[ Previous ]   [ Next ]

Unmasking illusions

The leading actor

A group of students in Leiden adapted my novel “The Asylum Seeker” for the theatre. Yesterday evening they performed for the last time.
The leading actor is also one of my students. He turned out to be a talented actor.
The play itself was uncannily good.
For the author himself it remains a strange experience to be confronted with his own words.
Some of the dialogues that worked well in the novel were less effective on stage.
A scene that in my memory was more tragic than comic made me laugh out loud.
Afterwards I was asked the question if unmasking illusions isn’t an illusion as well.


10 comments Last_comment
Arnon
Are you referring to yourself in this sentence: "For the author himself it remains ..." If so, why do you prefer not to use the first person?
Yes, I agree with you. I was there and I enjoyed the play very much. The leading actor was great and touching. Don't you think that the part of the asylum seeker should be played by a real Dutch speaking Algerian ?
invalshoek
Sometimes, reading back yourself, can unveal the person who you were writing it down. When I am writing I'm not the person who i am. So.... not using the first person makes sense in this blog. It's the writer.
Dear Arnon
Unmasking of illusions is an illusion if it pretends that one comes closer to truth.

Eric W
I think that one should rather believe in different truths instead of pointing out illusions. The problem with illusions with a truth in the center of the onion is that truth seems to be surrounded by meaningless lies. The problem with illusions which will always hide other illusions besides them is of course that it is the same dead-end-track as Alice in Wonderland seems to meet when she opens one door after another with only new doors to find.
Someone mentioned the shape of sugarcane or garlic instead of onion. Well, every part exists next to the other and they exist on behalf of eachother the moment they are there. Maybe this is simply contextualism.
.. i of course meant behind them instead of besides them
mamma mia!
sorry for being so rude, but
isn't it some kind of "gehirnwichse"
... but probably i'm not intellectual enough
the 4th man
Yesterday evening this movie was on Dutch television. It's a story about a writer. He says "I lie the thruth and than believe in it".
What i mean to say is, there is no thruth, because it changes with the perspective you have. The moment you write something down it changes. For me that's the beautifull thing about life.
I do not think you can unmask an illusion, you can only unmask a pretended truth or lie as an illusion.
Aren't truth and illusion complementary? When you unmask an illusion, you also change the truth. (With truth I refer to the beliefs one (or more people) think of as true). Truth and illusions are also dynamic, therefore I think it's both necessary and inevitable that illusions are unmasked and truth travels back and forth between different beliefs.