Please respond: a short fiction piece

[writername]

I think the twist is very clever. I'm feeling perplexed as to how to critique such ultrashort fiction, but the fact that this blurb extracted a smirk from me is certainly a good thing.

One line that has been bothering me:

"As he did this, Emily suddenly garbled out “dada” loud enough for the entire room to hear."

After this line, we learn Jackson is deaf and hence make the conclusion that despite Emily being so loud the "entire room" could hear, in fact Jackson did not hear. I'm not sure how I feel about this. Despite third party narration, we assume in a generality as such that everyone in the room heard the cry.

Being that it is from Jackson's POV, is Emily really silently playing with her toy, is Jackson really silently nodding... or is this all just allusion to the fact that he is deaf?

[SoloAJ]

[ QUOTE ]

Being that it is from Jackson's POV, is Emily really silently playing with her toy, is Jackson really silently nodding... or is this all just allusion to the fact that he is deaf?

[/ QUOTE ]

The latter...at least that was my hope. Lots of allusions toward the fact. Not that she or he was making noises and he just couldn't hear, but rather...just playing on the "theme" of silence. (I say theme somewhat lightly, as it is flash fiction).

I agree about the "everyone heard it" confusion. I spent a lot of time toying with that line and trying to think if there was a better way to take that segment of the story. There is definitely a conflict between the 3rd person narrative focusing on Jackson vs. Jackson's perspective.

In the end, I decided that it was going to stay roughly what it is right now. Like I said, for me, and ideally for my audience, the compelling aspect of this story is the rereadability.

In fact, I have decided that when I have people read this, my first judge of 'did I succeed with MY goal?' is if they immediately want to reread the story. For me and my goals, the intriguing part is how rich the story is with those aforementioned allusions and the realization that the story's opening changes meaning entirely once you realize that Jackson is deaf.

So, for that reason, I think that if the person is compelled to reread it and find the little nuances I added, then I feel like I have succeeded.

I realize that the story is not entirely polished and some have qualms with certain aspects (and I have edited it a fair amount at this point, I'll post in a day or two, as said)...I really like the piece right now. I find an incredible richness to the text, considering its length. And I know that the works of other authors that I like, a lot of times relies on MY recognitiion of richness. Whether or not it is really there, doesn't matter. And in the end, that is my hope here....that my readers find richness in it...maybe it won't have been intended, but IF their enjoyment matches my hopes...all the better.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]

One line that has been bothering me:

"As he did this, Emily suddenly garbled out “dada” loud enough for the entire room to hear."

After this line, we learn Jackson is deaf and hence make the conclusion that despite Emily being so loud the "entire room" could hear, in fact Jackson did not hear. I'm not sure how I feel about this. Despite third party narration, we assume in a generality as such that everyone in the room heard the cry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember in The Silence of the Lambs, at the end, when the cops are ringing the doorbell of Buffalo Bill's house, and they keep showing the actual bell ringing each time the button gets pushed, jump cutting to the killer's reaction to the fact of the bell? It turns out that was NOT Buffalo Bill's house, and his reaction was to the fact that Jodie Foster was ringing the bell. Of course, we have no way to know that at the time.

It is a cute and clever device, but, ultimately, it is a cheap trick. We are left to backtrack through what has just happened, and to say to ourselves, "Oh, I see."

There is something disingenuous about this. There is something about this that lessens the artistic achievement of the piece.

Although there's a bit of apples/oranges at work here, there is a similarity, both from an unintentional perspective (the quoted portion--(pre-deaf) Jackson's POV would infer that he CAN hear what the entire room hears), and from the clever surprise perspective, which, to be honest, always strikes me a someone just trying to be clever.

Think of Tyler Durden's query on the plane:

"How's that workin out for you?"

"What?"

"Being clever."

"Great."

"Well stick with it then."

Or words similar to these.

In any event, try some Raymond Carver. Nothing "clever" there.

[Dane S]

I agree with what others have said about spicing up/smoothing out the language a bit, and want to throw in my vote for ending it with this sentence:

"His wife quickly signed to him “She just said her first word! Dada!” "

And perhaps make it more abrupt if you can swing it.

[SoloAJ]

More abrupt in what manner? Having the closing revelation be that he was deaf and ending it there?

The two worries I have with your recommended ending spot are such: (1) The prompt for the contest is about a fortune cookie. The current ending really involves the fortune cookie in the story. (2) It loses some of its sappiness that I think some people (not most) would attach to a little bit. The idea that the deaf man is getting such great pride from his baby's first words that it reminds his wife of the birth. Shrug.

I know this needs more refining, but I'm getting there dangit!

[SoloAJ]

Oh, and I'm a senior English major, fwiw. Beat: Only taking one creative writing class in my two years in the major. That is why I generally do very well with grammar and such, but poorer in conveying the ideas that I'm trying to get across.

Most of the time that I try to convey a point, it comes out like it is from a scholarly paper. Bleh.

[Dane S]

That's a good point about the sappiness actually. You have to consider your audience. To me what's interesting about this is the "he's deaf" trick, and the last few lines are pointless. But little old ladies reading it in a newspaper might be looking for something a lot different than me, so yeah go with your judgment on that.

[SoloAJ]

Dane, I do agree with you that it might make the deaf aspect more powerful. I truly do. As this thread evidenced, and from outside readers, only about half the people are even getting that he is deaf without being told. So maybe ending the piece with "She signed to him, blah blah" would make it more emphatic. But even then, if I take out the sappiness I would probably have to add something to make it more obvious he is deaf.

Something about the piece is making it really hit or miss about whether the reader sees the deaf part. And yeah, let's face it, that is the crux of the story. If you read this without realizing he is deaf (and then rereading) then the story is incredibly mediocre. There is nothing worthwhile to be found in it, in my opinion, without the deaf aspect.

So I really do see your point. But I do like the idea of a wider audience appeal as well. Most Loungers probably aren't going to read this and enjoy the sap. But there are tons of ladies, like you said, that might end up thinking it is a great story just because of that or something.

All in all, it is decisions like this...that I asked for counsel from the Loungers. I know these are ultimatley my decisions, but I want to get readers' opinions before I go with my final decision that I send into the contest.

Variance: Seriously, if the contest judges read this and don't pick up on the deaf part, there is no way in hell this gets published. Zero chance. I mean odds are it won't even if they do, but at least there would be a chance. Haha.

[Rushmore]

There have been a lot of useful suggestions in this thread thus far, so rather than rehash the "Chinese food," "John Deere," and deafness issues, I'd like to point out something new:

Until the very final words of the first paragraph, we cannot be sure of the setting. It is impossible to know if they got delivery food (and are at home), or if they are at the restaurant. Actually, the fact that they have permitted their infant child to play on the floor might imply that they are at home. It is not until "...entire room to hear" that we are certain they are in a restaurant.

Just add a phrase to the first sentence, i.e. "Thanking the waiter as he paid the check..." or something to this effect.

There can be no ambiguity, as most folks don't have waiters in their homes.

[writername]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not until "...entire room to hear" that we are certain they are in a restaurant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm fairly certain they are in a home setting. I won't ask Solo to confirm this because it is a matter of perception, but the image of the baby playing on the carpet with the toy almost certainly implies they are at home, and the expression "entire room to hear" is just that, an expression, and doesn't have to imply a crowded restaurant.