| = . | Veronica Vãleanu [06.May.12 16:00] |
| there, I would keep fish], because [fishes] means types of fish and is used to make the context more specific [lover] seems somehow too much, it hasn't been triggered it by the premises and giving the fact that there should be a word capable of making the ending stronger - I think [lover] does nothing but weaken the ending the structure of the text seems to be lacking smth in the midddle - I can feel that. the transit from whatever triggers/causes action to the effect is too direct, maybe even abrupt. there must be some little room for the course of action. | |
| = . | nica mãdãlina [06.May.12 16:13] |
| veronica, you are maybe right. I used fishes not only because of the rhythm, but also for the diversity. this diversity is the only element, except the phantoms, able to give some diversity to an ordinary context. the end is an irony towards the eros part of the loving process. there is no middle because there is no course of action, considering the fact that there is no real action, no happenning (in the theatrical sense of the word), but a rapid inner process, something like a flash of consciouness, and not the full comprehension of a fact or a state of mind. | |
| = M | Veronica Vãleanu [06.May.12 19:56] |
| I was thinking that I should probably give full credit to this idea/principle when I had this flash: even if some course of action/let's call it "body" so we shouldn't forget about its importance- so, even if we allow a certain weight for it/ we make it weightless and hide it, it's impossible for the body not to exist. or, it's the objective of writing up and out. I think from a theatrical perspective , what you said about the body is possible within a larger pool, among ranges of sequenced facts and feedbacks, responding one another or choosing not to. but here should be a more condensed pool, yes, intense too. and without the "body' it's as if the consciousness were alert only to the signal of the premise, ready to provide almost simultaneously a decision-conclusion I was just thinking about that and trying to see the pattern, not really willing to stifle your point of view, so, I accept a counter-position if there is one, | |
| = . | nica mãdãlina [06.May.12 21:15] |
| I was saying it s not a happenning in the theatrical sense what yoy are saying abouth that body is valid, but my point of view is that reality is perception in some cases (the case of this text being one) so, if that body doesn t exist on my perception it really doesn t exist I can agree that the switch is perhaps to abrupt, but it s like the sensation of breaking a neck. then you die. it s sudden, even if that neck was previously carressed for a little while. I wish I could talk more with you about what you said, about what I have to say, but, as you see, my english is poor and the ideas you suggest and/or sustain and my inner reaction to them aren t. we could therefore resume once I have more means to this end. | |
| = er | nica mãdãlina [06.May.12 21:16] |
| in my perception, sorry. | |
| = . | Veronica Vãleanu [06.May.12 21:37] |
| it's not poor at all I know that you meant theatrical consciousness , an experiencing one but the act of writing up a text does have its theatrical side in the process but there is a "body" that goes all out to perform all that, for a certain purpose :) I just needed the body in order not to see the performance plain, or assisted-to-be-performed indeed, there should be a more consistent discussion for our principles | |
| = . | nica mãdãlina [06.May.12 21:50] |
| it s somehow like the stuff (soorry for the term) I was discussing with a fried of mine, some hours ago. he was telling me about the fact that he was thinking about the fact that something was surprising him while he was being surprised. I was telling him how I d rather be surprised without thinking about it while I m letting myself being surprised. but you have a point when saying it s different for the reader, when he or she (in your case) needs something the text doesn t offer. it s like the difference between an aparte (in theatre), adressed to the public and something (a random thought, for instance) a character says only for himself, but the spectactor (this words exists?) is nevertheless still able to hear. | |