Skip to main content

They Are Among Us

All across the world, there is a type of people called "snafs." Snafs are blended into society--some conspicuous, some never revealed. Indeed there is a variation of snafs, though most tend to be of ages ten through twenty and share similar preoccupations.

Snafs are not born into this identity; only once they encounter their leader do they become snafs. The process of conversion starts with mild and casual admiration of their leader's products, then quickly spirals into total fixation. Most spend their time practicing their most integral rituals, even while going about their days. Like chants, meaningful words of their leaders replay and leave lasting sounds ringing in their heads. Once familiar enough with these sounds, the words become effortlessly ingrained in snafs' minds and they even start to chant themselves.

The leaders of each type of snaf are worshipped. However, like snafs, they were not always like this. Through a process of fate and light, they reached the pedestal they stand on today. Before, they may have been looked down upon--in fact, more often than not, they were chastised, mocked, and hidden. Now, they are seen with awe. Every characteristic of a leader is glorified--from the outside to in, from top to bottom.

Because of snafs, these leaders' lives are forever changed. Once nobody, they now travel across the world for the purpose of pleasing the snafs--all whilst profiting off them. At this union, leaders chant the routine words, but this time in real-time, face to face. 

Ultimately, the majority of snafs will cease to exist, but new waves of snafs will arise. Similarly, only the most praised leaders will be remembered after their deaths and their vestiges will likely fade. 

Comments

  1. I love your portrayal of snafs! I'm assuming these snafs are fans who become obsessed with whoever they stan. I think this is a really unique group of people to portray. I think you did an amazing job imitating Horace Miner!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pick Your Poison

 Would you rather find out that your significant other is cheating on you or never find out? Though very far away and presumably irrelevant to your and my current circumstances, this question raises an issue that's not so far from what we know: Is ignorance really bliss? Sure, I typically respond to the opening question by selecting the latter choice of oblivion as I imagine the pain and hassle it entails, but after I contemplate and fight my instinct, I choose the wiser option. The more daunting one. I choose to pop the bubble of ignorance and learn the truth. Let's break it down. Your significant other is cheating on you. This action may be a result of a few reasons, the major being dissatisfaction in the relationship and/or sole disloyalty and a lack of integrity. A cheater is prone to cheating more than once, and if one continues it may just be a sign of bad character. Do you really want to be with someone who isn't committed to you? Someone who doesn't find satisfa...

Welcome Back

Every meeting, email, or letter begins with a greeting. "Good morning," "hello," or "dear *recipient.*" Only once an opening has been made can the intent of communication be addressed. However, though unnecessary in content, such polite phrases serve to transition and maintain friendly relations beyond just solemn work. In Korean, the staple greeting comparable to "hi" or "hello," literally means, how are you? However, no one interprets it that way or responds to the question. Despite not staying true to its meaning, it is a necessary means of easing into the meat of a conversation. Very isolated from the other employees, I often found myself asking for favors or questions at work without saying "hi" or "how are you" first. I noticed I was disrupting their work and disregarding their existence as a person and instead only seeing them as a source of inquiry. By bypassing any greeting, any conversation becomes too a...

The Fiction of Eye Contact

This picture makes me so  uncomfortable.  While it's eye-opening to find reason behind the normalities of point of view in film, the eye-level shot appears far from normal in my eyes. Is it the purple suit? The hands crossed? Or the specific positioning of the viewer on a table that makes me so uneasy? It's probably a combination of my suspicions, but I've decided that to its core, it's the eye contact that creates my discomfort. Most of these types of shots never reach the extent of eye contact. Instead, the similarity in levels creates a feeling of similarity shared by the character and viewer. There is no power disparity, no difference in viewpoint. Look at Forrest Gump and this eye-level shot (note that he's not looking at you). But once eye contact comes into play, the connection is too strong. Of course, any good producer will aim to form a connection for an audience to a film. However, there's comfort in a screen lying between a film and its viewer. It...