I spoke with Trey last night. He is one of the people who i gave Michael’s work so that I could get other people’s interpretations of it. I’m interested in spreading it around because I think it is a damn good story and i’m wishing someone would finish it. Also i believe he should get recognition for being talented.
Trey is enjoying the story, and agrees that the man had some serious talent. In fact, interestingly enough, he agrees that M. Buornauro had time down pat. If you are going to have a superhero who can manipulate time, you had better create a conception of time. M.B. did a pretty good job at actually creating a conception of time.
Trey told me though that if he had not known that M.B. had commited suicide, that he would have guessed it in the near future after reading his work. He believes there is enough evidence to suggest the individual was preocuppied with suicide.
I didn’t notice it, but then i watched a film M.B. made. I guess it even alludes to the future, since the character in there threatens to commit suicide. Alluding to being, “crazy….. crazzzzzyyy.” He was a loon.
So where can you segregate the artist from the work? Is it possible? Can we honestly say that the work isn’t testament to how the artist is feeling?
Mary and I get in this debate all the time, but it is personal there. She wrote a novel and argues that the novel has nothing to do with her, or at least that you have to watch what you link her up with in her novel. Oh well… i’m sure there are skads of literary analysis that debate this topic.