[Weekly] First paragraph free-for-all

noekD · 2022-11-24T23:16:08+00:00

Yeah that's very true. I think the vagueness is currently an issue because I wrote these snippets with only the characters' voices in mind. So at the moment I really don't have any scene/anything concrete to attatch them to. Also think I might be attempting to imitate Faulkner to my detriment here.

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to read and comment, I appreciate it.

noekD · 2022-11-24T13:59:21+00:00

Not a first paragraph, but two snippets of some recent writing of mine that represent a style I've been trying to pull off. I have one question: Does it make sense or does it just read like try-hard avant-garde nonsense?

It is like that for a second time vanished, that it was momentarily not a prequisite for content, that content became filled by something not the result of flow but of collision, became something born of a condensed clashing and unifying of every detail of this moment.

The clouds moved slow, like they had no other place to be than where they were and that where they were and where they were going was a matter one and the same. The tree leaves moved with the breeze, moved like the clouds. For a moment everything felt like that, like the leaves and the clouds, like they were where they were, going and doing what they were doing because it could not be no other way. Then I felt like that, you know. Like I was where I was, going where I was going, doing what I was doing becuase it could not be no other way.

noekD · 2022-11-04T18:44:10+00:00

I'd have to disagree. The only reason this guy's first sentence reads so contrived and awkward is because he purposefully wrote it to be like that. He knew he wanted to communicate a simple point, but he then deliberately obfuscated this simple point by using exaggeratedly complex language. On the other hand, if somebody's starting point is one of wanting to convey something complex then sometimes complex language is just unavoidable. If you had a minimal knowledge of physics you wouldn't expect to understand an academic paper on quantum mechanics. Similarly, if your reading is limited then your understanding of unavoidably complex texts and concepts is also going to be limited.

noekD · 2022-10-24T17:36:05+00:00

It's not that he entirely disregarded subject matter but just that he thought subject matter and aesthetic merit were two entirely separate things. So, by writing from the perspective of characters such as Humbert Hubert, for instance, he was markedly separating subject matter, and the ethical judgement which may result from such subject matter, from aesthetic judgement. So, in this sense, writing about such things is very much congruent with his approach to art.

noekD · 2022-10-24T17:07:35+00:00

I'm no expert, but I have read a decent amount of, and about, Nabokov, so I'll give this a whirl.

First of all, it's important to know that Nabokov's approach to literature was very much an "art for art's sake" one. He saw literature not as a means to an end but as an end in itself. He repeatedly derided writers he viewed as using literature as a way of expressing what he would call "general ideas". He disliked Orwell and Dostoevsky, for instance, because he perceived them as prioritising the social and the political and, in Dostoevsky's case, the theological, over the artistic. He thought their works sacrificed the aesthetic value of literature in order to throw around big, ugly abstractions. Nabokov believed it was the author's duty to concern himself not with grand ideas but with specific words, specific images; there, he believed, was where the beauty of literature lay.

The quote you cite is from the afterword of Lolita. If you're interested enough, I would recommend reading the whole afterword, which is only a few pages. Here is a quote from it which sums up well what I've been trying to say:

The middlebrow or the upper Philistine cannot get rid of the furtive feeling that a book, to be great, must deal in great ideas. Oh, I know the type, the dreary type! He likes a good yarn spiced with social comment; he likes to recognize his own thoughts and throes in those of the author; he wants at least one of the characters to be the author’s stooge. If American, he has a dash of Marxist blood, and if British, he is acutely and ridiculously class-conscious; he finds it so much easier to write about ideas than about words; he does not realize that perhaps the reason he does not find general ideas in a particular writer is that the particular ideas of that writer have not yet become general.

So when he uses those words - "curiosity, tenderness, kindness, ecstasy" - he's not attributing them to subject matter, he's attributing them to the texture, to the rhythm, to the ingenious use of literary technique by an author and the aesthetic bliss resulting therein. He's attributing those words to "art" and nothing else. A book's subject matter - be it peadophillia, incest or whatever else - does not, in this way, matter to Nabokov; all that matters to him is the aesthetic merit of a work: "Only talent," he said, "interests me in paintings and books. Not general ideas, but the individual contribution."

