I am really interested in the movie Stranger than Fiction for more reasons than one. I have seen it several times, but I never really had reason to try to examine it until we watched it for this class. So upon examining it, I had a few realizations.
I am fascinated by the concept that the film juggles so many different things. Romance, comedy, tragedy, fear of dying, and so many more. But what I found most intriguing was the relationship between an author and her work. I have never really tried to imagine what it would be like to be the author/murderer of a hero before. I think the relationship between Karen and Harold is highly representative of an author's relationship with her work- obviously this changes when she realizes that she is really narrating the life of a real person. But it made me wonder- is there something to be gained by letting works talk back? To clarify, I mean to say that perhaps an author could create a sort of imaginative space where he/she could converse with his/her character, ask him/her questions, etc. I am sure that there are some authors that do use this method. But I wonder if it helps the writing process gain some insight?
Perhaps this is all too imagined and hypothetical, but I think that this could make a difference in literature. Imagine a dialogue between you and your blog. Does your blog want you to say what you are saying? Does your point feel like it has been made? Does your cause feel fought for? I guess what I am trying to present is the idea that maybe if we could give our works an opportunity to talk back, we can achieve a higher level of understanding of ourselves as writers, as well as a better grasp of what exactly the story we're trying to tell is.
1 comment:
You know, as I was blogging, I ended my blog with a sentence that suggested writers should "listen" to their work in order to have a symbiotic relationship. But then I deleted it because I thought it sounded too "out there," which is why I'm glad to be reading this lol. I do agree though that in the movie, Harold Crick seems to have a strange amount of influence over whether he gets to live or die. Which makes sense, I guess, because who would want to paint Karen Eiffel as some inhumane woman who doesn't care about killing off innocents? I did feel like Queen Latifah's character had a bit of a "why should you care" persona going on, which I found really strange.
But I think the idea of "listening" to your work is extremely important, because Eiffel provided the narration. But Crick seemed to be somewhat resisting (like when he ceased action for that span of time). How effective can your work be if the text is working against your narrative? And it may seem like gibberish, but it can happen! To all of us, and I know it has happened to me before.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.