation are prerequisites for creative access. When ruptures occur, even mild ones, the body interprets danger, instability, and unpredictability. Or, more simply: Threat. The autonomic system responds to this by:

withdrawing energy from non-essential functions

shutting down interoceptive access

collapsing somatic channels

breaking down creative architecture

It’s the same mechanism that can cause emotional flatlining and dissociation. It’s not punishment, but protection. Creativity is a luxury function, and when the system is overwhelmed, luxuries are cut first. When the lights go out in your area, don’t argue with the breaker. Wait for the power company to fix it.

VII. To Summarize

Resonant Writing is a somatic process governed by multiple neurobiological processes, including Parts systems, interoception, and safety. When the system is online, creativity flows. When the system is offline, creativity disappears. Understanding the physiology is the first step towards understanding:

why someone writes the way they do

why they might lose characters

why ruptures can hit creativity so hard

why safety can matter to creativity

I. DEFINITIONS

Affective Writer A writer whose creative process is driven by emotional expression, imaginative play, and external warmth. Their creativity is fueled by:

emotional momentum

relational energy

imaginative stimulation

external validation loops

social engagement

catharsis

Their system is externalized: Emotion -> Expression -> Connection. Resonant Writer A writer whose creative process is tied to their nervous system, somatic state, and internal safety. Their creativity is fueled by:

interoception

somatic data

autobiographical extraction

internal coherence

relational stability

nervous system regulation

Their system is internalized: Sensation -> Meaning -> Narrative.

II. AFFECTIVE WRITER: BASELINE, MECHANICS, GOALS, TECHNIQUES

Baseline State Affective Writers create their best when they feel:

emotionally activated

inspired

socially connected

energized

validated

expressive

Their creativity thrives on emotional momentum. Mechanics Affective writing is powered by:

emotional catharsis

imaginative improvisation

associative thinking

external stimuli (music, prompts, vibes)

character “play”

Characters are often:

avatars

narrative tools

emotional amplifiers

imaginative companions

Goals Affective Writers often aim for:

emotional expression

connection with readers

catharsis

exploration

fun

thematic resonance

Techniques: Common affective techniques include:

fast drafting

writing to music

emotional ramping

improvisational scenes

dialogue-driven momentum

“follow the vibe” plotting

The system is flexible, expressive, and socially energized.

III. RESONANT WRITER: BASELINE, MECHANICS, GOALS, TECHNIQUES

Baseline State Resonant Writers create their best when they feel:

safe

grounded

regulated

connected to their internal world

somattically stable

emotionally coherent

Their creativity thrives on the regulation of the nervous system. Mechanics Resonant writing is powered by:

interoceptive data

somatic proximity

autobiographical extraction

internal Parts clusters (where applicable)

emotional truth

relational safety

Characters are often:

somatic vessels

autobiographical mirrors

psychological processors

trauma interfaces

Goals Resonant Writers often aim for:

internal coherence

emotional truth

somatic accuracy

psychological realism

narrative processing

survival

Techniques Common resonant techniques include:

deep embodiment

sensory anchoring

slow, layered drafting

character-driven structure

somatic pacing

writing only when the system is online

This system is precise, immersive, and physiologically bound.

IV: DIMENSIONS OF DIFFERENCE

A structured comparison across key creative domains. Below is my attempt at a clean taxonomy.

Focus Affective: Emotion -> Expression -> Connection Resonant: Sensation -> Meaning -> Narrative

Pacing Affective: Fast, momentum-driven, improvisational Resonant: Slow, layered, somatically paced

Mechanism Affective: Emotional amplification (“I feel something -> I write it out”) Resonant: Somatic extraction (“I sense something -> I translate it”)

Perspective Affective: Externalized (“How does this make me feel?”) Resonant: Internalized (“What does this sensation mean?”)