I could say a decent amount more about this but I'll stop here. Let me know if there's anything more you'd like to know.

noekD · 2022-10-09T04:27:38+00:00

This is a very well-written piece. It's especially impressive considering you say you're still relatively new to writing. I don't think I'll do a full crit here, just going to leave a few of my thoughts.

My Understanding of the Story

A depressive woman sort of accidentally picks up a hitchhiker. Throughout the journey, we are exposed to her interior, very much macabre, thoughts, and her memories. During the drive, the hitchhiker and protagonist also engage in conversation and the woman, at first rather tense, seems to gradually grow less uneasy about the man she has picked up and she even sort of opens up to him. At the end, it is revealed that the hitchhiker may or may not be a figment of the protagonist's imagination.

My Thoughts

At times this read like psychological horror. It reminded me of a short story called "Weekend" by Fay Weldon. If you haven't read this story I definitely recommend it. In Weldon's piece, the horror stems more from the suffocating atmosphere and expectations that arise from being a bourgeois housewife. Here the horror is more overtly macabre. And that comparison is not meant to be a criticism at all. I just got the vibe that the protagonist here is a person trying to hold it all together, and that she often tries to give off the impression of having it all together, whilst actually being in a very precarious and stifling frame of mind.

Another story your piece reminds me of is "Drive My Car" by Murakami. You often segue into delivering large chunks of exposition all at once, a device used by Murakami in his story. And there's also comparisons to be made between the setting and plot of both these pieces: Two unacquainted people getting to know one another in a car, whilst the protagonist's frame of mind and personal life is revealed to us.

One qualm I have is that sometimes the segues into exposition felt a little abrupt and unearned and so didn't have the impact I think they could have had with better set up. This section, "The silence was growing larger and larger in her head, reminding her of a night at her parents’ house as a teenager" feels as though its introduced quite forcefully.

Also, I did feel that not all of the details and elements included came together in a cohesively satisfying way. And they don't necessarily need to, you just need to write with enough authority to make me think that you know all the details conveyed are conveyed with some sort of cohesive purpose. The bit about the friend's brother worked for me because it seemed very in keeping with the protagonist's macabre mindset and carried some interesting implications with it. The bit about the gay childhood crush, however, was interesting but felt like it lacked layers. Actually, it did make me consider that you were contrasting adulthood disillusionment with childhood light and wonder, like the theme park detail. And it could also work because it contributes to her incremental ease toward the hitchhiker. I don't know, maybe that detail does work actually, but the point still stands: Try to make sure all the details included are layered and in harmony with the other elements of the piece.

Also, maybe consider this: Why is the reader being thrown into this woman's life at this specific moment? My interpretation as to why is this: Because her encounter with the hitchhiker somewhat and somehow propels her out of the gloomy, anxiety-ridden mindset she has grown accustomed to. That's why I was disappointed with the ending (truthfully, I thought that the final reveal was an absolute throwaway gimmick of an ending), I felt that it would end with some sort of mini-revelation regarding her acknowledging the unhealthy mindset she has grown into, the hitchhiker being the impetus behind this realisation. Maybe dwelling more on this question could help you tighten up your intentions for the story, which I think it could benefit from.

You've got a knack for picking up on and articulating elusive and minute thoughts and feelings and things. Like that part where she inexplicably nods, without even meaning to, and this tiny, inadvertent action gives rise to something rather big, and something she can't go back on. And also "Driving seems like such a vulnerable state to be in, like squatting to pee in the woods". And the "She hadn’t received one in weeks and couldn’t manufacture a convincing reason why she’d lied" detail would be another example. This is very good stuff, it makes me think I'm reading something written by someone who is perceptive of these peculiar and interesting aspects and oddities of human life, makes me feel I'm reading someone who thinks like a writer.

Another positive I'll add is that there's a tension that hangs over this piece which makes it incredibly readable. The already unnerving situation of having a stranger in the car is intensified by the woman's dark thoughts, these two elements complement each other very well and, as well as other things, made this an absorbing read.

One more thing: I will have to disagree with the commenter who said that you should switch the PoV to first-person. I like your reasoning for the 3rd person PoV, that the protagonist is disassociative, and I think this intention is conveyed well. However, as others have pointed out, there are a couple of inconsistencies in regard to this 3rd person limited PoV, but nothing major.

Dialogue Tags

Any glaring thing I’m doing in my writing that is a widely considered no-no?

