Just In
for funferals

11/2/2017 c1 25sprinkled clean
Well, that was a good read.

On style: I thought it seemed like your personal code. It works for me, especially in a piece like this.

On characters: Your characterisation made the characters seem like mere tools for the greater purpose of the story which was to talk about life and death, and that’s a good thing for some; on the other hand, I will forget about these characters because there’s little to nothing memorable about them (except for the part where you mentioned that Micah blew his brains out because Hemingway did that - I thought that was clever), and that makes me a little sad. They could’ve been more than mere tools. That’s just my opinion though.

Which was more powerful: the style or the content? I’m gonna have to go with style. The style /was/ the content, for the most part: the literary quotations, the punctuations, the random etymologies (though I’m not really sold as to how you used them in the story; they just seemed to interrupt the flow), the lowercase, the dialogue format.

Why I did not choose the “content:” I had a friend who committed suicide recently, and reading this did not help me meditate much on life and death, sadly, despite the fact that I could have related to it more. I just found this piece rather shallow, although somewhat realistic. Although I especially liked the part, “for months, the only thing micah wanted was to be okay,” - there’s a concept of “okay” that could have been explored, you could’ve done an etymology on that instead, it’s such a rich word.

Did I like the piece, though? Yeah. I read everything without feeling bored. So it was a good read for me, hence the first sentence of this review.

- from the Reviewing Crusade xxx

Twitter . Help . Sign Up . Cookies . Privacy . Terms of Service