People would be a lot more efficient w/o so much brain capacity. Too many variables spinning around. Too much noise. Every word, every intonation, every tick, every flicker, every shift. Seeing the intricacy w/ no capacity to reduce it. Guess that mean's there's a reality out there, though, if intricacy qua intricacy can't be real-ly simplified. Noticing almost everything, playing dumb in two-thirds of your interactions so you actually have a topic of conversation and people don't think you're weird. Knowing exactly what someone wants or needs in a given social situation but still not doing it cuz they might start to guess. And makes the instance where you don't notice even more catastrophic, cuz you don't know what you don't notice. Guess that's what it'd be like to be Evil Mr. Monk. Evil Mr. Monk. The Empirical Fallen. Eyes w/o a heart. Just cut to the quick, skip the analyzing. See the ball, feel the ball, be the ball. The Attilla the Hun method. There is only do.
- Q, or the Evil Mr. Monk - the Guilt-ridden, the Ashamed, the Over-Analytical.
I'd say Q'd be a minor character in my great post-American novel, but I think DFW beat me there. Those eyes. Yeep. Gives me shivers.
I think, in a way, Magnolia is the perfect antidote/counterbalance to DFW. They both use the same vocabulary, but the conclusions are totally different (per my sense).
Eyes've always had the sense of judgement or knowledge of some kind (Horus + freemason borrowing, Sauron, God, etc., etc., etc.) for obvious reasons, but the sense of judgment is usually directed at the the viewed rather than the viewer. Even the idea of God-as-guilty-of-original-sin or responsible-for-evil doesn't focus on the eyes. We usually leave the first statement unstated: 1) seeing, and yet 2) not acting. Somehow omnipotent is easier to stomach than omniscient. Interesting that instead eyes'd wind up being associated with the Accuser. A blind God. One-eyed Odin? Mhm.
No comments:
Post a Comment