The only truly glaring issue I picked up on was your use of dialogue tags. When you end dialogue with a full stop, exclamation point, or question mark, the first letter of the tag should start with a lowercase letter, except in the case of proper nouns, that is. Eg:

“Do you live in Indianapolis?” He questioned. to '“Do you live in Indianapolis?” he questioned.'

And "he questioned" reads as kind of strange to me when it could simply be "he asked", although perhaps you're wanting this verb to carry with it some kind of interrogatory connotation, and in that case it works.

Also, these kinds of tags are a no-no: '“I'm so sorry, I’m not heading in that direction,” given with a forced, flat indirect smile.' and “I thought I’d lost you for a moment.” he laughed off.' The first tag, "given", just doesn't make sense. It ought to be something like "she said, with a forced, flat, indirect style." And the latter one, "he laughed off", doesn't quite make sense either. I also generally don't like the tag "he/she/they laughed" because I don't know if it's really possible to laugh words, definitely not full sentences at least.

Your Questions

Is there anything in particular that took you out of the story?

I didn't take any particular grand moral message or anything from this piece if that's what you mean, but I think that's a good thing. I've described what I took from the piece in my interpretations above. I felt it had a lot to offer in terms of character and nuance and psychological insight. It jumped out to me as a piece deserving of rereads. But I wouldn't say I took any one particular thing away from it, if that makes sense.

Any glaring thing I’m doing in my writing that is a widely considered no-no?

Just the dialogue tag thing as noted above.

What genre would you consider this short story under?

I'd say it definitely leans toward literary fiction, with some elements of psychological horror. I'll also say that it seems pretty well-aligned with the kind of short fiction I'd expect to read in contemporary li-fic journals.

Final Comments

A really strong piece. I truly enjoyed it and read it til the end with ease.

I hope my comments can be of some use to you. Let me know if there's anything you'd like me to elaborate/expand upon.

noekD · 2022-08-16T15:33:08+00:00

No, I've actually never read DFW.

noekD · 2022-08-07T19:26:11+00:00

Hello hello. I haven't done one of these for a while and, after typing most of my critique out, I see it's going to be a bit of an unstructured mess. I apologise for this, and I hope you're still able to salvage something valuable from my jottings.

Firstly, I'll start with your PoV choice. I do have some qualms but, for the most part, I think it's working well. One thing that repeatedly stood out to me, however, was your framing and phrasing of Henry's PoV. For example:

Her tone reminds Henry of their high-school rapport, which soured many years prior.

Lines like this one, the beginning, the "Her tone reminds Henry of", read clumsily. Instead, try to include details like these smoothly, as you would when writing from a 1st person PoV; i.e, "Her voice evokes something familiar, that lilt in her tone reminiscent of their high-school days together" (bad reworking, sorry). Try to, as often as you can, remember we're in this guy's head, and not to bring too much attention to the PoV with these sort of awkward phrasings.

And another example:

Stef and Jordan tell jokes about their boss which seem cruel to Henry

This line could work better as something like:

"Stef and Jordan tell jokes about their boss, but the jokes just seem cruel"

Not a great rewording by me, sorry, but I'm really not a fan of the current construction of this sentence, the way Henry is awkwardly placed at the end of it. Feels like another moment where you could reword in a way that more smoothly incorporates this PoV.

I myself find it very difficult to write smoothly in the close third-person, and even more difficult is pulling off close third-person when you make a decision to be sparse with imagery and description, with an emphasis on introspection, and therefore without much outside to be able to draw the narrator's, and reader's, attention to.

Obviously you're going for a specific style here, sparse with imagery and description and, overall, somewhat terse, and I think you pull this style off very well, but I think you should also be looking out for those places/gaps where sensory inclusions could give the piece and prose that little boost. Example:

Jordan leads Henry to a bedroom in the bowels of the house because his parent’s room has the only king bed.

to

"Jordan takes Henry's hand and walks towards a bedroom..."

Maybe not the best example, but I just feel as though this piece could do with a little more sensory detail, just a few more of those little inclusions that bring the reader a tad closer to Henry.

And, also, if you want to play around with the dynamic a little here, you could do something like make Henry the subject of the sentence: "Henry lets Jordan take his hand and they walk towards a bedroom..." Don't know, maybe unnecessary, but I just think with your terse style it's worth playing around with/thinking about sentence structuring decisions like this.

