When you have a protagonist whose defining trait is sitting in a room all by himself (no cameras allowed please), you are compelled to, almost from a standpoint of craft(no need to get into debates of the writer's psyche :) to hook the narrative on a flaw or a trait propulsive enough to carry the whole movie forward . . . this problem doesnt quite exist with "active" protags say like a cop or a FBI agent (or Black ops or whatever is the fashionable killer these days) who can be normal and great and have flaws just enough for basic humanization because they can go out and save the world,...imagine a writer protagonist who is normal etc...there is nothing interesting about him in "action"--he is only as good as the words in his mind ( = no movie) of course, exceptions exist ( i am thinking romancing the stone--but isnt she mostly writer in name only)but thats my basic point.

What bugs me about the Paris review piece is: 1) Its smarty pants at the level of ignoring what the movie is as a product (its NOT a piece on a writers psyche - so really no need to delve on that point to such a degree) 2) For that plot to work you need a beat up and down and out guy (hello! thats why he needs the pill) - he could just as easily have been a [insert whatever profession] -- 3) Its wrong to say the writer character in Adaptation was perverted - in fact he was the opposite - very vulenarble and human all in pursuit of a higher ideal