There is always an antagonist--even in observation journals. I met The Grasper quite a long time ago. There's no denying that The Grasper and The Drifter have quite a many thing in common. Both have the capacity for thought, and both have the capacity for rallying opinions. Both can have their way with words, twisting ideals. The difference between them is their natural tendencies.
Both can go from person to person retrieving information. Both will store and utilize this information, and recycle and rejuvenate it. They can manipulate it into creativity and productivity; but The Drifter remains opinionless. No matter the way her heart may beat for a subject, she exercises a front of steel and will simultaneously empathize and judge accordingly. The ideal middleman. The Grasper is the complete opposite. Sometimes, opposites attract. Others, they clash in matters of simple, one-sided prejudice. While one will simply accept everything and either dismiss or embrace it, the other will simply hold onto everything as her personality bids her to do. When Grasper finally meets Drifter, the impassioned Grasper will very easily take offense to a Drifter's nonchalant nature. I've witnessed it many times, and none of them are pretty.
Truthfully, I know the difference between them. The Grasper is usually religious, empathic, enthusiastic about a select few, and will console with words of simple comfort. The Drifter is a liberal, calculating, open to all opinion, and will console with a view for what can be done; looking for solutions rather than covering up what was done. Another view? The Grasper is a dreamer, and the Drifter is a realist. Not to say that they cannot have a few characteristics of creativity or solidity the same, but in the end it is what causes one to hate the other.
Which is correct? I'm not sure. It's simply personality. It's the very thing I am trying to understand.