Of Contrast

As I again casually write a bit on the new short story - the very first draft, of course - I realize that this is going to appear so much more mundane than Raison d'Être. I think there are a few factors for this.

First of all, I am slightly afraid of making it just too heavy on the sesquipedalian attributes, to make it appear preposterous and presumptive. It's a complex kind of hubris where you, in your intention of clarifying your meaning, might well already have been misunderstood or quite simply used the wrong word at the wrong place. Where the chase for this eloquency might fall short and end up in the ditch.

Second, of course, I'm building this story with a lot more dialogue. Well, any dialogue would be a lot more than Raison d'Être, of course, but this will be almost solely based on dialogue. Whereas Raison d'Être focused a lot of the message through the appearance and behaviours of protagonist and environmen, thus calling for a lot of descriptive text, for a lot of in-depth detail; this new one - I might call it "Limbo", since it effectively describes the issue of the main protagonist (but then again, I think "limbo" is a rather ugly word) - will be so based on the dialogue and the ideas and beliefs of the main characters, where the Ghost, the protagonist, is pondering over death as a personal issue.

And with less dialogue and more descriptive text, the entire thing appears more archaic, more in tune with ancient legends and stories.

Third, this dialogue is built up with main characters that I wanted to appear correct. These characters represent ideas of death as they are already, or as I belive that they would be divided - those directly denying the possibility of death, and thus very crestfallen and distressed if it does happen; those believing, in some sense, in "a better place", and those quite finally that grapples with the distress of death and are still unsure. That becomes a comfortable platform from which to work. Each character can bring their idea into the discussion and the Ghost - defined as the central, philosophical discussion, the one that carries the idea forward - agrees or counters as I, myself, see fit. In this sense, I also want these characters to appear like real people. Although I'm not very good at it, it's nonetheless a worthwhile attempt to depict life-life characters. In this sense, they won't be conversing in the same archaic and academical style that I grant the Ghost - seeing as he represents the philosophers, those distanciated, in a sense, with the conflict itself, but yet right there (and this point will be duly expressed as well) - but they will be talking with very much more common expressions and words. Such that I myself would use in casual conversation (needless to say, more thought goes into my writing than in my casual conversation).

 

So the final result will probably much express the division between the Ghost and the other main characters, and it's a division I want to accentuate. As much as the Ghost is a part of them, it's still distant and divided, as much as this whole idea of death is a very distant and odd thing to think about.

The question thus becomes, where lies the border between mundanity, and overcomplexity? Dialogue as a tool to create emotion can inspire an academic presence as well as a gritty, more low-brow style. Both of whom, of course, can easily be utilized for the ends of the text. If there's any further opinion, I'd like to hear it.