Testing, testing, one, two, three.

Okay, it's February, January 29, 9.09 a.m. I just exited you can in, Marina passing Ocean View Elementary. And I just finished listening to my podcast where they actually did play a clip of the artificial larynx created and of the mummy of a mummy and the sound it made. So that piece of that news item that Ahmed shared through WhatsApp that we thought was fake was actually a real piece of news. So yeah, that was funny. But anyway, I have been this morning trying to think about flight of course and again looking at more ways to justify Rosalithia's one way trip to Egypt. Justify her getting on the plane and then justify her the extreme reconsideration, the regret for making that decision. So yeah, hold on one second I can't diamond my mouth. And I'm tossing around a little debate I got going in my head as to why authors and the truth why they use metaphors and why they just straight up tell, well they tell what they think is the truth. But invariably it is, got their take on it. You know the truth is stretched or it's their version of the truth or it's their interpretation. And so take for example the story of John and Michael Corson on the story. Well let's just say something traumatic happens to someone and they decide to tell a story, to write about it. They can either write about it as simple plain truth, their version of the story. Will they get it correct? They will get the only thing that they will get correct is that they've gotten their version down on paper. There will be many who will take issue with the facts stated. And that's normal. Now what if there are innocent bystanders who are kind of outed or you know targeted in that version of the truth and so then what happens to them? Let's say for example you know one was a witness to a crime and never participated in the due process of punishing the criminal. Does that make the witness a criminal or a criminal minus one? Well that puts that if they are you know subjected, if they are included in the story then you are then the author has made a judgment call that they should be implicated. Now in the crime. I mean or the author is saying I'm leaving it up to the jury of the readers, which again leaves one to wonder. What kind of you know that's a pretty serious judgment call because readers may or may not but most likely will you know side on the view of the author. And if you don't provide enough sympathetic words for that character then you've you've lost any sympathetic justification, justification for sympathy. So then one can then create fiction and claim that this story is not true by creating fake characters and using the same story or you know telling a different story with real people and although that wouldn't you know that a different story would have to be one in which maybe you know if it were a child's version or like the life of pie for example that is a perfect example of someone not being able to handle the truth but wanting in some ways to use real characters. And actually that's a really good example of the back and forth between metaphor and all these literary mechanisms to determine whether or not there is you know truth can exist as is on its own as a story. And so that's another kind of issue. But the one I want to focus on is more of a similar to life of pie a blending of you know two types of metaphor where you where you change characters and you change the story. And so hold on I'm pausing while I well no I'm not going to pause I'm just going to explain it now. The question that I thought of that that made me really want to put this these thoughts down as a note was where in what state of mind is the author making the choice metaphor versus truth fantasy versus reality actors versus historical figures. Dragon versus criminal or enemy. And yeah so in the case of life of pie we have someone who is completely innocent something external happens to them although we see that he likes to play with fire when he was facing the tiger and wanted to feed the tiger. But ultimately you know he he definitely fed the tiger and what is feeding the tiger mean feeding your will to live almost your survival instincts. And so that's essentially how that works. But what else why does and then the tiger ultimately is his mother. If I remember correctly we thought that nor the tiger was the chef. I think it was the chef and the zebra well I have to remember but you know there's a you know and he essentially applies these animalistic traits onto the survivors with him and it allows him to tell the story as opposed to those who would simply tell the story as is it would be a different story it would attract different type of reader. It wouldn't be a fantasy mystery and so in some ways there has to be some fantasy there. And I think that's what works for life of pie is you know Indian boy sailing on the ocean with a tiger sounds like a fantasy. You know and that's essentially what happened now maybe here's the same thing maybe Rosa Alithia thinks that she's being that's something's happening she's she's being spoken to. You know by possibly do we want to suggest aliens and and and and make the ultimate like historical faux pas with ancient Egypt or do we want to approach it from a reincarnation aspect or a stargate aspect where you know they they're not aliens as much as they are human like people who live somewhere else and they're highly advanced. So I have to remember what year stargate came but yeah I would say the reincarnation thing is not as highly taken advantage of as is the alien thing so I have to think more about that but basically and and ultimately I think I also wanted to consider it was there are times you know the struggle to if you start off with metaphor then what are you really saying you can't handle the truth as is are you saying you have an you know well me personally I mean what does that say about the author what what state of mind are they in are they in a state of denial are they in and I may have to use that silly little quote denial is a river in Egypt but um or do they have something wrong with them you know I need to consider also the way Murakami retails his story in Norwegian wood um the boy who kills his father but really doesn't kill his father he he he retails the story as if he is a hero so that he can justify the truth well one thing that's fascinating about ancient Egypt is that they never talked about loss they never talked about anything negative that happened to them in their life and that would be really cool to incorporate um somehow somewhere that maybe Rosalithia is in a department store where more repovic and and and that how us are talking and that how us makes some kind of quote uh you know about ancient Egypt I really have to because that would be the most likely thing that that she would have been watching at the time you know uh perhaps in a moment where she's at a Walmart in Lubbock because that's where you went shopping and uh jealous of the expensive things in the store kind of uh relating back to um um her socio economic status so yeah uh let me think about these things some more but I wanted to put these initial thoughts down all done