This review is for the "We luv in depth reviews!" contest.
Babygirl -
I applaud you for tackling such a difficult subject. You've made an impressive effort to convey the pain a family feels when confronted with tragedy. Alzheimer's is a devastating disease, and its course is as hard on a family as on its victim. I think your story resonates with many people who have watched loved ones torn away by this disease and others.
Unfortunately, I think the scope of your story is too great for you to tell it in a single short piece. You have enough subject material here to tell half a dozen shorts, or even a novel. In its current form, the story feels rushed, even jumpy in places, and extremely light on detail. I came away from the reading feeling as if I had just watched a two-hour movie condensed into fifteen minutes: I understood the high points, had a pretty good feel for what had happened, but understood nothing of the characters.
I rarely write short stories, but those I enjoy reading tend to focus on a brief "slice" of time, or a series of such slices. Keeping the time-scope of the story brief allows the author to concentrate on what really drives fiction--the characters--and develop them to the point I can identify with them. In trying to describe an entire month to six weeks in the life of this Montana family, you have limited yourself to describing only what happens, and only a little of that, instead of developing characters I care about and allowing them to drive the story.
In an action story, an author can get away with underdeveloped characters if his or her action scenes are good enough to keep the reader interested. But your story has no gunfire, or menacing bad guys, or big explosions to distract the reader from your characters. Your story is entirely about your characters. If I, your reader, don't care about your characters, I don't care what happens to them and I stop reading.
The point of view you choose is intimately related to the strength of your characters; the right one can help the reader identify with them, while the wrong one makes them seem flat and lifeless. You chose to tell the story from an omniscient point of view, which I found somewhat distracting. Instead of focusing on what one or two characters felt or perceived, you tried to describe them all, occasionally hopping from head to head with no transition. I felt it made the story difficult to follow. I think a story is generally more effective when I get to see the action from one or two points of view, understanding their emotions in detail and relying on their senses to "see" what the others feel.
I think you could tell the same story in the same space, but make it stronger by shifting the point of view. For example, you might write the story from Daniel's point of view and confine the action to Christmas night, when he is sitting up to watch his father. All the background, beginning with Thanksgiving when he learned of his father's condition, could be revealed as a series of flashbacks, leaving the meat of the story for his feelings and perceptions of what is happening as he speaks to his father for what turns out to be the last time, then his panic as he realizes his dad has wandered off and the painful search that follows. If you're not comfortable with Daniel's POV, you could go with Mary's; let the setting be one of her long walks after his death, and let a series of landmarks or objects on the path trigger memories that tell the story. Ironically, telling the same story from a more limited point of view (in my experience) makes it stronger rather than weaker.
I think you did a good job describing your setting, even though you didn't spend much time on details. The image in my mind is of a large two-story house built of wood, with a raised front porch and wooden floors with plenty of rugs inside. It's cozy and warm, browns and greens and reds inside, with a big fireplace that is always kept burning in winter. It's clean, and the kitchen is well-appointed with nearly-new modern appliances. It sits on a large piece of land, part of which is forested but most of which must be open so they can pasture the horses. The barn is close to the house, maybe even connected by a covered walk, and at least partially improved with electricity, heat and air, and maybe water so people can live out there in the winter. Some of these are details you provided, some are inferred from your narrative, and some are extrapolations based on what I think a Montana farm looks like (I've never been to Montana). But based on what you gave me, I was able to build a more-or-less complete picture in my mind of what your setting looked like. Well done, and probably about right for a short story.
You included several cliches in your story, such as "hit him like a ton of bricks" and "it all seemed like a blur". I would caution you against using these well-known phrases; they became well-known because they carry an essential sentiment in only a few words, but now they are so well-known they don't resonate with readers. Instead of catching a reader's attention with clever phrasing, they drive him away--instead of something new, he sees something tired and overused, and he may not read on.
I see some promise in your story, and a great deal of potential in your writing. Most of my comments really amount to cosmetic changes--the story is there, and just needs a little tweaking.
I hope you find my comments helpful; I have tried to offer constructive suggestions I thought you would find useful. Please take what works for you and throw out the rest. If you would like me to clarify anything I will be happy to do so. And above all...
Keep Writing!
HN |
|
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
