We climbed onto the pitiful excuse for an island, taking turns to hold the canoe from drifting away since a ring of irregular rocks prevented us from hauling it onshore without likely sustaining several dreaded "gel-coat" scratches. The island, circular with a diameter of approximately twenty five yards housed no human occupants, though a flock of seagulls had taken residency in the islands three trees. Specs and splotches of white excrement decorated the ground and shrubbery of the island, a vague premonition of events to transpire in the near future5. The seagulls circled overhead, barking at us as we took turns trodding over their land6.
5 Read Claiming the White Forest who's events occur approximately thirteen hours after those of Conditioning.
6 Unlike the invasion of Native American lands where pioneers sought to rip gold from the bosom of the earth, we were making a deposit. They should have been happy.
----
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So usually I analyze a piece based on its meaning and how the piece gets that across, but since this is part of a larger work I will try to stay away from that as much.
ReplyDeleteMy first comment is just directed at the footnotes. The only reason I can see for them is to tell the reader that parts aren't completely true or to explain what is really going on and that you are looking back on it and also the bits about read this or that which comes before or after. I don't know if you were planning on leaving them there when you combine your piece, but I personally would take them out. The reader can figure out what is or isn't true well enough, and I think the footnotes take away form the flow. That said, numbers 6 and 4 are funny, so if they were all more like that I would understand why they were there and like them more.
I like the way that you explain descriptions of the areas based off your actions, but without you in there. sort of the Dillard idea of untainted wilderness is what we should appreciate, but then when you introduce the characters a little at the end, I want more. Who are they, what do they look like, things like that. We get some through the dialogue, which I really like, I think its very real, and short and simple but says a ton, and so I want more of that. That might develop more when you add the other parts, but if you hadn't done that already or were planning to, I think you should.
I also really like the first paragraph since it is a very different form of writing and is fun to read. But I wonder if it is possible to have more lines like that throughout the piece? I just expected that voice to return and I don't think it did. I also really liked the ending scene of chasing the bird, and how it should be esay to catch, but it keeps alluding you and eventually disappears. But it has that idea that what was fun and meaningful was chasing it, not necessarily capturing or killing it.
So the only things I wonder is if you could maybe combine the three voices (first paragraph, narration, dialogue) throughout more of the story and whether that might make it stronger? I liked all of those things, but questioned the organization. Part of this I can understand assuming this ending would not be the ending of the larger piece, or if it was, that it has more before it. I would certainly be interested in seeing how you put these pieces together. Hope that helps at all.
ok so a few things quick. first, the footnotes seem unnecessary. they dont seem to impact the story itself very meaningfully. second, wording gets a bit awkward at times, like the sentence that starts "prey and predator" for example. though i think this is a part of a larger problem.
ReplyDeleteso i think the story you have here has a lot of potential but it suffers from the way its presented. everything about it seems so controlled, technical, detached. i think the mood of the piece as it is now isn't entirely ideal to carry on throughout the piece. i wanted some more personal, human descriptions of, say, the pursuit--not just that you were "drawing pleasure from the chase" or what not.
also, i think the piece lacked coherence between the looking-for-a-campsite phase and the rowing phase, which made the piece feel disconnected and unsatisfying. use the motifs you have to your advantage; connect them.
finally i think the ending is a little abrupt. i wish there was more of a denouement between chasing the seagull and getting blinded, or maybe a little more after the glare [i elect for the former, sir]. right now it ends too unsettlingly for me.
but i liked the entire exchange anyway. so sadistic; i revel in that. gj!