Anything and Nothing

Does the book toy with structure to evolve from convention due to its investigation/questioning the flaws and quirks of current life’s priorities?

Does the book mix off-kilter characters into a larger machination upon our consciousness of love remembered, life’s purpose, and immortality?

It is a concise story told in first person so it may rise to the conceptual affair it was conceited to be: excusably pretentious but nevertheless rewarding in its breadth for the reader.

It is not a cross-country trek between two men of undulating age, but a literary pursuit of gumption through its mood, tone, form and style. It embraces the challenge to be considered and forgotten now to be unearthed and transcended 100 years later.

Critics may question the how instead of the why: the latter is the call for understanding why we act so orderly and pretentious in our first half of life and then simple and free of outside, uncontrollable elements.

Shakespeare had seven stages of man: ‘infant to schoolboy to lover to soldier to justice to clown and, finally, second childishness... mere oblivion’. And from this, who can say right or wrong that we do not experience these events within each stage itself – when we are a lover we don’t become a clown, or, when we are an infant we are not a soldier? It is outlandish to simplify and assert this preposterous notion but then is it not preposterous to accept Shakespeare’s simplicity with categorizing life into seven stages? Not at all because it’s Shakespeare thus Shakespeare is right? So by default the 23 chapters in ‘The Unanswered Dreams of a Dead Man’ is upon itself a serendipitous assertion to the stages of an old man on his way to a second chance and a young man on his way to taking a chance.

In the end, writers are just experimenters. The trailer is below...