I did manage to make myself go out and get milk, at least, since I wanted tea and didn't have enough for it.
Right now, I'm watching episodes of Murder, She Wrote from 1985...which are mindless entertainment.
I also read more of Second Foundation...and I can sense some decisions being made in the back of my brain about what project to fall into, next. Nothing definite, yet...just me waiting for me to tell me what I am going to do until I decide not to, again.
I read an interesting comment in a post on someone's Facebook page -- Technical perfection can impress the mind, but emotional purity alters the soul. It hit me that in my head I keep trying for the best English grammar and story structure possible, thinking that will mean I'm doing right as a writer. But deep within I want to affect the reader emotionally. I wonder if those are mutually exclusive within me.
I try to paint images with words. Use words to lead to emotions. And sometimes I get carried away in the argument between them. Because it is an argument. I've read books that are of "great meaning" and demand you understand glorious point they are making. Things like Carl Theodore Dreiser's An American Tragedy and John Fowles' The Collector. I can acknowledge the precise language but find them emotionally inert. They're so intent on telling you what to think, you can't.
I like to believe the chapter in Bobby Carapisi, where the title character reveals he's about to kill himself and is begging forgiveness for it, hits better because it's not great English; it's a man at the end of his rope and in chaos.
And when Jake finds out what happened to his uncle in The Vanishing of Owen Taylor, and all he can do is sit in a hotel room and sketch image after image of himself, in a mirror, in order not to have to think about it...the absence of me explaining his emotional state hits harder than if I spent paragraphs detailing it.
So is that what I was trying to do with The Murder of a Quiet Man? Find the emotion before knowing the story? It's possible.










