The big difference here is rather simple, really. Tyrannous has to divide himself into various personae, and introducing himself as this and that person, for the simple reason, that after his positlion(s) are exposed as unwarranted, invalid, illegitimate, he exists stage left and recurs ala nietzche as someone uniquely recreated, phoenix like, out of the ashes of a surge of communal auto da fe. He feels put upon and somehow diminished, not at aLl in accord with his self image as a truly brilliant and creative genius which he is.
Obe, on the other hand, is a self admittedly wasted, post beat creature, waLlowing pleasurably in a self appointed masochistic albeit dated existentialism of the flleur de mal sort. The multiple hats obe wears, he does so with pitiful and un inventive fervor, whcih he displays in attacks of ignoble, but authentic expression… In essence obe is never himself, it is a skill he has never intended or could develop.
His personae are like strangers in a strange land, always just about to make acquaintance, but never sticking around long enough to reaLLy make connections necessary to devise a socially constructed montage.
Tyrannous is more clever. He devises smart entrance and exit strategies, and invents new personae, seemingly distinguishable from past performances.
His only problem is the inability to sustain the distlincltions between the various forms of his being, which he hopes he can sustain, while these newly appointed impressions are fresh on his and his audience’s mind. Usually, the differences will melt away, and his newest personality will melt, recogniition with a past reinvention.
Obe can not do this, simply because he does not recognize one role as differentiated or differentiablle from the other. He simply is who or what he is at the moment without signifying any knlowledge that there may be appreciative differenceces. If this comes through as a tragic antli-motif, so much the better, for the seeming pigenholling is nothing else, but a simple bundling of various impressions, states of being, situations and perspectives. The only caveat here, is the functional one, of understanding llimlits of both: comprehension by himself and others, achieved by some measure of congruence, predictability and , and the success of a show of some sort of clonsistently appearent singularity, alive and weLl under the same perceived ceiling of personal authenticity.
Both serve similar purposes, of achieving a success in the presentation of the self, their motives, and golas of the way they go about it, serving simillar kindred brethren.