I always know when I really love a book, because before I even finish it, I begin to dream in its syntax. I dream the narrative structure—beyond the page—extrapolating it to greater depth and distance. I conjecture the visceral, essential element of the words.
It is said that fluency in a language is hallmarked by dreaming and counting in that language. When you are able to co-opt a linguistic structure , to elegantly violate that structure if you wish, you have become entitled to call it yours.
It's the same reason poets are afforded license to verbify nouns, doff punctuation, and to privilege sound over meaning if they see fit to do so within a given poetic space.
Without fail, when a narrative place (book, song, poem, life-experience) becomes sacred, two things happen: there is first the ardent devotion to committing it to memory through repetition, and the inevitable desire to put it in relationship to one's own existence and understanding of the world. Part and parcel of the second step is theory-making, the commenting upon. Shortly after that, inference-making and the solidifying of opinions on the implications of the narrative—writers' intentions, ostensible meaning vs. subjective meaning –all come to the fore.
Narratives heal.
As I said in part 1 of this exploration, when I found my beloved supercouple construct's narrative footprints alive and well on YouTube in the summer of 2010, I was in a singularly terrifying place. I was desperate for some way to be tethered to the earth again. I'm an avid reader of books, but there were no physical pages I could worry with thumb and index finger at that time that would do a tenth for me what finding Frisco and Felicia again did to ground and reorient me to my life.
I started off passively. I simply viewed clips completely oblivious to what the comments said. Oddly, happily, I remembered much of the dialogue word for word, but in this new context, the experience created a sense of déjà vu. I knew what would happen, but it was still unfamiliar to navigate the serialized material this way. The serialization was happening on two levels now: as a soap opera, the stories unfolded in a recursive, clipped fashion anyway. But on YT, I had to determine which posters had posted the continuation of the stories, whether or not they had, or would, and where storylines crossed in one person's playlist with another person's clips. I was becoming a sleuth. I had to internalize the various naming conventions, comb my own memory for the year that certain narrative strands were in play, and search accordingly.
I was also a researcher. User handles made it clear what characters were privileged more than others in certain groupings. So I watched many videos on fast forward until I caught a glimpse of something or someone who interested me.
Then, it happened. I suddenly wanted to interact with the material. I wanted to talk to someone about it. I yelled at the clips. "Oh, Shut Up, Character I Don't Like!" or, "You've got to be kidding me, this is bullsh*t!"
I started to read the comments. Some of them were staggeringly astute, or simply said exactly what I'd been thinking. They were by turns funny, invigorating, enraging, or just plain stupid. I wanted to talk back to these people—whoever they were—but some of them had left the comments 1 or 2 years before. I worried, too, that it might be presumptuous. I could detect certain threads of relationship among the recurring commenters. They had a clear vibe going, and I was a newbie—someone whose understanding of F&F in particular, and of soap opera idiosyncrasy, in general was untested.
It also meant that I would have to get an account—commit to the idea of myself as someone who not only watched these clips, but who was invested in them—and play for real.
Something fairly significant was afoot. But how to explain this to my sister, who is also my roommate, and my best friend who were increasingly worried about my seemingly obsessive proclivity?
More to come in part 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment