Help me work this out...

Merck Manual Dissociative Identity Disorder

and also interesting

Merck Manual Dissociative Fugue

One of my theories is that Eric has Dissociative Identity Disorder (multiple personalities). I think Mr. Nobody, Scout, Trey Fidorous, Mycroft Ward, Eric 1 and Eric 2 are possibly Eric's personalities. The interactions and struggles they have between themselves may represent the inner turmoil Actual Eric is experiencing.

"Dissociative identity disorder is characterized by 2 or more identities or personalities that alternate and by an inability to recall important information relating to some of the identities. What is not known by one identity may be known by another. Some identities may appear to know and interact with others in an elaborate inner world."


-The cause is attributed to overwhelming stress (regret, remorse, sadness, and guilt from Clio's death).
-Symptoms include time distortions, time lapses and frequent bouts of amnesia.
-The person may refer to himself in a different tense (such as 'first' Eric and 'second' Eric).
-Treatment* aims to facilitate cooperation and collaboration among the identities to reduce symptoms ( ex: Scout, Eric and Fidorous all need to cooperate and collaborate to fix their 'individual' problems.)
* not necessarily clinical treatment, spontaneously and subconsciously I think this is what Eric is trying to achieve

"For someone with this disorder an ideal outcome would be integration of the identity states. As the reasons for the dissociations are addressed, therapy can move to the point at which the patient's selves and relationships and social functioning can be reconnected, integrated and rehabilitated. Some of this may occur spontaneously. " Throughout the story the identities has tiffs and conflicts, but only when they work together do they overcome their struggle.

We already know that Eric 1 and Eric 2 are the same person, but different personalities.

Mr. Nobody says he and Eric are the "same dead not-person". Obvious allusion? They're both wearing blue shirts and when Eric starts to become sweaty like Nobody, he freaks out. Nobody was once plagued by a Ludovician (like Eric). Eric's ludovician eats Nobody so he must be a part of Eric, right? I think there is more to the relationship with Nobody and Eric but I can't put my finger on it.

When Eric asks if Nobody's employer (Mycroft Ward) works for Fidorous he says "No, although you could say that he founded the school and my employer expanded on it." Didn't Eric 1 study under Fidorous and expand on his theories? Thus Eric could be Mycroft Ward? Nobody is revealed to be part of Ward so if that is true, Ward must be part of Eric?

We are also led to believe that Ward wants Scout. He sort of wants to erase her and make her part of him. This could represent part of Eric that just wants to erase Clio, which could be supported by Eric giving away all of her stuff and throwing away her pictures...

Fidorous could be an identity that serves the use of giving Eric 2 information and bridging characters. He is a bridge between Eric 1 and 2 and then also Scout and Eric 2 when they are at a point that may compromise the purpose of the journey.

Eric and Scout appear tp have different reasons for achieving the same goal. Scout (who represents Clio) doesn't want to be erased and Eric doesn't want his memories to be erased.

The shark personifies Eric's emotional struggle. Throughout the book we believe, as does Eric, that it is a conceptual shark. At the end, Eric says "I'm ready to look at you now, I know what you are and I'm ready to see you properly." This line implies that the shark is not what Eric thought it was, and he is now ready to confront what is really is. Then the shark is described as "memories, regrets, wishes, sadness, happiness and dreams."

This all seemed so clear to me when I thought of it earlier but I can't do this idea justice right now. I can't remember all of my points right now and the more I add to it, the less sense it makes. So tell me what you think. Does anybody else see this? Any supporting/disproving evidence? Agree disagree?