| |
|
This was a lot cooler, clearer, and generally more exciting the first two times I typed it out - and I liked my computer a lot more back then.
Anyhow, and this has probably been brought up before (I didn't turn anything up, though), seems like a lot of the more outstanding (is that the right term?) points of 'The Invisibles', can be mapped signirts. Particularly, the body of the reader/player/user/re-authoring-type-person.
Ugh, this made much mohad better prrofs and details, but in the hopes that somebody can take this and expode off some gloriously insightful iterations...
Hand of Glory - Our hand on the page, turning, manipulating, masking, shifting...
BARBELiTH - Lens/Sphere w/two lines, and sometimes an extra bit of circle inside the lens... is this our eye, seen from a perspective even we can't manage? The perspective from behind the eye-surface, with the sort of expanding lines as the eyelids parting from the wrong-side?
Boy's sloughed skin and contacts (both the ones on her eyes and the ones with names like Coyote and Oscar), are more about identity, sure, but hey, a skin's a skin. Weak, I know, but best I can do right now.
Fanny's wigs are the lynchpin, I know, but quite in what capacity, I haven't worked out. Hey, people scoffed at my NXM theory on Beasty-boy being the keystone of the story's architecture, but that panned out.
Ganzfledt Tank/ontic zone - the other, the alien, the outside medium of info-aether we need to establish an us all proper and binary and such. Not that this holds up very well, or very long.
Connected to this, is it plausible that 'The Invisibles' is intended to play us? I mean, if you put in with the sort of thing, are we, when ostensibly immersed in the game, it's fictionsuit? Puts an even weirder spin on 'who is speaking' and all. |
|
|