Scope Affective: Expansive, imaginative, exploratory Resonant: Focused, intimate, embodied

Character Purpose Affective: Characters as expressive tools (avatars, emotional amplifiers, narrative devices) Resonant: Characters as part of themselves (somatic vessels, autobiographical mirrors, Parts clusters)

Conflict Resolution (Narrative) Affective: Driven by emotional arcs, catharsis, and thematic payoff Resonant: Driven by psychological truth, internal logic, and somatic coherence

Safety Mechanisms Affective: Low risk of shutdown, high adaptability, can write through chaos Resonant: High risk of shutdown, low adaptability, cannot write through threats

V. WHY THIS COMPARISON MATTERS

Because Resonant Writers often misdiagnose themselves as:

inconsistent

dramatic

blocked

undisciplined

unreliable

"not real writers"

And Affective writers often misinterpret Resonant Writers as:

manipulative

guilt-tripping

overreacting

catastrophizing

using writing as leverage

None of which is true. These are two completely different creative operating systems, each with its own:

inputs

outputs

requirements

vulnerabilities

shutdown conditions

I hope that naming it can help build a bridge to understanding on both sides of this experience (and any other systems out there I am not accounting for). In doing so, I hope to help prevent:

self-blame

interpersonal conflict

miscommunication

shame

burnout

ruptures

Resonance as a Creative State

For a Resonant Writer, creativity isn’t a mental exercise, but a nervous-system state. When the system is regulated, grounded, and safe, writing can feel... ... clarifying ... connecting ... immersive ... inevitable ... like truth When the system is destabilized, writing can quickly become... ... impossible ... painful ... dissonant ... unsafe ... entirely offline It isn’t moodiness. It isn’t “writer’s block.” It isn’t a lack of discipline. What’s happening has a physiological basis: the body decides whether it is safe enough to grant creative access.

The Body as the Interface

I do not “invent” characters in the traditional sense. It’s more like... I extract them... from my Self. These characters emerge as... ... somatic echoes ... autobiographical fragments ... emotional proxies ... sensory containers ... psychological mirrors ... Parts clusters My characters are not costumes, avatars, or toys. They feel more like internal organs with names. This is why I (and others like me) might say things like: “I can’t feel them anymore.” “They’re gone.” “The character is dead.” “The world is offline.” “The connection is broken.” To an outsider who has never existed within this space, it sounds dramatic. But these are not metaphors. They are accurate descriptions of a somatic event.

Why Safety Matters

For a Resonant Writer, creativity is a high-voltage circuit that requires... ... emotional safety ... relational stability ... cognitive clarity ... somatic grounding When those conditions are present, the circuit moves a lot of power. But when they’re not, the breaker flips, and the system goes offline to protect itself. This is not an optional process. It’s not a choice or a vibe. It’s a neurobiological fail-safe. Polyvagal Theory refers to this as a dorsal vagal shutdown. Trauma psychology calls it protective inhibition. I, a weirdo deeply entrenched in tech, call it deprovisioning. Different fields, same mechanisms: When the system perceives a threat, it cuts power to non-essential functions. For a Resonant Writer, creativity is one of those functions.

We Really Do Lose Characters, Storylines, and Worlds

This needs to be said plainly: This loss is real, and it can be permanent. While it can occur as part of normal events or even be a positive process, we need to discuss the involuntary loss. It’s not because we “forget” or “lose interest.” We haven’t “moved on.” It’s the collapse of the somatic and cognitive pathways that sustained the character or world. When this internal channel goes offline, everything held within goes with it. The loss can feel physical, grief-like, and disorienting. Sometimes even identity-adjacent. It is a loss due to a neurobiological severing of access, and that deserves to be named.

Fact vs. Fault: The Impact of Loss

First, let’s get one thing straight and two things gay: An impact statement describes what happened. A blame statement assigns moral judgment. Fault describes what caused it. These are not the same thing. Because shutdowns can be triggered by external pressures or rupture, people outside this experience often misinterpret the communications around as a social gambit (a type of manipulation). They hear: “The world is offline because of this drama,” and they assume it’s a threat, a guilt-trip, or blame. But we must separate fault from impact: Reporting a server crash due to overload is not the service provider’s fault. Nor is it a moral judgment on users who tried to access the service. I’m not blaming the user for trying to use the service. I’m saying the server is down. Fix the grid, don’t yell at the outage. An impact statement is not a punishment, but a map of cause and effect. And crucially: It’s not something the listener can fix on their own. This mechanism does not outsource its repair. It might be helpful to consider these as reading a system error log and returning a 503 code aloud. It is a statement of fact. That fact requires structural accountability, not defensive pivotting. But it’s not something you alone can fix.

