All Comments on 'Tragic Milestones in Life Revised'

Usually, the inability to spell common words in the tags implies the author has some major literacy issues. This example is no different.

'Noir -- That uneasiness marking fatally flawed characters struggling to get better, yet succumb due to their fate or even undeserved injustices.' Well, they were flawed. They hurt close people around them, knowingly, without intention to stop. But I didnt see them struggle to get or be better and they didnt succumb due to fate or undeserved injustices. What was happening in their life was all a consequence of their actions. Carls wife and Rachels mother not forgiving them shouldnt surprise them. They did nothing to deserve or receive forgivness and instead of working towards it they pushed it aside and blamed her for who she became. Not very reflective but selfish. I wonder if Rachels husband became sadistic as a consequence of their actions. He couldnt be that bad in the beginning or she wouldnt have married him. He even accepted the open marriage she wanted. From what I have read he changed after she declined to stop the affair with her father. I guess since she didnt respect him, he stopped respecting her. After he found out, 7 years later, that David is not his son but her fathers he snapped. Why wouldnt he? She knew it from the beginning. So there was no surprise, but yet again, like the case with the mother/wife, they didnt really care. Them dying to the hands of their son wasnt fate but being stupid. All in all, they werent flawed. I am leaning towards evil. Maybe evil is too strong of a word but I dont know what how else to describe their character. Maybe they didnt want to hurt others intentionally but they knew their actions would spread a tremendous amount of hurt.

Note regarding Thorlol's remarks.

Your comments captured the essence of the story! Thanks for your insightful observations. Particularly regarding the father-mother-daughter relationship. Absolutely, father and daughter never understood the reason Rachel's mother could not forgive her or her father for the incest relationship. Therein lies the crux of the noir element - that narcissistic bent - the characters couldn't see their flaws; they were oblivious to them.

Perhaps I missed the mark on painting the attempts to improve and become better. Rachel's initial thoughts to treat Caroline 'as shark bait' at first changed as she noted no one deserved to be treated by her husband in such a manner and she and Caroline became friends. Another element of change was Rachel's insistence that she and her dad acknowledge to David that his grandfather was also his father. That idea was mentioned in several spots of the story; perhaps not clear enough for readers. That was, I believe, a move toward overcoming past indiscretions. The biggest change element, I feel, was about to occur when Carl Raddison was intent on revealing the truth to David at the dinner table - but the noir twist in the plot cut his chance of admission from being acknowledged. I half expected readers to interpret that event as a major milestone in their lives. Fate, I thought, had a major hand in the plot - Rachel's innocent mother died of a broken heart, tragedy struck a second and third death in the family created when a mother carried the gun as protection in her purse - at this point made that admission by Carl impossible. David, the surviving family member, unwittingly brought an end to any opportunity for redemption by his mother and father. He became yet another victim to this tangled tragedy, becoming a broken mind and a ward of the state.

If I had not started this story in the spirit of creating a 'noir' story theme, I certainly would not have killed off all the characters! I have learned readers' really don't like the idea of leaving a story end in tragedy the way I did! :-0

Reference anon: 'Usually, the inability to spell common words in the tags implies the author has some major literacy issues. This example is no different.'

'Fallatio' is the error in the tag. It should be 'Fellatio.'

Please, readers, one spelling error out of over 15,000 words does NOT imply an author has some major literacy issues. It being called out in this manner is just evidence that a snarky critic, with an attitude, reads my work. I don't know if he or she found it likable. I would be much more interested in that line of commentary.