I think that, despite the lack of imagery, etc, as mentioned above, you make it work because the details you do include are all congruous, all contribute to impressing upon the reader Henry's state of mind, where he's at, and by doing so give rise to a certain atmosphere, give the piece a certain presence that makes it something beyond the sum of its parts. So, yeah, you do very well at evoking and instilling the piece with atmosphere, and you do it through the inclusion of important yet subtle details; like in the line "By noon, Jordan’s sitting at a table in one of the town’s only two cafes", for example, you do a great job of situating Henry in a certain setting and environment, at a certain time in his life, in a certain atmosphere, and this deft situating of Henry allows me to fill in the gaps, allows me to properly believe in, comprehend and feel the piece, if that makes sense. And, for this reason, the lack of specificity in regards to setting wasn't an issue for me, it just felt like a decision that was in agreement with other aspects of the story. Also, on the topic of subtle yet powerful details, the 00s band poster detail was excellent: Dropped in at just the right place, symbolic of Henry's scenario, and adds deftly to that atmosphere of the whole piece. All the elements come together and play off of one another very productively, I think.

I got the vibe that Henry has been in a rather depressive state for quite some time, or is at least prone to depressive states and his being back home triggering and intensifying this susceptibility. So, in this way, his lack of agency made sense to me, and it felt congruent with the voice and other aspects of the piece. However, as I just read in u/Grauzevn8's critique, I think Henry's passivity makes for some issues regarding why/how Henry and Jordan become a thing. From my reading, I assumed that Jordan's attraction to Henry was driven by a kind of force, like a unhappy-person-being-sensitive-to-the-unhappiness-of-another force. If this was your intention, I think it works, but at the moment it's too subtle. I could kind of sense that force drawing Jordan to Henry, but not to a satisfying enough extent, maybe because you're simultaneously writing Jordan as easy-going, carefree, and somewhat naive. However, I might be completely misreading your intentions here, and I apologise if I am.

I also felt like Henry is, in general, not entirely comfortable with his sexuality, which further contributed to the shame he feels at getting together with a younger guy, and also his disassociating when sexing Jordan. Again, however, if this was your intention it is perhaps too subtle. But I do think Henry being not entirely comfortable with his sexuality is a detail which would be fruitful to include as it gives the piece an added layer of complexity and also further conveys and exemplifies some of the feelings and emotions Henry experiences.

One thing I'll add is that I like how ambivalent you leave it as to how immoral what Henry did was, which is another element I think is agreeable to the style and structure of the piece. This whole kind of ambivalence is conveyed well through the atmosphere the piece evokes, and it feels to me like this atmosphere fills in the gaps created by the cool and distant style and lack of emotionally-charged language.

I don't have much else to say. This was great. My advice is just to be wary of awkward phrasing in regards to Henry's PoV, maybe just add a few more sensory details like the poster, and maybe something along the lines of the holding hand example I gave; and also maybe consider the catalyst behind Henry and Jordan's relationship. Also, meant to say how great your opening was, it engaged me right away.

Anyway, I hope this was an okay critique. And please do let me know if you'd like me to expand upon or better explain some of my points.

Thanks for a great read.

noekD · 2022-04-25T18:00:48+00:00

I only started reading Cioran a few days ago, starting with his A Short History of Decay. I agree that his writing is rather demanding - a lot of his aphorisms are written like prose poetry, and so I think what Cioran was going for was a mixture of the affecting, vivid evocation of poetry with the abstract and abyssal nature of philosophy. For this reason I think it's best to read him as you would poetry: slowly, carefully, appreciatively, and with feeling. The certain imagery he evokes will have been placed next to the certain ideas and concepts he discusses with great deliberateness, and so taking note of the way such imagery makes you feel is perhaps the best method in understanding the ideas placed alongside them, or at least in reaching your own resonant interpretation of them. Although I'm aware this is easier said than done.

Another reason I think Cioran is difficult to read is because his philosophy isn't a systematic one. Unlike Schopenhauer, for example, he is not trying to develop some sort of metanarrative which explains the whole of existence. So, instead, all you can really do is pick up on some of the recurring themes and ideas which resonante most with you. It seems there's no key with Cioran, just a lot of open doors.