Why Resonant Writing Feels Different

Now, I promise I’m not trying to pat myself on the back here or flex my ego. This is not a “not like all the other kids” scenario. But there are some behaviors I’ve observed in the broader writing community that just do not seem to apply. Resonant Writers don’t write about feelings... we write from them. We don’t write about bodies... we write through them. We don’t write about trauma... we write with it. It seems like for many of us, this can make our prose feel... ... dense ... atmospheric ... emotionally precise ... psychologically layered ... somatically tethered The way that I write isn’t stylistic. It’s the natural output of a system that processes reality through narrative. Because the writing is generated from somatic data rather than intellectual construction, the prose often carries a density and urgency that feels lived rather than imagined. Of course, this mileage may vary based on skill, life experience, and analytical tools like tone checkers.

Why This Matters

A Note on Terminology: As I pulled research across trauma psychology, somatic writing, narrative therapy, cognitive science, and creative studies, I noticed something strange:

Sometimes it felt like I was describing something well-known and well-defined. Other times, it felt like I was naming an experience that had never been formally defined.

What I am certain of is this: I am not the only one who writes this way. Across disciplines, genres, and communities, there are countless accounts that mirror these patterns.

Whether “Resonant Writer” already exists in scattered forms or under different names is less important than the fact that the phenomenon is real, recognizable, and shared.

This series is not about claiming a label, but mapping a shared experience.

Common Usage vs Technical Usage

Common Usage (Google’s Cursory Search)

“Resonant Writing” usually refers to writing that emotionally resonates with the reader. Meaning:

It evokes strong feelings

It has thematic depth

It lingers

It connects with universal experiences

This is a reader-facing definition that describes the effect of writing, not the process that created it. It’s the “wow, that made me cry” metric. But let’s be honest: knowing a story made you cry doesn’t tell you if the author’s brain is currently on fire. That’s the difference between the effect and the engine.

Technical Usage (What I Am Describing)

In this framework, a Resonant Writer is defined by how their nervous system interacts with their creative process.

This is a writer-facing definition that describes the mechanism, not the effect.

Working Definition

A Resonant Writer is a writer whose creative process is directly tied to their real-time nervous system, somatic state, and emotional safety. Their characters function as internal extractions. They are vessels that hold autobiographical, sensory, and psychological data. The writer’s ability to create depends on the stability of the relational environment around them. When safety is compromised, the creative system undergoes a neurobiological shutdown (which I call “deprovisioning”), causing characters and worlds to go offline—sometimes permanently.

This definition is grounded in established research across:

Somatic psychology

Trauma-informed writing

Narrative identity

Interoception

Polyvagal theory

Allostatic load

Cognitive Processing

Full sources will be listed in another post and linked on the hub/nav.

Key Concepts

Based on my early draft, you can expect these terms to appear throughout the series.

Affective Writer: A contrasting creative system where writing is driven by emotional expression, escapism, and social connection, typically powered by an external validation loop and immediate emotional warmth.

Allostatic Load: The cumulative wear and tear on the nervous system from chronic stress or trauma; the biological “budget” that determines whether creative systems can remain online.

Anchor Characters: Highly specific characters that function as vessels for the author’s raw autobiographical, sensory, or psychological truth.

Deprovisioning: A neurobiological shutdown of creative access triggered by relational ruptures, boundary violations, allostatic load, or otherwise destabilizing events. Think of it like a circuit breaker. You don’t argue with the breaker when it trips; you just stop trying to plug in the toaster. The power is gone. Deal with it.

Somatic Proximity: Prose that acts as a direct physical transaction of the body. The narrative voice mirrors the characters and, by extension, the authors’ real-time physiological symptoms and nervous systems.