Apparently
I have suddenly come to an end with these interminable chapters about my
reading experience. At least I think that I have covered everything essential,
and it will only become repetitive. (Well, I’ll see if I am right …)
The
reason I am here again is that I quite suddenly came up with an idea what to
“do” with my fictional worlds. Quite an obvious idea, by the way, but I don’t
think I realized until now how much material I have collected over the past
years and months. Meaning how many fictional worlds I have “acquired” and lived
in, most of them still “active” so that I kind of live in them simultaneously. And
what I am going to do is to make an inventory of them, to have them “out on the
table” before me so as to be able to compare them. And I am very curious about
what will “fall out”.
To do
this, the first requirement is to come up with a minimal definition of what I
mean by a “fictional world”. Like all of these really important concepts, I was
using the idea of fictional worlds for a long time without putting a term on
them – probably even before “The Lord of the Rings”, maybe even before the
“Sagas of the Icelanders”. But I first became fully aware of their importance,
I think, when I returned to Shakespeare – now about two and a half years ago. And
I think it was then that the term popped up because I realized that I was IN
NEED OF something like a fictional world, and I picked this one deliberately as
something that might answer this need. And I realized that I had hit gold by
the way I was instantly drawn into it, and by the experience of how much I
wanted to stay there. And then, at some point, I came to ask that question:
WHY DO I
WANT TO BE IN THIS WORLD?
And it
appears to me that this is in fact the question that has brought me where I am
now, and which might be perfect for starting on a minimal definition. It will
probably be an “interactive” definition, as the question itself is an
interactive question which is at the same time about a fictional world and
about myself. And I just had the opportunity to repeat that question in an
“aggravated” version, watching “Hannibal”. Rediscovering Shakespeare I was just
wondering, probably when I read “The Taming of the Shrew”, why I loved to be in
a world where I didn’t like a single person, or group of people, or found them
remotely “attractive”. That is, where I was so clearly an outsider, and where
my favourites were the most horrible of people, like Richard III or Queen
Margaret. And, I think, almost at the same time, John Cleese playing Petrucchio
showed me a way towards an answer because of the empathy he showed for this
character, who might be one of the least pleasant people Shakespeare ever
invented. But John Cleese persisted to UNDERSTAND him – which wasn’t so hard, I
suspect, because they might have one or two things in common … (In a way, the
same thing happened to me with Katherine – when I compared her to myself AFTER
having discovered what a true horror she is!) But he showed me the human
content at the bottom of the nightmare. And, what I always fall for, played him
as somebody determined to “make his way” in the best possible world … I might
have realized then that feeling empathy isn’t the same thing as liking somebody
– or rather that liking somebody, in a fictional context, is probably
overrated. As I have always been aware that the “good guys” usually are the
least interesting for me, so often those I like least. Like most of the “bad
guys”, by the way, because just playing “bad” is equally boring. What I like are
the “shady” characters, basically the ones with an interesting predicament to
their lives, those that have a lot going on with them which is challenging for
an author to describe or for an actor to play. (So, basically, characters that
are NOT BORING and commonplace.) But, even though liking fictional characters
can be crucial for how I proceed in a certain fictional world, it is obviously not
a requirement for being interested in this world and for connecting with it. And
in fact I should have known for a long time that I rather like fictional worlds
where I find nothing to “like”. At least since the “Spooks” which I had then watched
completely (apart from the tenth series which wasn’t out on dvd yet) probably
more than two times. And in this series there is exactly one character I really
liked: Malcolm Wynn-Jones. As I said, I don’t usually like the characters that
“everybody” likes, like Adam and Fiona Carter, or Ruth Evershed. Which doesn’t
mean that I dislike them. Like or dislike just don’t really matter in this kind
of “environment”. And my favourite spook is probably Ros Myers – which might be
kind of an equivalent of Queen Margaret?
So, my
almost universal dislike for the characters of “Hannibal” wouldn’t have inhibited
me from enjoying the series. It might “work” differently, maybe even better, if
you like the characters you are supposed to like, as Will Graham or Jack
Crawford. And, not to forget, there are two “serious” love-stories, and it
might work better if you “get off” on one of them. But, knowing what kind of
world it was before I discovered them, I was already cautious. “Taking a side”
emotionally, by personally preferring some people to others or engaging in a
love-story, makes you vulnerable and exposes you to the world of “absolute
evil” (courtesy of Claudia!) instead of enabling you to play with it. But of
course the question remains why anybody would want to “be” in this world who is
not a cannibal, or dangerous psychopath, or otherwise involved with the
absolute evil that reigns supreme. Nonetheless, I got into the habit of watching
this before I go to sleep because it makes me happy. Whereas, for example, the
world of “The Office”, which I have explored just now extensively during a few sick
days, worked on me as a mild “depressant” which I could only watch during
daytime. It’s supposed to be comedy, and it is genius, but, even though it is
often hilarious, it is never REALLY funny.
So,
maybe the right question in my case might not be why I wanted to be in this
world, but: As I really want to be in this world – WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME? A
question I did ask myself but was probably not really interested in. Though I
am certain that there is something, that it is no unwarranted question … Even
though I am rather convinced that cannibals, psychopaths, or even hardcore
horror fans are not a considerable part of the audience of this series. I even
doubt that the latter category gets much of a kick out of it. Maybe I am a
cynic – which I think I am not because cynicism bores me – or like to see other
people suffer? This is harder to disprove, though I have found no evidence as
yet for it in real life. But it is probably true that I don’t care much about
other people suffering, especially if I don’t know them … And, in this respect,
the series is not so “different” because they take great care not to show us
people suffering who we don’t loathe anyway, or don’t really know. So, the sadist
in me, if she is there, wouldn’t have found much to get off on. Anyway, she
didn’t show her face, as I am quite sure that I didn’t enjoy any of these
scenes were people are in agony, not even really horrible people. Though I am
certainly guilty of not caring that much. Which might reflect badly on me but
probably enabled me to follow Hannibal’s instructions on “participating”. If I
know myself, and know what I want, I steer the course. Other people must fend
for themselves. (Maybe one important instruction for living “successfully” in a
fictional world: If you want to be free you have to follow the rules …?) So,
answering the key question by finding into which category of pervert I fall
hasn’t been successful so far. Though I am sure there is one. Maybe
intellectual arrogance. I’d stick to that. But I know that I don’t know what
exactly I am doing, or what “Hannibal” does with me, and, in this case, might
not really want to, for fear that I might enjoy it less. I just know that I
enjoy the way I am READING this. And that it is such a DIFFERENT experience.
But,
before getting deeper into the “why”, and after I have already mentioned a few
of them – the world of Shakespeare, Tolkien’s “Middle-earth”, the world of the
“Spooks”, “The Office”, and “Hannibal” – it is time to ask what I really mean
by a “fictional world”. Obviously it is not a work of fiction but something
“above” this. Something that may come into being when a reader interacts with a
text, respectively a text interacts with a reader. (The latter being the less
obvious part of the process which I am desperately interested in but, by definition,
will never get close to. Though it can never be forgotten, describing a reading
process, as the most “immediate” and striking part of it. But, though I can ask
what I get out of a text, I can never ask the text what it wants with me.) And,
less obvious but maybe more important, and certainly highly contestable: in my
experience, not every work of fiction, not every single book, or film, not even
every tv series, contains - or develops into - a fictional world.
To
explain the latter I will give two examples. The first is the crime series
“Tatort” on German tv - which is one of the better series, with different
“branches” neither of which had the potential to develop into a fictional world
until now, and I don’t think they would if I watched them regularly. And I
don’t think either that "Tatort" does this for other people. I can’t know that, but
there is a big different to a “weekly soap” like “Lindenstraße” – or probably
“Eastenders” or “Coronation Street” - that certainly contains a whole fictional
world for many people which they have inhabited for years, even decades. And although
“Tatort” exists even longer and has of course a big audience, it has never
“created” a world like this – where people are “inside”. I don’t think this is
even intended. As probably in most cases, the pretense of a “real world” is
quite enough.