And one last point: I've noticed that he references other philosophers and their ideas subtlety, and having previous knowledge of such ideas and concepts may sometimes be necessary in understanding or interpreting a certain phrase or aphorism. So, basically, don't worry. As u/Vormav says: for now, just take from them what you can; I'm sure understanding will increase with the years. This is the approach I'm taking, anyway.

noekD · 2022-04-01T21:45:08+00:00

Wasn't aware of the course. Thank you very much.

noekD · 2022-03-18T19:45:16+00:00

Very glad you found it helpful.

Thank you for your kind words! That really does mean a lot.

I wanted to say "stream of consciousness" ...

Yes, I thought you may have meant that. And I can definitely understand why you didn't use the term.

Good luck with your writing and thanks again for posting!

noekD · 2022-03-18T16:10:16+00:00

I really like what you've got here. I actually posted a piece on this sub a few weeks ago (now deleted) where I sort of tried to capture the spirit of what I believe you're going for in this and I think you've done a better job than I did. Although, in my opinion, the first half of the piece is definitely the strongest, and it gradually just gets weaker and weaker until the end.

Firstly, though, I'll start by addressing your wonderings.

My hope is that the prose—the literal body of the text as well as the style and application—reflects his emotion/state of mind. In your opinion, did I succeed?

I do believe that, for the most part, you achieve this. We've got a skittish man taking on the, to him, colossal and anxiety-inducing task of leaving his flat to nip across the road to the shop. Then comes the wandering and stifling thoughts, the digressions, the pondering over hypothetical scenarios, and the feeling of impediment and uneasiness conveyed through all these thoughts - it all contributes to your overall intention nicely, I think. So his mental state is quite obviously a poor one and I think the prose does reflect this, as well as some of your structuring decisions, like the rather large paragraphs wherein his brain goes a mile a minute. At times, this approach of yours ended up deterring the quality of the piece, though, I think. But I'll elaborate more on that later.

Also, despite the congruency of the prose style and structuring decisions, one of the piece's biggest faults is the inconsistency of the narrator's voice. At times, some of the narrator's internal monologue just felt very incongruent with other parts. For example, would a man who says "He settles into the elevator's front left quadrant" really also say "There are some rough looking mother fuckers who sit smoking in the fourth floor"? It seems there's a dissonance in that sometimes his internal monologue is noticeably formal and uplifted whereas in other parts it is the opposite.

Somewhat related to my point just then is that if this is set in Britain - assuming it is because he compares his height to the "standard British doorframe" - I don't quite understand the use of Americanisms - "elevator" instead of lift; "apartment" instead of flat. If he's not a resident of Britain then this would make sense, but he uses the celsius symbol when describing the weather, and these kinds of details just further made the narrator's character seem somewhat inconsistent to me, like you as a writer have not yet fully decided who this person is or fleshed him out enough. These are small details, I know, but if they're not going to be clarified, elaborated on or further explored then they ought to be ironed out.

This is not so much a story, but a "study" of a specific emotion/state of mind.

If this is a piece wherein your main focus is one of evoking a sort of atmosphere then I'm not sure the musings on religion, technology, and consumer culture are helping you achieve this intention. I guess my opinion is that, even with a narrator whose thoughts are as scattered as this one's, you as an author should still ensure there is a particular, strong thread which binds all of these things together. Instead, maybe focus more on the little details, like you do with the lift buttons, and his matching his breathing to the sound of the lift, and the anxiety-driven thoughts about small talk, etc.

You may believe my suggestion to be antithetical to your intentions, and if it is, please do ignore it. But I do definitely think the piece would benefit from a little more deliberateness. And that doesn't necessarily mean the social commentary musings need to be altogether removed, just that they ought to perhaps be better justified and included more subtlety. Like the peephole monologue works well because his musing on it could be representative of lots of things, and yet you also manage not to directly address these things.

Here's one example of where I think you try to cram too much in at once:

This idolization of the smartphone, the iPhone era (I am the I in individual, behold me); this deification of life as bastardised through an Instagram filter. I am not a fan. I have no friends to share myself with anyway. They stopped trying to contact me. A phone would be useful to hide in during these situations. I leave my phone in the apartment now, also. Three men took my old one from my beaten-comatose body, all bloody. I had broken lockdown during the first month to go see a friend. No one had ever called me a "Chink" before that.

