Going to break a long standing personal rule because I’d actually like to see some discussion over the weekend on a matter that I’m actually quite curious about. Over the past couple of months, I’ve received a number of emails and comments from readers about Mr. A. Marx, esq.. some positive and some just as certainly not. And almost all of the negative comments pertaining to Marx hinge upon this notion that somehow, in some way, he violates the rules of this weird little world I’ve created in my overactive noggin. Suffice to say (because it’ll have to), Marx does not break the rules.. If anything, Marx embodies the rules of this world.. and he has limitations and boundaries just like any of the characters. However, it would spoil the story immensely if I were simply to come out and state what those limitations are and why they are. The approach I’ve taken to telling the story of Endtown from the very beginning is one of discovery, where door after door is being opened as you’re being dragged down a dark hallway.. And like life, what’s revealed can be funny, or sad, or frightening.. and, also like life, if you stick with it, you’ll ultimately experience all of it, again and again.. just maybe not necessarily in the order or quantity you’d have preferred. But why.. and this is what I’m curious about.. would someone believe that an author has made a mistake if he or she introduces elements into a story that a reader didn’t see coming? Has rote foreshadowing become so much a part of our storytelling traditions that anything that isn’t telegraphed in ages in advance is automatically seen as some kind of slip up? It doesn’t bother me as I can only tell this story in the way I know how.. but, as I said, the matter makes me curious. You tell me, folks.. :-)
Going to break a long standing personal rule because I’d actually like to see some discussion over the weekend on a matter that I’m actually quite curious about. Over the past couple of months, I’ve received a number of emails and comments from readers about Mr. A. Marx, esq.. some positive and some just as certainly not. And almost all of the negative comments pertaining to Marx hinge upon this notion that somehow, in some way, he violates the rules of this weird little world I’ve created in my overactive noggin. Suffice to say (because it’ll have to), Marx does not break the rules.. If anything, Marx embodies the rules of this world.. and he has limitations and boundaries just like any of the characters. However, it would spoil the story immensely if I were simply to come out and state what those limitations are and why they are. The approach I’ve taken to telling the story of Endtown from the very beginning is one of discovery, where door after door is being opened as you’re being dragged down a dark hallway.. And like life, what’s revealed can be funny, or sad, or frightening.. and, also like life, if you stick with it, you’ll ultimately experience all of it, again and again.. just maybe not necessarily in the order or quantity you’d have preferred. But why.. and this is what I’m curious about.. would someone believe that an author has made a mistake if he or she introduces elements into a story that a reader didn’t see coming? Has rote foreshadowing become so much a part of our storytelling traditions that anything that isn’t telegraphed in ages in advance is automatically seen as some kind of slip up? It doesn’t bother me as I can only tell this story in the way I know how.. but, as I said, the matter makes me curious. You tell me, folks.. :-)