Yesterday I learned that one of my favorite novels, The country the long shadows of Hans Ruech is based on a film about Eskimos. The novel describes so profoundly the ways of the Inuit , Northmen living at temperatures of forty degrees below zero and feed on marine animals frozen in my dreams I always imagined that Hans (Swiss, who died almost three years ago ) had spent a long time with them, learning about their way of life: hunting seasons, building igloos, the label that requires the guest to obtain sexual favors from the wife, the abandonment of the old in the sea ice, Nomadic Expeditions constants according to the seasons, rather less visible- time, and especially his philosophy, so based on this, so devoid of complexities, so alien to the white man .
not imagine that there is a conclusion about it, or make me change my idea that to write about a place, there must have been there. What makes me write about a quote from the novel that I've always liked: "So we have to go so far north that we get back to anywhere in the look we are looking south."
***
Last time I was thinking, not manipulate me by subjectivity, the reasons that led me to be a very egotistical.
Then I thought all the people, by definition, are egomaniacs. Normal people, at least. Then there are others, gray beings who live according to other figures, who never speak for themselves and find it unthinkable to have a block.
My conclusion: Aristotle, the Greeks, the narrative structure.
1. I like writing, I have always liked, and any history is by definition a main character. Thereupon, in constructing a parallel between reality and the written, involuntarily arises the idea of \u200b\u200bthe central figure.
always called my attention to secondary characters, and often think that they are in other stories, characters main.
2. In my life there has been a tremendous amount of pelotudeces. I have lived in different cities, I have fallen, have fallen for me, I've fallen out, I succeeded in some things, failed in others, I pursued my goals so untidy but timely, and met secondary characters that I have deeply impressed. In short, the lives of almost everyone. My story, like all others, has had bows thematic climax, slow and fast development, plot holes and late season.
3. In light of the foregoing, it is logical that I feel the protagonist of my life / story, and I say this without that whiff of feminist self-improvement books for women who have had sexual intercourse in three years. As I write, as I imagine my life more like a novel than a movie, like almost everything of importance happens to me I imagine writing almost immediately, it is natural to me all people are part of my story , not backwards. It is natural that when something great, something strange happens to me, thinking: clear, it had to happen.
4. During my trip I left a bit these concepts, because I continually met people with stories a million times more interesting than mine (which is not hard) and started to feel like the minor character who entered his life. I noticed that my participation was limited to a few weeks, a few days a week, but for me they were going to stay forever. Then I used them. To write about them.
5. The answer to my egotism is explained in the traditional structure of the story. If I am not the star of My life, and not act as such, who would then?
***
After exactly twenty posts about my adventures in South America, blogging again is depressing me . So now what you could write? Who would entertain my monotonous adventures in the real world? Why would return to the banalities that before I passionate? Do I have to invent another trip to get new posts with passion, charm and intensity?
currently live in a perpetual hangover. Of a liquor called life, which I enjoy for some months.
0 comments:
Post a Comment