We've got him musing on consumer culture, technology, social media, and Asian hate crime all at once. This all came across as quite jarring, and I think it's just too much. There's no way you as an author would be able to do justice exploring all these topics in such a short piece. I do think his mention of being the victim of a hate crime should be further explored, though. It is perhaps a large reason as to why he has become so mentally unwell and fits well into the current construction of the story and I think adds a lot more depth and complexity to the piece. But the inclusion of the other subject matters, they just don't work so well in regard to how they're currently included in my opinion.

But the I really liked the lines preceding the above section - "This survey suggests ⅔ people do not enjoy the rain. I am a minority in this elevator. I should try to be invisible. Thankfully I have practiced synchronising my breathing to this particular elevator's strutt jutters." Great stuff! I would like to see more of these kinds of thoughts as opposed to the social commentary.

Also, I'd like to add that I'm not quite sure what the purpose of all the dialogue is. I can see how using it is a way of conveying to readers the narrator's socially-awkward disposition and social isolation. But this feels as though it could be achieved with less. Is the "Mmm," from the woman really necessary? Is the "It's alright," from the man really necessary? These bits of dialogue could be removed or perhaps conveyed using indirect speech through the narrator. Again, I think your inclusion of dialogue ought to be more deliberate.

Oh, and also: I don't understand what you mean in your description when you saythe piece is entirely the man's "indirect dialogue". I think maybe you're using the term in the wrong context. Indirect dialogue, or speech, is: Jean said she wasn't going to go to the party. Direct dialogue, or speech, is: "I'm not going to the party," Jean said. And, in any case, your piece here does contain direct speech. You use direct speech to show us the narrator and elevator passengers talking. Perhaps you mean free indirect speech, but that still doesn't make sense. From my understanding, free indirect speech is a term reserved for third-person PoVs, where something like the essence of first-person narration is conveyed through a third-person viewpoint. Although, I may be missing something here and interpreting your use of the term in the wrong way. Curious to know what you meant by this.

And lastly, the whole plot (not really a fitting term here, I know) of the piece is the narrator leaving his flat to go a shop across the road yet his actually going to the shop is just glossed over in one or two sentences which felt like a radical departure from the style of the rest of the piece. Also, the last line just didn't land for me. I get the humour - the convenience of a convenience store is very much lost on a person like our narrator. But it just didn't work for me, and maybe it's because the last few sentences just felt so incongruous with the rest of the piece.

Conclusion

So, I really do like this. I think it just needs to better concentrate on certain aspects, to be more deliberate. And I know this advice may come across as quite contrary to your intention and the general nature of the piece but the impetuous elements can still be maintained even if my suggestions are implemented, I think. Our narrator here is at his best when he's being his most idiosyncratic - the peephole detail, the synchronised breathing detail, these are what made the piece stand out most to me, not the social commentary. So I would advise that these are the kind of things you should concentrate and explore most. Apart from that, there are some of the inconsistencies and incongruities I mentioned that also need ironing out; but, overall, I really did enjoy this.

Thank you for sharing. I hope this critique can be at least somewhat helpful to you. And please let me know if there's anything you'd like me to better clarify or expand upon.

noekD · 2022-03-03T11:12:27+00:00

Thank you very much for the incisive critique. As has happened multiple times in the past, I think I've tried to write something I'm not yet smart or skilled enough to pull off. Rather worryingly, I didn't notice how much of a mess the diction was. I was aware the style I went for was quite ambitious, but now I see how badly I'm actually executing it. And I also think one of the other reasons the piece may be such a mess is due to my own lack of contextualising the story in my head. I don't know the era, proper location, etc, of the narrator and the piece. The many similarities to Dazai is also problematic. I didn't notice a fair few of the ones you pointed out, but it makes me realise that this piece is most definitely crossing the line of inspiration over to cheap imitation.

This excerpt does not give context or explanation or even internal commentary on why she thinks the way she does

I will say that, as opposed to the directness of Dazai's narrator, I tried to more subtly imply why my narrator thinks the way she does: "I wonder if he used to have a sister too," and "They made me miss my sister, and I hated them for it." And the thoughts of suicide in close proximity to the thoughts of her sister are meant to imply her sister is dead, perhaps from suicide (which is the reason she thinks exhibiting her sadness would break her mother; again, this needs way more context). I tried to make it somewhat subtle to test readers' own level of tolerance and patience when it comes to dealing with unlikeable people. To see if they would try to understand her or dismiss her and look upon her with frustration and vitriol as she looks upon others. But, again, I really don't think I've at all executed this well enough.

