Considerations, of possible questions arising from my practice have been somewhat allusive. My intention was to study the current relationship between reality and fiction however the notion of defining reality (or probably hyperreality now) is somewhat daunting (2-3 millennia's worth of philosophers have not managed to do this so why should I be able to?) I could, of course, take, for example, Baudrillard's interpretation of hyperreality and study this in relation to the notion of simulated experiences (which I will be to an extent).
Another choice, is to take my practice as simply living (both fictionally and non-fictionally) and documenting this process. Then, using specific points within this life to initiate research, for instance, I have been involved in a debate with one of my OU students about objectivity within Creative Writing assessment and this itself could instigate research that I'd like to do involving a reader-centered approach to understanding the theory of Creative Writing. Of course, I can then conduct meta-research in relation to this, observing the relationship between life and research - The real research becomes subsumed into a fictional / real narrative making it as much a part of the story as any other bit. This then, might lead me to create a fictional response to a research questions (openly fudge a load of results) and get somebody to analyse these to observe if there was any correlation between my fictionalised responses and the real responses.
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Saturday, 16 May 2009
Fiction and Hyperreality
If we take the notion that the real world has retreated and dissolved behind a series of simulations, signs and models that the real has become the hyperreal then we are left with a telling dilemma. Baudrillard posits that simulation is impossible because reality cannot identify what is simulation and what is real (thereby removing reality itself), however, what happens to fiction in this situation? If we take fiction to be representative of a series of events (is normal fiction a simulation or a counterfeit in Baudrillard's terms?) then it's possible that we might denote it as a simulation (autobiography certainly is) whereas fantasy is more likely termed counterfeit. If simulation is impossible in a hyperreal world then this must mean that fiction (as simulation) is also impossible and what is produced is neither fictitious or real but hyperreal. But does the work I am producing behave in this way? For me, the "art" is not located within the representation of the process, the art is the process, the representation (story, video etc) is simply the documentation. How can a "real life" act as a simulation? I am not a simulation of myself, my work simulates but I do not.
I do not have the answer to this yet. It's time to sleep and dream of swine flu.
I do not have the answer to this yet. It's time to sleep and dream of swine flu.
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
Jack and Jill
Already, subconscious mechanics are beginning to reveal themselves in relation to this piece. I had no idea that the hill between Harrogate and Farnley was called Jack Hill, and yet this neatly tied up the specific references that I had previously made to both Jill and (I think consciously) to the vinegar and brown paper section of the nursery rhyme. So now we have Jack, Jill, a Hill, and Vinegar and Brown Paper.
The wikipedia entry is fairly enlightening on various theories about the rhyme however its origins appear to be obscured.
I'm tempted to develop this further and write a contemporary adaptation of this traditional piece.
Turns out Jack hill is specifically named after John Metcalfe or Blind Jack Metcalfe of Knaresborough, a pretty amazing character by all accounts. Wikipedia entry here
his autobiography is available free at Google book search here
- Thanks to Henry Morris for this information
The wikipedia entry is fairly enlightening on various theories about the rhyme however its origins appear to be obscured.
I'm tempted to develop this further and write a contemporary adaptation of this traditional piece.
Turns out Jack hill is specifically named after John Metcalfe or Blind Jack Metcalfe of Knaresborough, a pretty amazing character by all accounts. Wikipedia entry here
his autobiography is available free at Google book search here
- Thanks to Henry Morris for this information
Overall Aims for Creative Piece / Why Modernist Poetry Annoys Me
It dawned on me that I haven't specified any aims for this piece of writing. Not that a piece of writing needs aims particularly but I think it'll probably help a few people get a sense of what I'm trying to do.
Ok, so the precedent really lies in a short story called Museum that I wrote a couple of years ago but recently go published in the Newcastle University anthology Lit. Basically it's four interlaced (not particularly interlinked) stories that have thematic similarities but don't really connect together. The point being that the common points of each story create resonances with the reader and in some way criticise and illuminate one another showing thematic elements without the need to posit a single definitive interpretation. Thematically, Museum deals with loneliness, breakdown of relationships, telling lies and telling stories. It gives an equal weighting to each thread of the piece so that when you are reading about something that is being viewed by the protagonist on a television we lose all sense of the protagonist and concentrate entirely on the characters on the screen. The effect of this is somewhat disorientating however I "ground" these by dwelling on them for a reasonable period of time and by using concrete description and language. As Barthes noted (and I paraphrase) the reader derives enjoyment from being placed in an "active" state in terms of understanding the piece, however it is possible for the meaning of a piece of writing to become too hidden thus removing all sense of enjoyment from the piece because no meaning is derived from the words. This is my basic problem with a lot of modernist poetry. It's like you need an accompanying instruction manual, not to explain the poem, but to instruct you on what to do with the poem. Poetry like this is obviously clever (sometimes intimidatingly clever) and it's clear that something profound is occurring, however I object to being left in the dark with no way into a particular work. Even if the aim of the poet is to allow their reader free interpretation of the words on the page, then at least tell me that so I'm not sitting there trying to derive meaning from a piece (which of course is the first thing that most human beings do when they pick up a piece of writing) when there is no intended meaning and understanding is supposed to be derived from the hermeneutic interpretation of the piece and not from the poet's intentions. If you think that this is dumbing down high art then I ask you to consider the pedagogical aspects of any piece of writing. What is writing for if not to "teach" something (and I mean this in the loosest sense of the word). Even creating a piece of art that has lost its ability to "teach" (show a novel perspective or whatever)is in some way artistically profound in its own right and in this way actually teaches us something. I think what I'm saying is... if you set out with an intention for a piece of writing then at least allow me a way of understanding this intention. I know Barthes said that we should ignore authorial intention however if your intention is the only way by which I can unlock your piece of writing then I kind of need to know what it is unless, of course, you want to instigate the intellectual guessing games that only the incredibly intelligent have the confidence to justify. I think that good writing allows some way into a piece even if that way is the size of the author's arsehole.
Maybe, it's just that when I look at your work it makes me feel stupid. But then, why do you feel that it's ok to laud your intelligence over people? Surely working together is better than than fostering elitism. I'm not asking for people to change their writing, I'm asking for somebody to provide a lay-person's level explanation for what their doing so that we can all enjoy it. Something like a one-page A3 washing machine fold out "getting started" guide will suffice. You can even have a corresponding Latin translation if it makes you feel happy.
Ok, so the precedent really lies in a short story called Museum that I wrote a couple of years ago but recently go published in the Newcastle University anthology Lit. Basically it's four interlaced (not particularly interlinked) stories that have thematic similarities but don't really connect together. The point being that the common points of each story create resonances with the reader and in some way criticise and illuminate one another showing thematic elements without the need to posit a single definitive interpretation. Thematically, Museum deals with loneliness, breakdown of relationships, telling lies and telling stories. It gives an equal weighting to each thread of the piece so that when you are reading about something that is being viewed by the protagonist on a television we lose all sense of the protagonist and concentrate entirely on the characters on the screen. The effect of this is somewhat disorientating however I "ground" these by dwelling on them for a reasonable period of time and by using concrete description and language. As Barthes noted (and I paraphrase) the reader derives enjoyment from being placed in an "active" state in terms of understanding the piece, however it is possible for the meaning of a piece of writing to become too hidden thus removing all sense of enjoyment from the piece because no meaning is derived from the words. This is my basic problem with a lot of modernist poetry. It's like you need an accompanying instruction manual, not to explain the poem, but to instruct you on what to do with the poem. Poetry like this is obviously clever (sometimes intimidatingly clever) and it's clear that something profound is occurring, however I object to being left in the dark with no way into a particular work. Even if the aim of the poet is to allow their reader free interpretation of the words on the page, then at least tell me that so I'm not sitting there trying to derive meaning from a piece (which of course is the first thing that most human beings do when they pick up a piece of writing) when there is no intended meaning and understanding is supposed to be derived from the hermeneutic interpretation of the piece and not from the poet's intentions. If you think that this is dumbing down high art then I ask you to consider the pedagogical aspects of any piece of writing. What is writing for if not to "teach" something (and I mean this in the loosest sense of the word). Even creating a piece of art that has lost its ability to "teach" (show a novel perspective or whatever)is in some way artistically profound in its own right and in this way actually teaches us something. I think what I'm saying is... if you set out with an intention for a piece of writing then at least allow me a way of understanding this intention. I know Barthes said that we should ignore authorial intention however if your intention is the only way by which I can unlock your piece of writing then I kind of need to know what it is unless, of course, you want to instigate the intellectual guessing games that only the incredibly intelligent have the confidence to justify. I think that good writing allows some way into a piece even if that way is the size of the author's arsehole.
Maybe, it's just that when I look at your work it makes me feel stupid. But then, why do you feel that it's ok to laud your intelligence over people? Surely working together is better than than fostering elitism. I'm not asking for people to change their writing, I'm asking for somebody to provide a lay-person's level explanation for what their doing so that we can all enjoy it. Something like a one-page A3 washing machine fold out "getting started" guide will suffice. You can even have a corresponding Latin translation if it makes you feel happy.
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Methodology
Methodology:
Criticise some thing fluid and unknown by comparing (or viewing through lenses) with theoretical elements. Therefore you compare theory to practice and see if there are any correlations then write about them. Therefore you can analyse a text with respect to X theory or Y model etc. Are there any points of comparison that teach us something new?
Research question:
What am I studying? What is my research question? – What is the relationship between fiction and reality? What implications may this have in relation to commonly held theory i.e. Creative Writing Theory / Identity / Authorship etc. This isn’t honed enough yet, however I want points of interest to come out of this work rather than to initially define what elements of it I will study.
How will I study this?
By producing writing that aims to dissolve the boundaries between fiction and reality. That takes elements of reality and blends them with elements of fiction to create something that sits somewhere in between (like Autofiction). Therefore I intend to write about my own real experience at this moment in time, hence this will centre around my own undertaking of this PhD (the focus of the fiction is on the real).
Therefore, I will produce:
1. A fictional dramatised account of my real life (with fictional elements incorporated into this) – blended version.
2. Real / Fictional responses to this account (My feelings about these events as if they had really happened (even if they hadn’t) – blended version.
3. Real commentary on this process to reveal the thoughts / underlying issues in relation to, say, authorship, creative writing, identity etc. A commentary on the writing process linked with ideas for critical analysis.
4. A critical analysis of the whole work including both fictional and real elements and looking at the relationships between these.
I have chosen the idea of producing a number of blogs to cover each of these threads. This has a number of benefits:
1. That it keeps the different elements of this study separate from one another so that I will be able to analyse the various threads.
2. That it enables people to interact with the unfolding narrative thereby becoming incorporated into the narrative. If I were to just produce the account in private then this ability would be lost. There would be no sense of “liveness” within this piece. Doubt in reality no longer matters and the piece can simply be resigned to a static state. This, in some ways, begins to resolve the dichotomy of speech Vs. writing because it is unbound, interactive writing – rather than bound writing. It can be easily stolen, reworked, edited, deleted, linked through and therefore displays different properties to that of a standard text.
Criticise some thing fluid and unknown by comparing (or viewing through lenses) with theoretical elements. Therefore you compare theory to practice and see if there are any correlations then write about them. Therefore you can analyse a text with respect to X theory or Y model etc. Are there any points of comparison that teach us something new?
Research question:
What am I studying? What is my research question? – What is the relationship between fiction and reality? What implications may this have in relation to commonly held theory i.e. Creative Writing Theory / Identity / Authorship etc. This isn’t honed enough yet, however I want points of interest to come out of this work rather than to initially define what elements of it I will study.
How will I study this?
By producing writing that aims to dissolve the boundaries between fiction and reality. That takes elements of reality and blends them with elements of fiction to create something that sits somewhere in between (like Autofiction). Therefore I intend to write about my own real experience at this moment in time, hence this will centre around my own undertaking of this PhD (the focus of the fiction is on the real).
Therefore, I will produce:
1. A fictional dramatised account of my real life (with fictional elements incorporated into this) – blended version.
2. Real / Fictional responses to this account (My feelings about these events as if they had really happened (even if they hadn’t) – blended version.
3. Real commentary on this process to reveal the thoughts / underlying issues in relation to, say, authorship, creative writing, identity etc. A commentary on the writing process linked with ideas for critical analysis.
4. A critical analysis of the whole work including both fictional and real elements and looking at the relationships between these.
I have chosen the idea of producing a number of blogs to cover each of these threads. This has a number of benefits:
1. That it keeps the different elements of this study separate from one another so that I will be able to analyse the various threads.
