Storytelling
I've been reading The Name of the Wind, by Patrick Rothfuss, lately. It's a book that has earned itself wide accolades in the online communities - RK Milholland plugged it, as did Tarol Hunt of "Goblins - Life Through Their Eyes" and a number of other webcomic artists. If you haven't yet, I recommend locating it in a bookstore and picking it up. It's a good read.
The book touches me a bit more strongly because the hero, Kvothe, is an actor and a storyteller, which seems strange when you think about the fact that most of the heroes we read about are either soldiers or historians, and most of the books about them are likewise written by soldiers and historians. A lot of books were written by people who were not storytellers at heart. They were poets of language, perhaps, but not musicians. Kvothe is a musician - which is to say, he doesn't always tell a straight-forward tale, and he embraces that quality. He tells the story that is right to be told. He doesn't follow rules of dialogue or narrative, but as a reader I understand the whole of his life because of the facility with which he describes things. When describing plays from his family's troupe, he refers to "the garden scene" of some drama, and I instantly imagine the scene in question. He mentions Three Pennies for a Wish, and I don't sense that this play could not exist - and in fact I want to know what the play is about, knowing nothing more than the title.
Kvothe says that this is the only time he's told the story, but I imagine that Patrick Rothfuss, who wrote the novel, attempted to tell the story a number of times before finally deciding that this was the best way to do it. There is a body of work in this one volume that we don't even see; it exists as a transparency floating just above the language. We know it's there, even if we don't see it directly. And Rothfuss knows it backwards, which is how he's able to spin the tale so effortlessly. He knows the details of conversations, of minutiae in the sand that's under their feet, so that when he wishes to describe them, he doesn't need to describe them exactly; he can talk around the objects, and let the reader see the outline he has painted.
It gives me a new respect for the act of writing a novel - but it also reminds me of the Joker as we see Heath Ledger playing him. I get a sense, in watching him on screen again and again, that he knows the Joker's history, even if it's never stated - and in fact it's stated that he has no history, but for him it's obviously there. That's the way it should be with any story you wish to tell, written or spoken aloud.
That's why Semela won't leave my mind - it's why Cessalina turned into Semela, why every character becomes Semela or Nibrelim or Nemat eventually. Every story I think to tell is preparation for the one story I am going to tell. In the end, when they have all combined and composed themselves, there won't be a question of who Semela is, of who Nibrelim is, of who Nemat really is. It will be clear from the words I don't say.
The book touches me a bit more strongly because the hero, Kvothe, is an actor and a storyteller, which seems strange when you think about the fact that most of the heroes we read about are either soldiers or historians, and most of the books about them are likewise written by soldiers and historians. A lot of books were written by people who were not storytellers at heart. They were poets of language, perhaps, but not musicians. Kvothe is a musician - which is to say, he doesn't always tell a straight-forward tale, and he embraces that quality. He tells the story that is right to be told. He doesn't follow rules of dialogue or narrative, but as a reader I understand the whole of his life because of the facility with which he describes things. When describing plays from his family's troupe, he refers to "the garden scene" of some drama, and I instantly imagine the scene in question. He mentions Three Pennies for a Wish, and I don't sense that this play could not exist - and in fact I want to know what the play is about, knowing nothing more than the title.
Kvothe says that this is the only time he's told the story, but I imagine that Patrick Rothfuss, who wrote the novel, attempted to tell the story a number of times before finally deciding that this was the best way to do it. There is a body of work in this one volume that we don't even see; it exists as a transparency floating just above the language. We know it's there, even if we don't see it directly. And Rothfuss knows it backwards, which is how he's able to spin the tale so effortlessly. He knows the details of conversations, of minutiae in the sand that's under their feet, so that when he wishes to describe them, he doesn't need to describe them exactly; he can talk around the objects, and let the reader see the outline he has painted.
It gives me a new respect for the act of writing a novel - but it also reminds me of the Joker as we see Heath Ledger playing him. I get a sense, in watching him on screen again and again, that he knows the Joker's history, even if it's never stated - and in fact it's stated that he has no history, but for him it's obviously there. That's the way it should be with any story you wish to tell, written or spoken aloud.
That's why Semela won't leave my mind - it's why Cessalina turned into Semela, why every character becomes Semela or Nibrelim or Nemat eventually. Every story I think to tell is preparation for the one story I am going to tell. In the end, when they have all combined and composed themselves, there won't be a question of who Semela is, of who Nibrelim is, of who Nemat really is. It will be clear from the words I don't say.