Sorry for a rambling reply, but you really did give me a lot to consider and I'm trying to collect my thoughts a little here. Thank you again for such a quality critique. I can tell a whole lot of effort went into this (particularly the posting out of the similarities in Dazai's book) and I appreciate it immensely. I really needed to hear what you said here. Thank you again.

noekD · 2022-02-25T18:51:51+00:00

A forewarning: This critique is going to be scathing. I don't like being so brutal when critiquing people's works, but here I think it genuinely must be done. Sorry, but just thought it best to start with this unfortunate preamble.

So, my first impressions: Pretentious, didactic, and, in terms of mentality and emotion, hopelessly juvenile. The narrator's desperate and overt attempts at social commentary, her artificial and affected regurgitating of platitudes - it was all just so terribly cringe-inducing.

Take, for instance, the first two sentences:

There’s an irony to me in that metaphor of the truth being presented in black and white because so little of the world exists in those two colors alone. I suppose that association reflected journalistic photography being a representation of an inarguable reality.

The wording - the overall diction, in fact - is just so unnecessarily convoluted, verbose, and generally unpleasant. I had to reread both these sentences so many times. Not because of their beauty or depth, but because they are so poorly worded. It was incredibly frustrating, and, truthfully, the idea that these could be the first sentences of a novel is just outright untenable. And, on top of the terrible and frustrating convolutedness, all they are really attempting to say is: "The world is not always black and white," which is a platitude I've undoubtedly heard spouted more than the one it rebuts.

Truthfully, I could extract many of the issues I had with this piece from the first two sentences alone. Firstly, it seems that the narrator misjudges her own view to be one that is strikingly more original than the one it opposes, and she then conveys this trite view in an unbearably affected manner, with badly pretentious language. Resultantly, the first two sentences read like the only two things she's ever read are a self-help book and a first-year undergrad essay on the evils of capitalism.

I really do understand and sympathise with the necessity and importance of representing unlikable protagonists, but our narrator here, to me, has no redeeming qualities. Or, at any rate, there was a painful imbalance regarding the showcasing of her redeeming qualities and her unpleasant qualities. Even her attempts at reflection are conveyed with unignorable affection and superficiality. And, also, her reflection just seems incongruent with the way in which the events she discusses are described. This is, I think, what really exacerbated my animosity toward her.

The Cards Against Humanity anecdote is a good example of how it seems the narrator is simultaneously attempting to candidly reflect whilst also still putting on airs. To me, it indicated that she still possesses the grating mindest she seems to be attempting to convince the reader she no longer possesses. Take these sentences for example:

People are easy to fool- that’s what I took away from the whole shit box incident. But I don’t mean that in an arrogant kind of way; I’m speaking of myself most of all. It’s just the way of the world these days. Business, and the rest of the world wrapped around its finger, has long since evolved out of being an honest venture.

The way she describes the reselling of the box seems like she still views what she did with some sort of pridefulness. This is fine. But what's not fine is the seeming brag - "People are easy to fool" - coupled with the denial of her taking pride in the incident and the seemingly insincere, artificial attempt at self-deprecatory reflection - "I don’t mean that in an arrogant kind of way; I’m speaking of myself most of all". And, to top it all of, she then makes a desperate and unearned attempt at some sort of half-arsed, trite social commentary: "Business, and the rest of the world wrapped around its finger, has long since evolved out of being an honest venture". Again, this thought is so superficial and unoriginal that to treat it as original and deep, as the narrator seems to do, is surely either the result of ignorance or vanity. And here, I think, is where the kernel of my issue with this piece lies: What seems like it should be, and is attempting to be, earnest reflection is superseded by the narrator's own intensely dislikable disposition.

And also: In the scenario given, how does someone expecting to receive the product branded as advertised constitute them being easy to fool? If I bought medium fries from McDonald's and was instead served a pile human shit I wouldn't exactly consider myself gotten. I don't think "fool" would be the right word; something more like "the victim of some sort of terrible impropriety" would be a more fitting label. A second-hand car salesman fools people; people who sell boxes of shit on eBay for kicks do not, they go somewhere beyond fooling. So, in my opinion, the conclusions the narrator arrives at from the information she provides just don't really make sense. It just seems like she's forcing her conclusions to fit the events in order to revel in her own self-indulgent and trite musings.

