There are so many things that I would want introduce or disclaim that I don't know how to start. I have been procrastinating, or shelfing the idea, for about 2 years now, of ever being explicit about the stories behind my stories on the chattering matterings of the original meekfreak (henceforth until further notice, “ChaMOTOM” for short). Sneak Speak is the end of that chapter.
What is known cannot be unknown
I procrastinate and hestitate because what is known cannot be unknown. It can be forgotten, but it cannot be unknown. So I did not want to be explicit about any reasons behind what I write and why, preferring to leave them to evoke the rawest and barest of reactions. There is beauty and magnificence in gross and thorny responses. I like to imagine it.
Besides, I had preferred truth and sincerity of the undiscerning audience, over a second guessing, over-psychoanalytic audience. So, I remained implicit.
However, I've been reading on art and some subject guidebooks and appreciated the direction and interpretation that they offered. What the guidebooks transferred to me was not the opinion of, for example, Botero, but how I can better interpret Botero's works in whatever way I want. The only differences with this time are that, it's with more confidence and intrigue. I recognise that there is also beauty in understanding the riddles behind some of the paintings. eg. why did he paint fat people. So, I suppose, sometimes riddles are fun too, when there are answers. Answers to which one can choose to agree or disagree with.
This is why I am starting sneak speak, for some of my friends who asked about my stories. There is no right way to read them. What you think they mean to you, is what they actually mean. It may be different from what it means for others or myself, but that is only interesting.
To get the best of both worlds, don't sneak before you react to the stories.
I will attempt to add dimension by explaining parts of the stories or what they were inspired by. I don't know how it will turn out. I don't know how often I will update this. I only hope for the best. I think the sneak speak will allow comments, so you can give feedback on what you think or feel, or what you ate for dinner. Otherwise you can email me. I like to hear feedback. If I think sneak speak sucks, then I'll kill it in 2 or 3 months.
See: The Creative Act by Marcel Duchamp.
The Great Surreality
Sometime last year, I came across the philosophy of the Surrealists that helped articulate a large part of why and what I write. By articulating, it was clarifying, which in turn, facilitated my elaboration and development.
I think Andre Breton wrote about how there's a quality of things or life that can be brought stark by surrealist situations. Take a soluble fish – a fish that dissolves in water. There may be no such thing in reality. It is surreal. Can you imagine a fish that dissolves in water?? Yes, you can. Or at least make a attempt to. A soluble fish is imaginable. Imagining a soluble fish brings out a truth about “soluble” and “fish”, and how brain and thoughts can work. I find that interesting, so I write about things I don't need to understand.
“If the dream is a translation of waking life, waking life is also a translation of the dream.” - Magritte
See: Manifesto of Surrealism (Andre Breton, 1924) and anything on Rene Magritte's idea of mystery.
The Magic of Mystery
“My painting is visible images which conceal nothing; they evoke mystery and, indeed, whne one sees on of my pictures, one asks oneself this simple question 'What does that mean'? It does not mean anything, because mystery means nothing either, it is unknowable.” - Magritte.
I write about a lot of things. The stories that I most enjoy writing and most proud of writing are imagined and, preferably, by automatism or free association, or at least in part developed from an arc that is born of free association. For the uninitiated, automatism or free association is quite like writing whatever comes to mind. A lot of my favourite stories are written in a stupour. I like the element of surprise at how the sentences connect into stories or how the symbols loops or how the irony coils and recoils itself. I don't know what I'm going to write about until I've written it.
The Palatable (acceptable to the taste) Soluble Fish
I also learnt that the Surrealists were employers of the free association technique, abeit to a rather unpalatable extreme. The palatability factor implicates another principle that I've adopted after comparing Johnnie To and Wong Kar Wai movies. That is, if I were to write, I will try to be palatable. Because I like to read palatable stories. So I try to write the stories that I like to read. Even if one doesn't see the ironies in the stories, or the theme or the whatever detailed riddles woven, at least there is entertainment at the surface level.
This is like Johnnie To's movies. The plot is easy to understand, I watch, I like, I understand. Maybe it has some moralistic message but if I like or dislike, so be it. Wong Kar Wai's works win a lot of fancy awards and seems more intellectual when we discuss it at table of sober people, and it sometimes makes me feel quite insecure if I cannot appreciate it.
I'm trying to lean this motorbike more towards the Johnnie To's side. Although, I honestly think I'm somewhere in the middle. Anyway, sneak speak is an attempt to lean towards Johnnie.
See: Johnnie To and Wong Kar Wai.
The Insider Philosophies
So, besides the westerners and their absurd interpretations of the world, I also feel a strong affinity to eastern thoughts. I like the Taoist philosophies for its interest in details and happiness of being. I share the idealisation for the idyllic life and the general perspective. I also like the buddhist philosophies of hardship, of impermanence, and emptiness. I like the Japanese formalised philosophies and appreciation of beauty, e.g. mono no aware.
They share similarities with the above. For example, in eastern art, be it chinese paintings, or japanese wood block paintings, there is emphasis on the space that are left blank, so as to let the viewers complete the images for themselves. This is like Magritte's concept of mystery.
What I like more in the eastern interpretations is how it is more encapsulating, or wholistic. It is more simple, subtle, and genteel, but at the same time, more complicated, detailed and forgiving. I don't know what I'm writing about really, but it sounds sensible.
It is hard to explain partially or concisely what the influence of these philosophies have on my stories. Frankly, I feel that they are not important for my further explanation here. Simply, these philosophies influence my take on life and the world, and inevitably, it affects how my stories are written.
A search on the internet on the above topics will lead to many interesting and illuminating articles.
No comments:
Post a Comment