_C

I don’t really know what to suggest for improvement. I suppose you could consider talking a little less about Ms. Fletcher and focusing a little more on Law and Order. I suppose you could try and divide up the sections of the essay with little headings like one sees between the scenes of Law and Order.

Anyway, I’m really glad you are going to write for the group. We are all doing pretty good and I really enjoy reading the works.

I also like the way that the poem seems to echo the sort of stylized form of description that you come across in noir films and books.

fist off, this is gonna be a long one–i’m gonna get on a soap box. apologies in advance, and hope you’re up for the read.

first off, this is a well written essay. you have a nice feel for what you’re trying to do here, and if you refine it out a little bit more, you’d have something really very good. a nice mix of nostalgic and contemporary elements along with a nice, somewhat facetious yet sentimental backbone without getting sarcastic or melodramatic–which is a tough thing to do. well done.

however, what i found a bit curious was your contention before the piece that “i just wasn’t up to” writing fiction. i’d like to know why, what are the issues you ran into?

(curtain draws to reveal soapbox, narrator steps atop)

you see, the thing about fiction–to me at least–is that it should be a far easier medium with which to write. after all, when you don’t have to restrict yourself to reality–or what actually happened, or what you actually feel, or what someone else was or wasn’t actually thinking–all you’re doing is leaving yourself more options. when you write non-fiction, you have only one option–you have to say what actually happened, you have to say what you actually felt, and it doesn’t matter what someone else was thinking because you can’t possibly know for sure because you aren’t inside their head. so you can’t even properly write what anyone anyone aside from yourself was thinking–not if you want to keep it a work of non-fiction that is. (i’d even go a step further and argue that you can’t even properly say what YOU were thinking if you want to keep it non-fiction because, after all, the mind is far more complex than to have but a single thought at a single moment, and almost universally, one thought is inextricably linked to every other one at that same moment)

really, as i see it, there’s only one difference between fiction and non-: in non-fiction you have to be perfectly honest even when it would be more interesting to lie.

i guess that’s why i’m not sure i understand why people choose to write non-fiction when they have the option. i think sometimes people think they can’t write fiction because they don’t believe themselves creative enough or they don’t think they can write something original enough–not that either of these is necessarily the case with you (like i said, i’m not sure what it is and i’m curious to find out). the truth is–and i’m sure almost any competent writer or reader of fiction would agree–good fiction is only good because it is believably non-fiction: there’s a truth-value to it that, even when it’s clear the story is contrived or fantastic or metaphysic or a fairy tale, on the surface, the reader doesn’t care because he or she buys into the world the author presents to them.

and what’s the easiest world to buy into if it’s not the one we all live in?

some of the best stuff fiction writers write is barely discernible from the non-fiction of their lives. and that’s why it’s their best, because it’s the stuff they really know (see: vonnegut, see: mccarthy, see: greene, see: woolfe, etc., etc., etc.).

fiction isn’t about making things up; it’s about making things that really happen more interesting than they really are.

…which is all just a roundabout way to say that if you can write lucid, interesting non-fiction–which you clearly can–that’s much more of a feat than writing lucid, interesting fiction, because, after all, what you’ve done is write under the handicap of reality.

if you want to write fiction, all you need to do is find the parts of you’re non-fiction writing where you wish something else would have happened and write it to happen exactly as you wish.

(curtain drops, narrator steps forward to take a bow)

cheers, write on, and good luck.

As far as I know, the narrative style where everything is “like” something else is pretty common for these noir stories. I think you did a great job of that. I personally think that it would be funny to see him struggle at some point to come up with a simile and have it fall flat.

first of all, well done. really enjoyed this, and i think you should keep going with it if you feel up to it. didn’t need to know you’re into movies to see the film noir influence.

also think it’s a nice thing how you’re actively playing with a cliche we all know, recognizing it, and turning it somewhat on it’s head. you use many of the familiar tropes, but you use them while being aware that they are, in fact, familiar tropes.

when a story is already at a point where the fundamentals are solid–like yours most certainly is–i tend to then look at things like the narration and the use of the actual language. in this case, i think your narration is apt, but he/she should be even stronger and more opinionated. clearly he/she knows Jimmy isn’t much of a detective, but i don’t get the sense that he/she really cares either way. think about it this way: if you’re telling a friend a story, you might be ambivalent about it but you certainly won’t be apathetic about whatever you’re telling him–it wouldn’t make sense to be telling the story if you were. personally, i think the same should be true for a narrator.

in fact, to this end, as a suggestion of how to further play with the themes in these sorts of stories, have you considered trying to write it with a first-person narrator? aren’t these always told from the detective’s perspective. if it’s Jimmy who’s telling the story, his thoughts at his ineptness might be really interesting to explore (does he accept it? does he fight it? does he even know it?). if you did indeed do this, some of the cliche metaphor (not to mention, some of the liberties you take in carrying them) would not only seem even more fitting, but they would be more farcical–if that is, in fact, what you’re going for.

either way, like i said, well done. if you do end up writing this one out a bit, i hope you’ll think to post it–i’d love to read it.

The only thing that seemed a little awkward was the way the story shifted perspective between the two brothers in the first couple of paragraphs.