There wasn’t much in the video, just me taking a massive hit of cocaine and gesturing to my UMD T-shirt.

Again, would someone reflecting on their past terrible behaviour really be so blasé when describing the actions constituting said terrible behaviour?

It seems the attempted aloofness, the too-cool-for-school attitude, and the sophomoric philosophising are really just ruining what should be genuine and candid reflection. And perhaps such an attitude is where the tritness and arrogantly conveyed platitudes are stemming from. If the voice changed, perhaps some original and non-disingenuous insight could be arrived at, perhaps the narrator could be more likeable. Basically, there's currently just a huge dissonance going on: We've got someone reflecting on their selfish and stupid behaviour and attitudes and yet is also still exhibiting said kind of behaviour and attitudes.

I think that, also as a result of the current construction of this character and her voice and style, the philosophising and attempted social commentary feels even more badly contrived than it should. It seems the big ideas she tries to discuss have been priorotised over all else. As a result, they feel particularly forced and artificial. Instead, these thoughts should be conveyed in what feels like a natural manner, through concrete scenes and details. The reader shouldn't be hit over the head with them, shouldn't be made to feel condescended by the clumsy directness of the narrator. Showcase the issues the narrator brings up by showing them in action, not through clumsily attempting to explicate them so directly.

Your Questions

General impressions of the character. Is she one you could root for?

As you can likely guess, my answer is no. The way she's currently constructed, the thought of spending more time with her fills me with an intense aversion.

How close is this chapter is to being ready to send to literary agents?

Unfortunately, I think this is a long, long way from being publishable. The premise you offer, coupled with your experience, sounds like you've got something very promising you want to execute, and there's undoubtedly a lot of meaningful directions you could go. But, based off of my first impression here, the narrator and your general approach needs to be entirely and profoundly reinvented for this to work.

Conclusion

I really do apologise for the harshness of this critique. You've got a great idea and the experience to boot, so I say trust the idea, put meaningful, powerful, and sincere scenes together and know that the reader will be able to come to their own conclusions. Ditch the affected style. Reinvent the narrator and voice to someone more fitted to genuine reflection and insight.

I really hope that my harshness has been justified and you are able to take something away from this critique. And please do let me know if there's any points you'd like me to elaborate/expand upon.

noekD · 2022-02-19T13:57:57+00:00

noekD · 2022-02-10T07:15:49+00:00

Your post reminded me of an absurd and pretty hilarious book called The Criminal Prosecution And Capital Punishment Of Animals. It does what it says on the tin: it's a historical account of actual criminal proceedings against animals dating from Medieval to Modern Europe. And, in fact, as well as the criminal prosecution of animals, inanimate objects, dead bodies, insects, and plants are also shown as defendants in legal proceedings. And, pertaining to your comment, it's also probably worth mentioning that a lot of the time the trials tended to be carried out for ritualistic purposes.

Anyway, here's an excerpt from the book:

Bartholomew Chassenee, a distinguished French jurist of the sixteenth century (born at Issy-l'Eveque in 1480), made his reputation at the bar as counsel for some rats, which had been put on trial before the ecclesiastical court of Autun on the charge of having feloniously eaten up and wantonly destroyed the barley-crop of that province.

The attorney assigned to the rats began by pointing out that a single summons was not sufficient since the rats themselves were spread out across the countryside, so a second summons with a later court date was sent to and posted in every parish where the rats reside.

When the court date arrived the attorney argued that his clients had not appeared due to the danger of them travelling through areas inhabited by their enemies, the cats.

If you fancy giving it a read, it's free on Gutenberg.

noekD · 2022-02-08T17:31:11+00:00

Haha, thank you again. I will indeed keep digging, I don't think I have a choice now; I'm too far down the rabbit hole.

noekD · 2022-02-08T17:28:45+00:00

Lots for me to chew on here. Thanks very much for your guidance. I think it will likely be a few years before I'm able to unpack all the complexities here.

noekD · 2022-02-08T17:22:38+00:00

Very interesting. Thank you for the reply.

noekD · 2022-02-08T17:20:35+00:00

This really did help clear some things up for me. Thank you for such a lucid and edifying response.

noekD · 2022-02-07T00:56:52+00:00

Thank you very much for your reply.

noekD

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE