Pride and Delusion

In the interest of getting to know each other a bit, three (four) of the four (Five) in my house went out together a couple of weekends ago. I think also it was because Eva, the Chinese girl, had finished her dissertation and she and Neil (her boyfriend) wanted to celebrate. All the same, it was nice of them to invite the rest of us along.
-
So, anyway we went and watched Pride and Prejudice, the new version. I can't say it was good as the BBC version, especially in the portrayal of Mr Darcy, but it was good enough.
-
Watching the film I caught myself thinking that I was a bit like Mr Darcy. (Someone else said I was like Mr Darcy when watching it about 18 months ago but I think that person has since, drastically reconsidered) Then I thought: 'I always do that, I always find myself vainly thinking the most noble character in the piece is a bit like me'. Though, I can't say I'm as noble or quite so stiff as Mr Darcy. When watching The Office, I imagine I'm most like Tim with a bit of Keith and Gareth thrown in. And when reading Much ado about Nothing, I thought maybe I was a bit like Benedick. I can't say I've ever identified with any of Clint Eastward's characters though. I usually find his characters a bit distasteful. And superman does nothing for me, he has no weakness (kryptonite excepted) that I can identify with. Batman and Spiderman are much more frail characters and for the reason generate more pathos.

So, I'm wondering, does everyone do this? What characters do you identify with? I imagine women mainly, though not exclusively, identify with female characters and men with male ones. Presumably, men who like Clint Eastward's characters have some sort of macho ideal. I presumably don't. I guess it's a literary ploy to get the reader/viewer involved.

Thinking about superman reminds me of Jesus in John's gospel. In John, Jesus knows everything in advance and seemingly exists largely to give 'the Jews' a good pasting. I guess to John's first readers, who had probably just been expelled from the synagogues, this was pure gold. But to me, in my context, it doesn't work so well. Despite the tears of blood in Gethsemane John's Jesus is too much of an 'ubermensh' (I only use that word for the sake of sounding educated) and at times comes across as petulant.

It's fortunate for me that most regard the synoptic accounts much more trustworthy when it comes to historicity. Hopefully, these scholars aren't using the same criteria as I am for their selection.