The Story of Our Life Critique

The story starts out very general and simples, basically as general and simple as it gets. The people seem nondescript- “ a women”, “a man”, “some children” but then the clause “who was just like all…” brings everything the reader needs to know, though it is somewhat stereotypical. The line “And it rained all day” brings the odd effect of shortening these events into one day, but then the story continues with general statements, emphasizing monotony. I almost would have liked it if Smart used “women” instead of “woman” and “men” instead of “man”. Smart then speaks to the reader, claiming to answer the readers’/ society’s cries for scandal and entertainment, but then only generalizes even more with “chapters,” which exemplifies the irritated tone, kind of like how someone explains things when they are frustrated: “First of all..” It gives a lifetime in seconds, like flashes of lightning lighting up a sky for just a second before pitch blackness falls once again.

                The story seems to interrupt itself with a new story, slightly more descriptive, yet still relying heavily on assumption. Then it interrupts itself again, bringing the narrator into the story before zooming out to old women clucking like mother hens over each other. Then there’s a cut scene to a jar of formaldehyde preserved newts. Then a scene is painted. There is dialogue, but the reader is blind to the speaker, and forced to presume it is the old women. 

Glossolalia Critique

The first thing I noticed was that Lewis’ identity is hidden in the first mention of “they”. I don’t see the purpose in this and wonder if it was intentional. However, I do like the change in referral to Charlie as Chuck when Lewis is speaking to him. This makes me wonder how “Chuck” feels about his nickname. Their knowledge of the bar makes me wonder how old they are and makes it hard to visualize them. Lewis seems to narrate the story like a long yarn. I think this feeling of exaggeration and suspense could be more incorporated into his character. I like the experiment of a story within a story, but I think the inner level of story is sort of glossed over. For instance, there’s the line “tried clawing a bull’s face off” which raises a lot of questions. Is it a literal bull? What train was he hopping on that had a bull? Wasn’t that dangerous? Did he get hurt or maimed? I also kind of wonder how the rest of the customers at the bar reacted to this, since he was apparently a regular. I wouldn’t sacrifice the last line spoken line for this, though. I would recommend he ends the story with the reaction of the bar folk and then there’s a pause in which he fishes and says “What I’ll remember about him is how he finished his stories…” And then work in the ending dialogue which worked well.

Contemporary Country Music: A Songbook

The experiment in this piece is obviously within the form as a Songbook. The form works as reflective of the musical motif. With John coming back from the war, there is the common sense of detachment and fear of change. He finds himself in a country he fought with his life to save that isn’t the same country he left, at least to some degree. This is emphasized in his implicit complaint about the newer country music played at the bar. Music is again important in the last scene, as his sister tells him about a song she relates to him about a temporarily suicidal soldier. This is possibly hinting at some of John’s feelings, as earlier in the narrative he expresses a desire to buy a gun when drunk.  When the form is taken with the title as a contemporary songbook, the implication being that the entire story is unpleasant to John, evident in his apparent attempts to escape online and then at a bar from his family that loves him. There seems to be an underlying message that John is trying to escape his current life, like in the song his sister mentions at the end. However, the form, only including spoken words, creates confusion about the speaker. It would be more helpful to definitively identify different speakers, as most could be interpreted as the mother or father speaking and create too much of an emphasis on another character, not John.

Texts for Nothing Critique

    Beckett’s piece reminds me of one of those tropes in old cartoons, something like the Flintstones. Running gag would be that the characters were walking on some rolling conveyor belt and a revolving background would be on a conveyor belt behind them. They would walk and walk, never getting anywhere, while the background would show the same features, rocks and trees, over and over again. Then Becket takes that scene and puts another conveyor belt over the first scene and has it going up and down. They criss-cross and create a flashing pattern, causing the reader, and the narrator, to swerve their head around like a kid with ADHD. The only way for the narrator and reader, as they are in the same boat, to cope with this is to focus on one thing and hold it for as long as they can.

                The narrator and the reader have an interesting relationship as it’s like the narrator is in the reader’s mind, visualizing the same thing. He corrects the reader first one way, and then the other, making sure the reader has an accurate representation of the events in the story, such as in the line “The top, very flat, of a mountain, no, a hill, but so wild, so wild, enough.” The narrator directs the reader’s imagination and visualization of the story, giving him or her a hand to hold between all the sudden scene and image and idea shifts in the piece.

