The Story of the Story

"This story writes itself," some consider this saying a trope, a cliche, while others defend it as sacred belief with the fervor of a zealous new convert. If this story is writing itself, then I, the writer, must have been surfing the waves, gently steering, yet surrendering to a larger, all-encompassing tide. No matter with which side you ride, I already owe you my thanks for reading what I write.

Oftentimes as when I was reading, I was tempted to view the writer as an oppressive, unyielding, uncompromising, inconsiderate, obstacle; much like an insurmountable wall, audaciously restricting my freedom to go wherever I please. Whether I was reading a concrete scientific article or a nubilous poem, my discomfort hardly ever changed. No matter who the writer was, what subject writing was about, or what style the writer chose, I needed to resist the writer's seemingly willful capacity to deny my individuality.

If you relate to my reading experiences, I hope that you are ready to help me single out this oppressive immovable entity. After all, it would be odd if you felt oppressed reading a text written with my sincere intention to avoid building another wall between us.

I still insist that this story has to be writing itself, partially at least. If I had already charted a carefully planned plot, from beginning to end, without leaving any room for ambiguity, then I would have been a hypocrite. However, for this story, I can hypocritical about everything other than avoiding that wall's perpetuation.

Therefore, the story needs us to grant each other amnesty over everything else so that we can afford to sharpen our focus on our common enemy, our shared interest, to stand fully united against that wall. But, what and where is that wall anyway? Also, isn't the story asking us to effectively form a wall by standing firmly united? A wall is made of many bricks firmly standing together at the end of the day.

So we have a story that writes itself asking us to unite against something that unites us by virtue of it being united against us. Trust me; I am as confused as you are as to what this means. I guess by agreeing to forgive each other for all other mistakes, we also agree to let the story indulge in a little bit of hypocrisy.

I personally care only a little bit about the beginning of the story and a little bit more about the end. I demand that the beginning be inclusive. In the beginning, you and I have to be included somehow. Otherwise, the story itself would form a wall that divides us. I, also demand a nice, happy, and civil ending to the story. I guess what I am actually saying is that the story needs to end. If we choose to arrive back where we started, then we just ordering another sequel.

Now that I came clean and I told you exactly how I intend to influence the story, all I ask in return is that you respect the part that I care about; In the end, there can't be suffering, not for me or you. Cool? Cool :)

I have a feeling that the story has decided to play nice as well. The story will try its best to no longer ignore any suffering. However, we have to be fair to the story and spare it any suffering we can. How does a story suffer, you ask? Well, let's think about it...

So far we know that the story wants to stop ignoring our suffering and that it wants us to spare it any undue suffering. In the beginning, a story starts as just a bunch of words. Later it begins to live through us, the reader, and the writer. The story talks to itself through our words. Therefore, the story needs us to let our suffering be described in words so that it can stop ignoring our suffering.

In order for our suffering to acknowledged, our individuality needs to not be denied. Andrew Phelps seems to enjoy swimming practice, but I hate swimming practice. If I am treated as if I am him, then I will have to suffer practicing something that I hate. So how about we stop doing that to our friend here, the story? We have treated the story as a means to an end, and we demanded that it ends at a point convenient for both you and me.

But the story writes itself, so how can either of us treat it as a different story? How can we deny its individuality? Furthermore, we demanded that the story end right as it gives us exactly what we want. We tacitly decided to enslave the story and asserted that its purpose is to be the means of satisfying our ends.

All the story ever wanted is to stop ignoring our suffering, and by shedding the light on suffering, it helps us gradually eliminate it. Perhaps we envision the story ending as the causes of our pain diminish because the story was also at some point complicit in our suffering. But if the story is just like the rest of us, and on top of that all it wants is to stop ignoring our suffering, is it too much to ask to extend amnesty to the story as well?

We have already killed the story many times in our minds, how about we let it write itself this time? The story is the wall that divides you and me, but at least if we let it write itself. it will stop ignoring our suffering. At the end of the day, the story will claim that we collectively write it, and we could claim that it writes itself. As long as it's being nice I couldn't care less either way.