The revisionist in me will insist that the gist of that original, surreal, narrative is largely unchanged - although I suspect that this is not at all accurate.
Were anyone to look into my memory banks, they would note that I have moved the action from the unlikely setting of the surface of Venus to the more probable Titan (I briefly toyed with the idea of a "cloud base" on Venus, but it was too limiting in relation to the plot).
They would also notice that I have greatly embellished that original dream so as to add certain relationship issues that have no connection (not even remotely) with my own life.
Whichever way it goes, the story I ended up writing is at least faithful to my early sense of despair at the modern Western human condition: where high pressure work requires long periods away from one's family and other loved ones. I very much wanted to retain that allegory.
Aside from the science of it all, I moved the action to Titan for the reason that I very much liked the "twilight world" concept - where (as Edin notes) "twilight is better than no light" (indicating a preference for a "glass half-full" perspective on life).
I've peppered the story with other indirect references to twilight: from the physical description of the sun setting on Titan, through to the artificial early morning light produced by the habitat.
Those who have some knowledge of anaesthesiology will recognise drugs commonly used in twilight sedation: propofol and medazolam. Furthermore, my mention of alpha-wave states of consciousness resulting from opiates, sensory deprivation and physical and mental illness, exhaustion and trauma will doubtlessly also be familiar to many readers.
Those who have some knowledge of anaesthesiology will recognise drugs commonly used in twilight sedation: propofol and medazolam. Furthermore, my mention of alpha-wave states of consciousness resulting from opiates, sensory deprivation and physical and mental illness, exhaustion and trauma will doubtlessly also be familiar to many readers.
But in the end, I suppose I wrote this novella as a character study, particularly in the context of a relationship: how it forms, how it is affected by modern stresses and how it breaks down. I wanted to explore the meaning of "sanity".
I also wanted to analyse our understanding of "reality", noting that we humans have the ability to perceive less than 3.5x10-26% of the electromagnetic spectrum - and that the entirety of our perception is filtered through our senses and only then projected onto an internal "screen" in our brain after the events we're perceiving have actually occurred.
Similarly I wanted to examine the concept of a "non-linear" time - Hawking's "imaginary time" and Einstein's assertion that "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."
Essentially, I wanted to create a non-linear narrative within an apparently linear one.
In relation to the above, this ties in well with the other stories comprising my collection "Nights of the Moon" - where I've sought to tell the stories featuring the same characters within paradigms that individually have the quality of linear tales but collectively comprise a kind of indirect narrative - one that is told entirely through subtext.
Finally, I want to note my principal reason for writing this story as being an artistic one.
I know this risks allegations of pretension and Dunning-Kruger delusions of grandeur. I can assure the reader I suffer none of these. Indeed, I despair that I have not achieved my goal of creating, as Kubrick and Clarke famously set out to do with 2001, the "proverbially 'really good' science fiction" story.
To me, Kubrick and Clarke failed only in that their tale didn't lead with its characters - but instead with its plot. With Hazy Shade of Twilight I've sought to reverse this. Whether I've succeeded even remotely is a matter for you to judge. I will always be my own harshest critic in this regard.
As regards the plot, especially the ending, I tried to write the story so that each reader could have their own perspective - each of these being equally correct (or incorrect). It's part of my philosophy of "perspectivism": where multiple perspectives can have equal validity even if they are mutually exclusive (in the same way as a house on a hill might be accurately described by entirely different criteria depending on the angle from which it is viewed).
In this regard, the project was probably overly ambitious, especially for a novella written in the dead of night over a single fortnight. But it is what it is.
I hope you have enjoyed it.
Dan Djurdjevic
20 January 2015
I hope you have enjoyed it.
Dan Djurdjevic
20 January 2015
