Dingdin
September 25th, 2003, 18:33
Ambiguities - wendy's True Story (http://www.enchantedquill.net/showthread.php?t=217)
At once serious and humorous, wendy's story shows us a person - a woman or girl, I think, although this is not expressly stated - whose shyness of the gardener leads to some unnecessary pain, and to some unexpected laughter.
Like funny stories do, this one lives by its seriousness. The shyness that comes of fascination, maybe even love, the anguish of the dumb-struck yet obviously very verbal narrator-protagonist, the awkwardness coupled with healthy curiosity. Conflicting elements that work together.
Oddly enough, in view of the story's simplistic, burlesque release - a door in the face - the humor is conveyed most strongly through the crystal clear language. The juxtaposition of pink blossoms and the gardener's prosaic boots, the placement of a comma in the request to be made of Fred, the reversed order of words in a sentence - "Always happy to be of assistance is my suave and not shy brother" - all subtly work to make us smile. There are many more instances. And consider the precision with which wendy employs the time factor: the use of "tumble down" to illustrate what happens to the protagonist when whacked in the face by the door, makes us aware of the fall as a movement in time; and hesitation - "I hover near" and "But Fred will see if I open the door" - precisely marks the time required for the narrator's brother to carry out his errand to the gardener.
In contrast with this stylistic beauty, our entry into the story is slanting and bumpy, with a very colloquial, distinctly un-beautiful first few sentences. It is as if the story attempts to hide its polish.
Is this intentional? I think so. This story claims to be a true one, and the first question to enter the reader's mind is assuredly "How true?"
Why is the gardener's name not Fred? Is it because the narrator, fictitious, cannot help thinking of him that way? Or because the author of the story cannot? Or, is it because the testing of intonation becomes absurd, even nonsensical, with the use of a safely made-up name?
Is it all true, or isn't it?
This ambiguity, I believe, is the key to the story. It alters and destabilizes all the other elements - the humourous, the serious, the ironic. The awkwardness of the beginning makes the story more believable, just enough to balance the clever style. The storyteller invites us to laugh with her, laughing at us, like the story ends in laughter, and a simultaneously suspect and very solid END-sign.
----
I invite you to comment on this critique and join me in appreciating and appraising wendy's story. If you want a critique of your own story, go ahead and post a request in The Critiquing Thread (http://www.enchantedquill.net/showthread.php?t=241)
At once serious and humorous, wendy's story shows us a person - a woman or girl, I think, although this is not expressly stated - whose shyness of the gardener leads to some unnecessary pain, and to some unexpected laughter.
Like funny stories do, this one lives by its seriousness. The shyness that comes of fascination, maybe even love, the anguish of the dumb-struck yet obviously very verbal narrator-protagonist, the awkwardness coupled with healthy curiosity. Conflicting elements that work together.
Oddly enough, in view of the story's simplistic, burlesque release - a door in the face - the humor is conveyed most strongly through the crystal clear language. The juxtaposition of pink blossoms and the gardener's prosaic boots, the placement of a comma in the request to be made of Fred, the reversed order of words in a sentence - "Always happy to be of assistance is my suave and not shy brother" - all subtly work to make us smile. There are many more instances. And consider the precision with which wendy employs the time factor: the use of "tumble down" to illustrate what happens to the protagonist when whacked in the face by the door, makes us aware of the fall as a movement in time; and hesitation - "I hover near" and "But Fred will see if I open the door" - precisely marks the time required for the narrator's brother to carry out his errand to the gardener.
In contrast with this stylistic beauty, our entry into the story is slanting and bumpy, with a very colloquial, distinctly un-beautiful first few sentences. It is as if the story attempts to hide its polish.
Is this intentional? I think so. This story claims to be a true one, and the first question to enter the reader's mind is assuredly "How true?"
Why is the gardener's name not Fred? Is it because the narrator, fictitious, cannot help thinking of him that way? Or because the author of the story cannot? Or, is it because the testing of intonation becomes absurd, even nonsensical, with the use of a safely made-up name?
Is it all true, or isn't it?
This ambiguity, I believe, is the key to the story. It alters and destabilizes all the other elements - the humourous, the serious, the ironic. The awkwardness of the beginning makes the story more believable, just enough to balance the clever style. The storyteller invites us to laugh with her, laughing at us, like the story ends in laughter, and a simultaneously suspect and very solid END-sign.
----
I invite you to comment on this critique and join me in appreciating and appraising wendy's story. If you want a critique of your own story, go ahead and post a request in The Critiquing Thread (http://www.enchantedquill.net/showthread.php?t=241)