My
second example is “Game of Thrones” where the interaction between me and the
series failed completely. Whereas concerning “Tatort” not only I but probably
ANYBODY who doesn’t dislike crime stories is an adequate reader. In this case
no fictional world was created because I didn’t find anything in it that
connected with me. Not a single conflict, or personal predicament that appeared
interesting and new to me, and the characters felt all flat and artificial
though there were good actors, at least for some of them. The world itself
appeared equally flat and “ready-made”. I thought: this is just another
“gamer’s series” I am not interested in – for want of a better term. “Fantasy”
is much too broad a category. But, as I know that there are lots of intelligent
people who like the series, I know I must be wrong about this. That there must
be a world I CANNOT SEE. (Very likely, like in the case of “Middle-Earth”, the
world is in the books, and the screen version makes little sense without them.
But, although I always use the word “read”, even as a provocation, I think, I
am currently not much of a “reader”. I usually watch the film (series), and
then eventually buy the book.) But, of course, the one thing I can never be
wrong about are my own feelings watching it. So, that is a fictional world I
will never get to see. Not even as a fictional world I don’t like – which is
something that can happen, and which is usually an example of a very strong
interaction with the text. In my case something which I remember mainly from
reading books as a teenager, like “Krabat” (by Ottfried Preussler) – a true
horror story which I think I only finished because I needed to know how it
would end. To be able to get rid of that world.
And, as
I have proved an incurable realist, I am certain that there must be something
“in the text” as well as in me which can create a fictional world. I might not
be able to see it – respectively “feel” it. Because I have recently found out
that I am not the kind of realist that believes in what I can see – or what
might be able to knock me on the head and kill me – but that I believe in what
I can feel. THE EVIDENCE OF A FICTIONAL WORLD IS THE WAY I FEEL ABOUT IT. The
only part of my experience where I can never be wrong. And the strange events
about “The Crucible” – where I could remember precisely what I had FELT
watching the film twenty years ago, whereas I couldn’t remember but one or two
other things about the film – is probably my best proof that I cannot be wrong
about this, in case there were strong feelings. And if they were “twisted” then
not by recalling them inaccurately, but already at the moment I had them
because I didn’t want (or dare) to have them. And if I didn’t have them at the
same time I was watching the film, I had them immediately afterwards, becoming
aware of what I had seen. So, they were in any case immediate, genuine
feelings, the only ones I was able to have at the time.
So, the
reason that any fictional world I care about is widely different from any other
one, constitutes a different “set” of feelings and experiences, must be that
behind this first level lies a second level of structure which creates the
first one. And which, in a “realistic” universe, must also be different in
every single instance of a fictional world. And this structure is of course
created by the individual text, or texts, that constitute the world - AND the
act of reading at the other end.
So,
that’s probably enough of the boring stuff. To finish, I’ll make an inventory
of “my” current - or recent - fictional worlds. I might forget one or two which
can be added later, but the most important ones are certainly there. They are
my main “corpus” for investigating fictional worlds. And the first thing I want
to do with it is to find out WHY - and maybe IF - they are fictional worlds, in
order to get a better, more
comprehensive definition of what a fictional world is for me.
My
inventory of fictional worlds:
The
world of the “Sagas of the Icelanders” (Anonymous, mostly 12th and
13th century prose versions of tales told about real people living
in Iceland mainly during the 9th and 10th century)
The
world of Shakespeare
Tolkiens
“Middle-earth”
“Vanity
Fair” (William Makepeace Thackerey)
The
“Making of England” series ( = series of historic novels about the time of
Alfred the Great of Wessex and the “creation” of England, by Bernard Cornwell)
The
“serial” worlds of:
“House
of Cards”
“The
Spooks”
“The
Office”
and
“Hannibal”
And the
fantasy world of “Suwa”, created by my eight-year-old nephew Noah. As this is
the only world which is unpublished I can only refer to it by publishing it.
Which I will do by editing one of the six episodes which he has “read” to me
until now, and which I have typed on my netbook¸ per month. At least this is
the plan so far. I would be very surprised if I’d stick to it …
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen