Sam Griswold

Tony Prichard

Writing in Context: Parasites

May 21, 2010

“Adjectives on a typewriter, he moves his words like a prizefighter. The frenzied pace of the mind inside the self” – the song “Shadow Stabbing” by Cake
The author of the text went away from his Hulu window to attempt to write something, setting down his fingers on the keys one by one to push out the first sentence before his mind became apathetic to the idea of starting the process. He was not thinking of creating a text when he looked at the blank page, he simply thought of filling the space and letting whoever was not there give their judgment. Keep in mind, when it comes to fiction or even clever investigation of non-fiction, writing is not simply to state an obvious story perhaps containing a moral or lesson to be learned. Rather, it is the details, the authors writing “voice” and what that voice says and does not say. In the Science is Fiction movies, even the facts of nature were given in a new light that showed playfulness, wonder, and even grotesqueness, all because of the words, style, and music it was shown with, the choices of the person who made it. But back to the author, how does he begin this descent into a voice, is it precise and focused process? Or is it something that comes naturally to everyone as they write? Maybe the best way to find out is to keep watching him write.

As the text spilled out, he wondered things like how much time should he spend narrating or how much time to spend on the characters. He tapped one of his feet as memories came flooding to the tip of his mind, giving him tools to express himself that others would understand. However, not once in this process did he ask himself why he was writing, which is interesting when you think of how in childhood everyone always why to everything. It is as if writing needs no explanation, and that writers are those people who have something to express and simply must express it. To be redundant, why ask why? Humans are social creatures, writing is another form of communication, why does there have to be a complex reason to want to write? Well, because most of the time stories show something in life that we would not notice normally. Again mentioning Science is Fiction, there was a conversation in class where one of the first things mentioned was how everything can be thought of as a story, everything can serve a function whatever we use that function for. This made me think of the name “Science is Fiction” itself, what allows science to be fiction, what is the transforming component? I think that this question can be answered by the word “purpose’ (not to be confused with porpoise, as in the porpoise of life). Stories allow science to be fiction because they give the ordinary a different purpose, they separate it from being something we have little reason to care about and turns it into something that amazes or applies to us. Perhaps there is a need in us to think of the world as “different” (add hand gesture here), like how in the movie The Fantastic Mr. Fox the main character needs to be the greatest thing ever, only we need to notice what kind of story we are in.

The idea of how much in control he was of this little world he had created suddenly occurred to the author. He could look at the rules of grammar and (after choosing how carefully or loosely to follow them) create something familiar, as he had created the room around him out of the pursuits and interests of his life. But in writing, he could explain these things, why the unmade D&D character sheet was slouching out under a pile of books on Taoism, or what the handwritten letter from his father sitting on his desk said. I would like to point out now (although rather late) that this kind of mentality can be applied to more forms of communication than just writing, I say writing simply because it is common and because it commands respect with its permanency. But in all communication I have to wonder if the author is right or not, how much control do I have over the worlds I create? In my psychology class we talked about conditioning and what it means to be shaped by your environment and genetics, both of which no one has any control over. So can I say that ME, the real individual that makes me different than others is writing this or is it just my conditioning? Maybe conditioning creates this individual, but the idea still remains that they are both there, inside me, delivering my view in a way that is conditioned to be understood if somewhat biased, but also the voice that comes with it. Perhaps communication is like the “Other” that was referred to in The Vampire Lectures by Lawrence Rickels, and as I communicate I invite the “real” me into my conditioning allowing me to get this effect. It certainly seems like I would desire for this to happen, but maybe I am being deceived and am inviting in even more conditioning, how deep does it go? I cannot tell the difference whether my thoughts are my own creative output or the combination of many ideas I’ve heard put together by my brain and my life so far. Maybe the only way to notice this is to pay attention to what I think and what I do when I’m thinking.

The author sat back from his hunched over position, his shirt sticking to his back because of the warm conditions of the room. He was not sure how long he had been working, and as he looked back at his work realized that he had actually forgotten some of what he had written. His story had taken him deeper then he thought it would, in his haste to put it down before he lost some of the energy that had made him start in the first place. He ironically picked this moment to ask whether he was using enough voice (because he could not do that in the paragraph about the self). Going back to look at a story is interesting, you think about what made you want to say that, what were the conditions around you (of course in this case it is easier for me to see this), and what traits the story has, but this is where I start asking questions. Drawing from a conversation with acelessthan3 on plurk, I discovered a story could be described as a mental existence of things based off the physical existence of a person, but when it is put down on paper, film, etc. it could be described as a physical version of a mental existence. What does this duality give stories? I think that it gives it a very intangible trait, like how a pun has a dual meaning that gives a point and a joke about the way language works, only in this duality I do not get the punchline. To again quote ace again, “The story is different from the author. The story is different from the words you read”. After writing and deleting a couple times, I realize I have no idea what this trait could possibly be, it could be how writing is encompassing of human qualities, animal, intellectual, etc. but it could also be something as simple as how stories do not ignore any part of life or death (unlike how I tend to “skip over” things or be “lost in thought”). . However, I do not think either could give it justice, stories simply are, going back to why people create these, I think I will add to make something that no one can completely define Maybe that is what makes stories puns in the first place, they give you a lesson/character/process to enjoy but do not tell you about something beneath that. Perhaps an “other” that Rickels was talking about, we desire a greater meaning from the story so we invite it in without truly knowing everything it is, and once we see it we want more of it like a true vampire relationship.

Parasites, vampires, and wild animals. I am the author and the author is me. I invited him in to see what I look like when I make a story and if that reveals something about thinking about life in the context of another story. I like the idea that we are all like the characters that we connect to, it puts books and movies on the same level as living (not to downplay either of them, learning from the minds of others can be more rewarding, that is what school/this class is for). Of course this entire system could be the conditioning I referred to, we set up communication as one of the most important thing because then it is easy to get rewarded as texts and conversations are everywhere. Still, maybe it is a good system, maybe it is this way because it promote what I have been talking about (if I have been talking about anything at all), some hints at purpose, the individual, and some things that we really do not know about unless we talk about how much we do not know about them. I am a parasite because I learn how to tell stories from other people, I am a vampire because I am invited in to think that making texts will do something, and I am a wild animal because what I say still depends on ME: that is what I mean by I am the author.