This story is a very interesting perspective on television. It’s almost a very surreal autobiography of television. It sort of reminds me of Salvador Dali’s art. It has a point, but you need to think hard about some of the finer details. I’m not so sure that I would call this literature. It does have a warning, a sort of moral, like a fable, but it doesn’t have a plot. I personally believe one of the major things that separate literary texts from other texts is the presence of a plot. I think that it is several small stories that are part of a bigger thing, but this thing is not a story with a plot. Another thing I think that makes this piece ineligible is the fact that it creates the pictures for you. I think that a part of what makes literature, literature, is that it gives you the story and enough details that you can make up in your own imagination what this character looks like, what they would act like if they were real.
On the other hand there are a couple of major things that do help it count as literature. It makes you think about the topic and the characters. Right from the opening, we are encouraged to compare the actors and the characters that they play. The starting of the story we are given two women Maureen Cooper, and the actress who plays her, Carol Livesey. From the start we seem to go more towards the TV character, but we a forced to stop and think about the oddity of this. We like the fake woman more than the real one.
It is odd. I think that it can be both considered literature and not literature. There are clear signs pointing in both directions.
No comments:
Post a Comment