Last updated: 2009-09-22 by Frank; via: fleeding AT hotmail DOT com See also: -[TEXT: Literature & stuff]- (The Borges Library) -[JavaScript]- (pkda2001-java)


(ways of approaching atech) -[intro]- (mfa: Scope, ideas, b/g, etc) -[Non-fiction fictions]- (beyond the filmic traditions) -[]- -[]- -[]- -[]- -[stats [1]]- (stats tutorial) -[stats [2]]- (apps, links, etc)
(beyond the filmic traditions) First off, filmic and the traditional narrative has a beginnng, middle and end - and usually a nicely satisfying ending where things are all tied up. The fact that as earlier as Molier were writers at least wondering how this stage life was relatable to "normal life" gives us a clue that something IS wrong. Film/Theatre/Novels as escapist literature, or as sermons by the author (or at the behest of the keepers of public morality) is one thing, but we are faced with boredom - which is what the distraction was of from in the first place. We can imagine the universe of fictive works to be in a sort of plenum (filled space of ideas) that i envision might well look like this The Existentialist ) ( ) ^ ( ) || ( ) || ( T ) || ( T h ) || The ( h e ) || normal ( e ) || fictive ( Sur ) || flow ( A R ) || ( B e ) || (or at ( S a ) || least ( urd L ) || the ( ) || possible ( ) || range) ( ) || ( ) V ( ) ( ) ( The Romantic We can of course give examples of each of these domains and how the flow of the narrative draws from or dips into each of these. We know that the STYLES of writing can influence the way that the narrative proceeds; the most common of which are 1st and 3rd person, as well as SOC (stream of consciousness). It is the last of these that interests us most since it is in this context (and method) that many of the barriers of the traditional novel are broken down. Take for example "Breakfast of Champions" by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. At first the intrusions into the flow seem after thoughts and points that he wants us to especially get. Paragraphs start with "Now listen" or "Look, ", etc. Finally, in the end he closes everything up in the last few pages and finally states what has been apparent since Diderot disolved the barrier (slightly) between the reader, the read (red), and the writer: [When the character Kilgore Trout doubts that Vonnegut IS the creator of his life, he says,] "Are you cazy?," he said. "No, I said. And i shattered his power to doubt me. I transported him to the Taj Mahal and then to Venice and then to Dar es Salaam and then to the surfact of the Sun, where the flames could not consume him -- and then backk to Midland City again. [Vonnegut, Breakfast, P. 299] Note that this "outing" is EXACTLY what we do with theatre (and to a lessor extent with film) - we ask the audience's induclgence and the key "suspension of disblief". But, more importantly (like Vonnegut's transported Mr. Trout), we dissolve the HERE-NESS of the narrative. Simon's "PLaza Suite" is in a hotel in New York because we say it is - or the bell hop or one of the characters or the "guide du performance" that we merrily hand out along with the caution "Please silence all phones". We create the fiction of the fiction (even if it is NOT fiction; eg, "The Diary of Anne Frank" or "The Larramie Project") by the setting of the stage, the separation of the audience from the presenters, etc. We intrude soud, music, fx, etc -- all to bring back levels of verasimilitude that we so earnestly are hoping to negate, re-arrange, and re-write to our heart's content. So, where do we go from here?
Site hosted by Build your free website today!