Wednesday, July 02, 2008

I've written the first three pages of Chapter 4 so far to-day, and it's coming a little slower than I expected. I scrapped an idea I had for the first part and replaced it with a better one--I'd had both ideas for a while and knew I wanted to go with one or the other but didn't make up my mind until to-day. The one I abandoned seemed a bit redundant and any new information it contained can be established later if absolutely necessary.

This morning I watched Miyuki-chan in Wonderland. I suspect the manga's a bit better, though I really can't say for sure as the thirty minute anime was only mildly interesting. And it didn't seem to be based on the Lewis Carroll books so much as the Disney movie, and only a dim memory of that movie. Erotic Alice in Wonderland is a fine idea--and far from a new one--but this was not a terribly interesting execution.

The only other thing I've done to-day is some research for what I suspect shall be Chapter 6. Last night, I read more of Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption, which I'm continuing to enjoy. I've spotted one or two flaws, but they don't really seem to matter. People talk differently in Stephen King books, they think differently. And yet credibly. You can't quite put your finger on what the distinction is, but it's there, and it gives the whole thing a more organic feeling while at the same time I suspect it's responsible for the almost incidental dread a lot of his works provoke. It's like seeing an alien gorilla--you can sense it's somehow like you, but it's very different, it's dangerous, and you don't know how it works.

After I read Neil Gaiman's blog to-day, I got to thinking about something he said in response to the idea that one shouldn't meet ones heroes; "Actually, you should never meet your heroes if you want to keep them as heroes. They may wind up as friends or as disappointments or as pleasant surprises, but once you know them they immediately stop being heroes."

There's a link to an older entry that expands on Gaiman's ideas on the subject. I think he's actually touching on a broader issue. Knowing someone on a personal basis shall always be different from knowing them by reputation or by their work. I think in terms of artists, there's something about their work influencing or seeming to jive with your own personality in intimate ways as great artists manage to do conflicting with the discovery that they're flawed or faceted in unexpected ways. I mean, I think it's the difference between agreeing with someone's finest opinions and sensibilities and seeing their lives that inevitably contain things they're not interested in or proud of. Or parts of themselves that are damaged that never tarnished their work, perhaps even informing it. I do think it's therefore possible to admire someone you know personally--for these reasons, even--and therefore consider him or her a sort of hero. I suppose it depends on how you define the word "hero".

Three games of chess last night. I lost one and the other two were very satisfying victories as the opponents were very difficult.

I guess that's all I have to say to-day. Well--in Caitlin's latest blog entry, she mentions receiving an e-mail from a stalker. Just in case any of our mutual friends were wondering; no, it's not me. Maybe you weren't wondering, though. I'm slowly realising that Caitlin, Spooky, and possibly Sonya are the only people who seem to consider me a threat of some kind. I'm not interested at all in talking to Caitlin if she doesn't want to talk to me. Even so, I must say I sure miss my social life from last year at this time.

No comments:

Post a Comment