Having a Conversation at an Inconvenient Time Critique

The nature of the interaction between the two characters is quickly and clearly established with the line “I get ready to fake laugh at a joke she once made.” Yet, I didn’t get the feeling she was his girlfriend until the very end. The term “over-sharing chauffeur” lends to me the idea that they were forced together on a road trip by chance. This could be easily remedied with a remark about how she feels hearing about his ex. There’s an interesting shift when she lets out an “honest” laugh yet he “kind of” smiles, probably unintentional. The way she describes the car out of boredom avidly lists the numbers of people around/talking to her is an interesting character trait which I think could be played with more. The phrase “I can’t do anything but hear him” bring a tell-tale heart type of “haunting” into the relationship, which I’m not sure is conducive to the theme. I like the repetition of “I’m not familiar with.” The phrase “You’re poorly timed” is most likely a typo but I like the idea of her describing him as a poorly timed individual. I think it would be a really interesting direction to go in. Did they meet at the wrong time? Does he have poor timing in general? The ending seems conflicted as she builds a resolve to speak to him but then decides to listen. What does that mean for the characters?

Stockholm Syndrome Critique

  The title strikes me as strange, since the narrator seems to be the one garnering affection for the wasps. Who  is the captor in this situation? I could see it as both ways, since the wasps are in the narrator’s care, yet s/he is a slave to the wasps’ architectural inclinations. The third sentence in the first full section seems like a non-sequitur since s/he hates that there are very few insects of this type, which emphasizes the lack  of similar insects but then states that s/he hates that they exist, implying that few would be better than many. I think the second diary-type entry could benefit from some contrasting through juxtaposition. I like the methods of anthropomorphizing the wasps. When she discusses their affinity for a certain song, I almost want to hear more about the wasps likes and dislikes—is the narrator curious at all? Does s/he experiment? The last line of the 17 February raises what is potentially the wasps’ affects on the narrator, but these seem understated. It goes with the theme of the story for the narrator to blow them off, but I would like to see more of the negative physical effects. The opening on Valentine’s day and the “love letter” seem like things that could be explored more. Also, he details at the end bring a lot to the narrative. I am curious why the mother kept the nest- did she know of its importance to the narrator?

Evidence Critique

             The form(s) here are obviously the experiment. I think it was very well executed, with the painstaking attention to detail to make the different mediums—an ad on craigslist and texting appear true to their form. The reader is drawn into the story and slowly learns the characters’ identities. There is an interesting effect when the reader is forced to read from the bottom to the top, going in chronological order rather than through normal up and down, left to right text. I wonder if this could possibly be explored a bit more, although perhaps not in this piece.  I’m curious about the phone number offered in the text in relation to the discovery that the email was falsified. This could create more drama if a transcript were written of Margaret calling the number, and create a little more time for the discovery of the fraud.  Who would be at that number? The texting dialect works well. I almost wish there could be little ambiguity at the end, because, as it stand, I have the feeling that the piece is almost negated by the falsity of the content. I think more could be done to explore the sisters’ relationship after this falling out and could continue to play with the different mediums, as the sisters would be refusing to speak to each other, at least face to face. I’d also like to hear more about Will and his “history” as it is put in the story. 

Theodicy Critique

  I liked the way the bookends worked with the rest of the piece. It shows this conflict that keeps arising, weaving it throughout. The parentheticals in the second paragraph seem unnecessary and merely tacked on, as they are never discussed or mentioned again. The third paragraph seems to be lacking as it opens with theoretical yet she states she “regressed” so she must have been better at some point. I think the reader would benefit from knowing how the medication affected her. The use of “face” at the top of page two creates an interesting connotation, forcing the reader to imagine the “you” as confrontational—is this intentional? The phrase “buying into your insanity” seems to lean towards the idea of the “you” as a pathological liar. There is a constant conflict in the piece, and the speaker seems as conflicted as the reader. The speaker is “tired of being ignored” which seems negative towards the “you” but then says “when you’ll finally allow me to see you” implying she’s wanted to see him/her for a while—is there perhaps an addiction to him/her? Could this be explored? The parentheticals at the bottom of the second page seem almost mocking. I am curious about the intent there. The line “Shrink says, ‘Let’s try something new’ doesn’t seem to have any purpose. This entire piece has this sense of ambiguity about how the reader should perceive the character being discussed. I don’t know if this was intentional.  