2. That it enables people to interact with the unfolding narrative thereby becoming incorporated into the narrative. If I were to just produce the account in private then this ability would be lost. There would be no sense of “liveness” within this piece. Doubt in reality no longer matters and the piece can simply be resigned to a static state. This, in some ways, begins to resolve the dichotomy of speech Vs. writing because it is unbound, interactive writing – rather than bound writing. It can be easily stolen, reworked, edited, deleted, linked through and therefore displays different properties to that of a standard text.
Thursday, 30 April 2009
Authorship
I now feel compelled to post everything every single piece of work that I produce as a means of conveying a holistic experience to this research and therefore integrating my entire life into this account of my existence in the hope that it will enlighten the whole process. This sits with some of Foucault's theories in relation to authorship. I need to have a proper look at the 1969 lecture "What is an author?" to elaborate on this however I though I'd insert it as a point of reference. Interestingly it also raises interesting question relating to Barthes "the death of the author." Whilst I realise that this has more to do with hermeneutic interpretation than autofiction it does question the author's death in an unfolding fiction focussed on the author in question. I've yet to get my head around this.
Double helix model for this research.
So if we take the notion that the two modes of reality that I'm working with are exist as a binary opposition (I'm not sure about this) and not as spectrum of experiences then we might accept the model of the double helix such as that of DNA as a means of thinking about this scenario. The two strands "fiction and reality" operate around each other sharing common threads of information combine and yet share different traits. A DNA double helix is made up of two RNA helices (I had to look that plural up)which each hold a string of nucleotides along their lengths. There are 4 different nucleotides. Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and Thymine (pleased with myself that I can remember these) that sit in some order along the length of the RNA, however an adenine molecule doesn't bond with another adenine molecule, it bonds with a Thymine molecule to we get a bonding pair of A-T. Equally Guanine bonds with Cytosine (G-C)(knew this but had to look it up to check). If we go back to the relationship between fiction and reality we have this duality that is connected at specific points but each share a different trait that are bonded together to create this over all experience. (fictionality or whatever). We might denote a new bonding pair of (F-R)
If we continue on with this metaphor then when DNA replicates. AN enzyme (DNA polymerase) is introduced (comes along, wanders past) which "unzips" this molecule. (F-R) becomes F R - we become aware of the fiction strand and reality strand being independent of one another - new F and R molecules float in from the surrounding environment float in and fill these gaps. Creating 2 new double helices of F-R.
So the question is am I acting as an enzyme to unzip reality and fiction or am I conversely bringing reality and fiction together to form one single unit that provides a stable function? (RNA is unstable or active DNA is stable inactive). Paradoxically I am both making reality and fiction active (I am making people aware of the play of these two currents) whilst also joining the two together. Does this mean this isn't a good model? Clearly there's two perspectives to take into account here. The role of the onlooker (who is unaware of the "truth" within the text) and the author (who is aware of a "truth" within the text (what I've made up and what I haven't) though by no means a definitive truth because what I've made up has still a strong basis within my personal existence and reality and therefore has nucleotides of truth within the fiction).
So we need to update our model. In the DNA double helix A and G are not component factors of only one of the DNA polymers - a typical strand of DNA might have sequence such as this:
A-T
C-G
G-C
T-A
T-A
A-T
you get the picture. Basically all the nucleotides contribute on to both polymer strands (sides) of the double helix. Therefore if we are to carry this over onto our fiction and reality polymer - instead of having something that looks like this:
F-R
F-R
F-R
we get something that looks more like this:
F-R
F-R
R-F
R-F
F-R
R-F
we might denote one strand as "fiction" and one as "reality" but actually both contain elements of both. As a human DNA polymerase molecule I am opening up these bonds and allowing the corresponding F and R molecules to occupy the empty bonds. I am inserting fiction into reality and inserting reality into fiction. Of course, if you happen to be involved in this reality then you are being actively combined with a fictional state, making you linked with a real / fictional action and therefore exposing you to the opportunity to shift states. To shift from a real state into a fictional one. Is your "reality" contained withing the fictional polymer of this experience or, conversely, is it contained withing the real. Other questions might be - what has happened to the other double helix that has been created? Where is that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
