Submitted by Tim Barrus, Sep 4, 2007 09:35

Why is it that when a writer or a filmmaker dives into the realm of following imagination versus leading it by the nose -- or -- the "story" is said to only work when it colors itself between the lines, follows the tired, old rules, and confines its narrative to high school English class rhetoric, the thing WORKS, or if it varies from the formula the critic (or lab-rat audience) has come to expect, it supposedly falls apart. Maybe more stories need to fall apart sort of like people do. The happy ending. The boy gets the girl. The athlete wins the race. The toddler wins the spelling bee. Addiction is conquered. The spy foils the arms race. It's all so utterly predictable it's like eating tapioca. More writers and more filmmakers need to take the editorial harness off, break more rules, and follow the animal versus putting a bit in its mouth and leading it around the dog-and-pony-show by pulling its slow length along. But no. Imagination is not allowed to win. We can only experience transendence when we're either drunk or the story itself is the hangover.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.