Ondaattje Critique

There is an experiment in this piece in the form, though it is hard to describe exactly what it is. It opens in first person with sentence fragments. There is an element of mystery with the mention of “the other” and an exaggerated onomatopoeia trailing into a contrasting onomatopoeia for the second section. This section is third person and there is a sense of speaking, as the narrator refers to a diagram which the reader cannot see. The contrast of two situations is exaggerated in the lack of punctuation and unconventional spacing of the word “Meanwhile” between two passages.  The spoken words in the next two paragraphs are undifferentiated from the rest of the text, even though they are in Spanish. The next and final section appears to be poetic, a flashing of brief, distinct images, like lightning flashing across a sky.  This is in first person, implied to be Pete Maxwell, different than in the first use of first person, as Pete is mentioned there by name. Again dialogue is undifferentiated, although in English. This creates less pauses and a greater sense of the immediacy of these events. There are images which are surrealistic and jarring. This could be an illustration of the delirium due to his wound, “the bullet itch frozen in my head.” Each of these different sections serves to bring the reader into the story through experiencing what the characters are, instilling a sense of normalcy and then one of disorientated hallucination.  

Whoever Claims It Hardest, Remembers It Most Obsessively Critique

              The title seems disconnected from the story.  The entire story seems like a prologue or introduction. It branches from an unnamed “we” to an “I”, which it maintains until the last paragraph.  The shift back is marked with a paragraph of realization, a universal application of the “value” of bathrooms. This could be added to with a description of the complete universality- perhaps describing the vastly different natures of bathrooms that still have this inherent value- run down as well as ritzy, high-end ones- as well as examining other instances of this- life changing events, for better or for worse, an addict’s first hit and things like that.  I am interested in the qualities that make this value- what is required. I want to hear more of the “hues of bygone misgivings and unforeseen insights” and how they are tainted. The second to last sentence dubs “us” the “lucky ones” as “dwellers of this world” (which itself begs the question as opposed to what world) but does not include any mention of the unlucky ones. There is an entire unexplored group here, which I though could add a lot to the piece in contrast to the opening. Overall, the whole thing is a complete thought but seems slightly rushed and lacks any catharsis or even much of a buildup.  This is a good start but it seems like there is more to explore in what you’re trying to say. 

The Memory Book Critique

The experiment here is clear but vague simultaneously. Readers understand the gist but are left out of the particulars. The language is excellent and so much is said in so few words. The repetition serves to bolster the idea of memory, but I found it unnecessary, especially the mention of her being “old” when such a vivid image was painted for readers just prior to that statement. The woman sees “The Memory Book” and her zest for life is renewed, but we are unsure what exactly she sees, besides a photo of her father. I wonder if perhaps the photo could be left even more ambiguous, so that the readers fills in the gaps with their own experiences, a mention of something both wonderful and horrible, but a change in the ending might be necessary. At the end she sees her father, which then brings a lot of questions She is old, so presumably he is even older or merely a figment of her imagination. Was her vigor removed because of a happy memory or the memory of what she survived? She falls out of a window, startling since it wasn’t previously mentioned that she was even on a story higher than the first. There is also a conflict with how the mouse seems to enter so casually “from outside” when she is on a floor higher than the first. But I did like how the mouse leads to the rest of the story. 

Overlap Critique

I think the experiment is very clear here in the literal overlap of past and present. I wonder if the line could some how be blurred a bit more. I really like the ending, although I saw it coming. I am curious about the exact  period of the Verdermaines’, which could easily be remedied. I also want to know what happened to Amelie’s first child to survive birth. The shift in time periods is very clear, which is good. However, the inquiries at the end are only partially answered, which is disappointing. Amelie seems to have an interesting relationship with her daughter, as describing Patrice as “the child” seems detached but she remembers their time together fondly. Simultaneously, she wishes the child had never been born. Charles seems the epitome of the present, with his finger on the pulse of society as a journalist. Part of me is curious about whether his apartment is a modern style or some sort of imitation of older architecture, which might be something to play with. I wonder if there could be more ties to him and the Verdermaines. The implication at the end is that the discovery of the coffin, though not disturbing to him (which it might be to most people—something else about Charles I’m curious about) left a lasting impression and he will most likely write about it. Yet, curious as he is, he does not inspect the coffin out of respect, which is somewhat understandable.

New Year’s Page Critique

                The piece seems to be experimental in the form, a stream of consciousness piece, like something someone would write with insomnia. This makes me think of the limbo between asleep and awake, with tired eyes and restless mind. Occasionally the long words and looping sentence structure reinforced by frequent commas lure the reader into this non-alert awake-ness. The title brings to mind New Years, which, like almost any other holiday, can mean celebration and drunken cheer for some and solitude drunken misery for others. I get the sense of a groggy, grumpy “I am awake and I shouldn’t be,” which is only supported by the dream like images and phrasing. There seems to be a lack of understanding, a second guessing of the speaker by him or herself, such as when “she wept with joy, although quite possibly she did so for some other reason”.  The words seems to push the reader faster along the page, pulling only the strongest images and stringing them together like some sort of haphazard snowflake chain.  There is so much imagery bombarding the reader it is akin to having their face handled and pointed in varying directions with dozens of voices prompting them to look a tone thing or another. In this way, the reader is rushed along through surreal image after surreal image, barely finding time to stop at the end, which is ironically pinched off at “The story keeps on going…” though this is an excerpt. 

