March 13, 2015 by musehick
I had an idea of what I was going to write he and it totally evaporated. Ah, and returned. I realised that I don’t always assign people who I interact with an interior voice; it is as if they are mere cyphers who I must communicate to merely to fulfil the function of some part of a game, and nothing else.
This seems somehow wrongs to me, but is perhaps not that uncommon. You can’t get to know everyone, right? And the few sentences you exchange with certain people is hardly enough to make the relationship memorable. Is it not true that at times like this you operate by rules, such as politeness, not out of any concern for the individual, rather for the fact that you cannot progress through the game if you fail to pass the test.
Some people you do strike up an immediate affinity for, and it can progress beyond a mere functional relationship, but is it bad if it doesn’t? Maybe, maybe not.
I know I generally tend to relate this to writing, and I suppose any exploration of the human condition, is relevant to all that. Work out some of these puzzles and create more human art, create something that speaks to you and to others.
Is it that I don’t care? Don’t need to care? Or require some amount of distance to play my own role in the unfolding human drama that is life? This isn’t an either/or universe, and it suggest nothing bad about you if you acknowledge all three things as having some truth in them.
Some theorist might some day offer up the theory that as a writer I populate my worlds with those people who I failed to grant an interiority to in life … I would call bullshit on that. I won’t lie though, sometimes not knowing someone’s real story allows a lot more freedom for inspiration and storytelling to enter in.
Wrap it up nicely, that’s the thought, but sometimes? Stories taper out on a fraying edge, and that is all you get …