One question that always boggles my mind: " What is the line between creative and insane?" I'm currently reading " The Night Circus" by Erin Morgenstern. It's set in 19th century (Victorian) England. A realistic setting. However, the entire story revolves around the idea of the existence of real magic ( not illusions). Now we all are taught that magic "doesn't exist" ; if we cant recognize it for what it is, then it can't be real, right? I personally think this is false, but that's a discussion for another day
.But my point is: Just because this is set in a realistic setting, it automatically becomes acceptable, and in no way is Morgenstern's mental stability put into question. However, If morgenstern had placed this story in some fairy'tale fictitious place. I'm pretty damn sure that some crackpot right-wing parnet group would be up in arms. If you don't believe me, think about all the fuck parents raised over the Harry Potter series being put in public school libraries. So I cant help but wonder, what is the actual line that makes something "creative" vs. heresy? But anyway, I just felt the need to put my thoughts in binary, and share them with you. Until next time.
-Jukebox Head
No comments:
Post a Comment