As with most 11-year olds, the Boy gets easily confused
about things, such as returning clothes and books to their allotted drawer or
shelf, or shutting doors once you’ve opened and gone through them.
But recently, he got confused over something that made me
think twice.
It was an episode of the Film Programme on the 70th
anniversary of ‘Brief Encounter’, the not-in-the-least sci-fi film that I’ve
previously speculated may count as real, literal sci-fi on the basis of Trevor
Howard’s pushing back of the boundaries of medical science in Africa. In this, Francine Stock wondered out-loud about
whether Alec was, in fact, a serial bounder who had preyed on bored housewives
previously, possibly regularly, rather than a good egg helplessly besotted and
confused.
The idea that characters have existence outside of fixed texts
just baffled him. His strong view was
that there’s a book or a film and what they say or do is in the script;
otherwise they don’t exist. If the text
doesn’t tell us whether Alec was prone to dalliances, or that his (non-)affair
with Celia Johnson was an uncomfortable departure for him, then it’s a
non-question. What happens is in the
book or film; if it isn’t then why ask?: there is no existence for a fiction. QED.
It’s a stance that has a logic. You and I are flesh and blood, we have a life
when others’ aren’t looking. To ask what
we’re doing the rest of the time is a real question. If you only exist on a page then the rules
aren’t the same, there is no existence outside the script. To speculate on what a fiction, a creation,
does outside of what the author tells us does seem somewhat bizarre. To extrapolate from the actual made-up to the
yet-to-be-made-up (Alec is a philanderer; Chewbacca marries Bungle; James T
Kirk is finally picked up by Intergalactic Yewtree) has a hint of intellectual
masturbation about it.
And, lest we forget, it’s the sleight of hand that allowed M
Night Shyamalan to forge a film career (think about it; The Sixth Sense works
for the moments we’re privy to – but what about the bits in between?).
But, maybe, we’re doing this all the time. Our Facebook and Linkedin profiles, our online lives present us
in such a way. It’s more important to be
seen online than off. We’ve split. It used to be that only Mister Bond’s
reputation preceded him. Now all our
reputations precede us. Soon, our
reputations will go places we won’t follow, won’t even be invited. They’ll be more important than us; what our
online creations that share our face and name, but are constantly smiling and
continually successful, are up to will matter more than the activities of our
last-century actual beings.
It’s getting to the stage where we’re beginning to feel
inadequate, not in comparison to our peers or our neighbours or our bosses’ or
parents’ expectations, but in comparison to our own online claims. And not factual claims, I’m not talking about
the brazen porkies, but the gloss we put on things, the selfies of us doing,
having, achieving. We can’t be that
person 24/7, even if that’s the person staring back at us from our own profile
page 24/7.
Search on Google and you can find horror story after horror
story on abuse and bullying through social media leading to suicide. But how long before somebody takes their own
life without anybody else’s intervention, simply through not being able to live
up to their own hype?
Believe me, if it happens, it won’t be the strangest thing this year.
No comments:
Post a Comment