‘Liar’ by the Rollins Band — singing about a sociopath

Rollins isn’t a sociopath. He just plays one on TV!

All right, I couldn’t resist that line, when it is such a well-known cliché! 🙂 But it seems to be literally true of Rollins. He has indeed played numerous “bad guys” on TV and in film. including one that an interviewer described outright as a “sociopath,” adding that the hate-filled character in question–a far right-wing racist Nazi skinhead type, with “I Kill Niggers” tattooed across his chest (as you can see from the photograph in this interview on “theindiespiritualist.com” was, quote, “the complete opposite“ of Rollins himself. And he’s not the only person to say so.

Among other things Rollins has notably liberal views, though he is a “free thinker.” He has tattoos of his own, as has been pointed out here, but not that obnoxious one! In fact he said about playing that particular role:

most of those biker guys you see in the show are the nicest people you’d care to meet. All those tattoos on their arms are decals, so there’s a lot of artifice in the world of movies and TV and everyone kind of laughs it off and goes home.

The guy is an actor, and it’s a cardinal error to confuse a mere actor with the characters he plays. So Rollins freaks some people out? Off the top of my head, so have many actors who’ve played creepy, violent, villainous or monstrous roles in film. The late Christopher Lee comes to mind, who played the evil Saruman in Lord of the Rings–but he really wanted to play Gandalf! Still, Christopher Lee had a long history of playing creepy characters in horror films–notably Count Dracula!–often playing opposite Peter Cushing as an opponent. In real life the two were good friends, and Lee was one of the nicest guys in the world, who thoroughly deserved his knighthood for services to the arts and to charity.

Admittedly Rollins is an angry man, and he freely admits it himself. But merely being “angry” doesn’t make anyone a sociopath. He seems to be one of these people who are angry, not so much for themselves, but about “the way the world is”–they can’t truly appreciate why it can’t be “better” than is–and that frustrates them. A lot of left-leaning agitators are like that; angrier than they need to be. If only they could find inner peace, understanding and contentment instead of bashing their heads against a brick wall so much of the time, which only causes them more pain as well as the trouble they make for the rest of us. (In all fairness, no doubt the same is true of many far right-wingers.)

Of course, that’s not the whole story of Rollins’s emotional makeup. When I watched the Fanning interview–at least four times to make sure!–despite being told that he “gave a lot of personal information during the interview,” I didn’t hear him say one single thing about himself! So I don’t know where that notion come from. Was something he said misheard or misunderstood? I admit that I myself didn’t quite catch his opening words in the interview the first couple of times around:

A lot of Australian men, when questioned on toughness and “not showing emotion,” will say “That’s how we grew up. Our fathers never showed emotion. Our mates never showed emotion. We aren’t supposed to show emotion…

I missed the phrase about “Australian men” at first, and I did think Rollins was talking about himself and his own experience of life. (Though I did wonder why he used the Aussie word “mates” rather than “buddies.”) But in reality he said nothing at all about himself; all he did was ask questions of Fanning.

Of course, we’re always free to speculate what anyone might be implying about themselves when they ask a question of anyone else. The superficial implication of such a question is that Rollins sees the experience of Australian men as different from his own. But is that true? We can’t deny that countless men, American as well as men all over the world, have reported that experience: of being taught “not to show emotion.” Not all men, to be sure (despite certain stereotypes), but many men, without doubt. Could Rollins have been sharing a part of himself without actually saying so? Without wanting to be sexist about this, just as many men “can’t understand women,” some women have a hard time understanding the subtler ways in which men often bond and relate to one another.

If this was Rollins’s own experience as well, it would certainly help to explain his own reluctance to “show emotion” in so many appearances–not “soft” emotions at any rate, though “anger” is acceptable–and the admittedly “flat” delivery of his questions in the Fanning interview that “freedomformydaughter” saw as having “no heart.” I think that’s just a perception, and Rollins was indeed intrigued by how Fanning handled the emotional aspects of his life. That could very well have resonated with similar struggles in Rollins’s own emotional life–which he’d naturally hide from the world for reasons already stated. Still, simply being inhibited about showing emotion doesn’t in itself make anyone a “sociopath.”

I have to admit that “Search and Destroy” tattoo on his back looks like a big “black flag”!–if I may be forgiven the allusion! 😉 It’s not something I’d want to wear myself. He offered his explanation of his tattoo on this interview with an unnamed “female interviewer,” giving a rather convoluted metaphorical interpretation of this “search and destroy” concept. I personally think the guy just enjoys projecting a “macho” persona, and this is another example of it–just as he ends up playing so many “tough guy” roles. But again, projecting a macho persona doesn’t in itself make anyone a sociopath.

Still, I wouldn’t have bothered posting about this if it hadn’t been for other observers with the same impression of Rollins: that his real personality is quite opposite from the characters he plays. Somebody named Rae Alexander remarked on sfweekly.com (that’s San Francisco, folks, not “Science Fiction”!) that despite the roles he plays, Rollins is

an articulate, sensitive, deeply intelligent, incredibly sympathetic, all-round-likeable dude.

He seems to be sincere in the causes he campaigns for. It’s striking that he’s a noted supporter of LGBT rights, despite not being gay himself–apparently because a gay classmate in high school was bullied to the point of attempting suicide. He’s also campaigned for World Hunger Relief and an end to war–though he has toured to entertain troops in addition: it’s not the troops’ fault that wars happen, after all. An eclectic mix of causes, to be sure.

It’s hard to reconcile such a caring attitude with being a sociopath. Apparently he’s not into drugs or booze either, the way a great many musicians regrettably are. But I do have to agree with Donna that his “Liar” song is informed by experience he’s acquired from somewhere. Whether it’s his own experience as a past victim, or somebody else’s experience, remains to be seen. I see the song more as a warning to people than anything.