The Hand of Justice Critique

The experiment is clearly in the form , a file of the FBI. The speaker seems to want to confess to murders for “justice” and the sake of the families of those he murdered. I think this is curious because he does not mention their names. I think it would be interesting if he refused to give them names because of his lack of respect for them, but he still refuses to give them any individual identification. I think most people with this requirement to enforce morality are usually very holier-than-though, self-righteous types, which I don’t see here much. He just seems nervous, which makes me wonder how premeditated the murders were. They seem like he was prepared for them mentally, he knew what he was going to do, but he didn’t physically prepare for them, as he stored at least of the bodies in a shed. Sans hands, apparently, which is I think something you could play with in regards to the title. I almost want him to say he placed them in some strange place or position—like on a scale, and start laughing. I want to see him snap, or at least exclaim some of the dialogue on the second-to-last page. The one thing that really, bothers me though is the ending. It seems like a new beginning and there’s just so much there that is completely ignored. I want to hear what he thinks, what drove him to this.

Charlton Heston Critique

I think the opening, separate from t he “main” story though it may be, is a nice exposition. I am curious about the time passing between the two incidents and the first’s effect on the second. Why was he thinking about it that day? Why not every time he passed the Lounge? I can easily imagine that thoughts of the gun didn’t leave him during that Spongebob episode, like it haunts him.

The lack of mention of any significant time passing gives the impression that the gun leaves a lasting impression on Charlton. This could be intentional or not. It makes the ending seem so much more inevitable. I like that the ending is so abrupt, like a gunshot itself. One second, and we’re just looking at the aftermath. There could be another way to play with time, like in action movies, where time freezes—it could mention everything being done in that one second before the impact. Is it perfectly timed with the squeal of the other child?

I could see the experiment in the surrealism of the cartoon eagle owning and operating the lounge. I think the childlike perspective could be played with a little more- Did Charlton ever play with realistic-looking water pistols? Did he initially think a gun was some sort of tool or toy before he saw the film? Is he allowed to watch action movies? He seems different from other kids, though. He seems detached when speaking to Dennis. 

Letter from the Front Critique

This piece contains an interesting backstory, but I am curious as to why this reveal in particular is chosen.  It isn’t until the end that the readers slowly get more and more understanding of the nature of the war. In fact, the first mention of the Canadians was unclear to me, as I thought “the Cands” was a pet name for some general or higher-up. I think it would add to the realism to have Josh discuss some of his fellow soldiers, more of their inside jokes and how they interact in such trying times. Tough times though they may be, a soldier would , like Josh said, not want his wife to worry, and it would be a way to uplift the mood slightly. I would like to hear more- even further origins to the war could be explored, such as Josh wondering how the industries could not foresee these problems when they…etc, etc. This letter is clearly taking place a long time from our own and it has taken a while to get to this extreme need for water. I wish I could see more buildup to it, though I don’t know how possible that would be, given the format. I think the voice is very accurate for a disillusioned soldier in how he converses with his wife. I think that military letters are examined and censored, so I do not know how effective his wife’s news on war would be.

Incident Report Critique

                I can clearly see the experiment here and I like it. The unnamed-yet-clear narrators bring a new flavor to the story. The dialect was spot-on, but its spot at the opening colors the piece somewhat, setting it up differently. Readers assume the school to be public with less educated kids. Given the slightly different and just as well done dialects later on (which was well executed), this was intended. One character might be stretching it a little in my opinion, which I marked (second page).  I think the character’s voices really shine through in the writing and they are almost visible to me even just reading their words. I am fascinated with the idea of different perspectives and the hint of a prior conflict between the two characters discussed, real or imagined. However, the story seems unresolved. Was there actually a conflict? There is no satisfaction in the ending, no catharsis, not even a sense of disappointment. There’s just emptiness. It almost doesn’t feel like an ending, like it’s unfinished. Beside the nature of the conflict, accidental or intentional, I am also curious about the students’ ages. Are they in high school? I thought the addition of mentioning Coach Trey and then having him speak was well-done, as it was clear who was speaking, but less was done with it than could have been. There seemed to be some tension between him and the boys, which was left discussed. I would have liked to read more.