If I can read the story once and see a flaw in the time line, you the author should easily see it too. I'm talking about you stating that the wife is 35 years old. Then later you wrote "She sat in the chair next o the bed and looked at the face of the man she had lived with and loved for twenty three years." That would mean that they hooked up when she was 12. TWO WRONGS!
by
Anonymous04/15/07
Too Little Too Fast!
You had the makings of a great story but everything you had there was so compressed and not enough of other details were present. For example, the husband has a heart attack, leaves the hospital and comes home where he dies. Yet, Brenda drops his fling on him and promises to expose it if he does not meet with her immediately. Her first concern should be his medical condition. She could have held the papers until he recovered but no she had to have her talk.
Who was Jack since David knew him? How did David know about their affair since it had only happened once? She said that she was filled with remorse but her actions did not indicate a person filled with guilt. If David only found out that second time how can he have her served with divorce papers while he was having a triple bypass heart surgery?__________________________________________ ____
The title says that it did not mean anything but the reality is the story did not mean anything because the reader had little to hold onto in terms of the characters._______________________________________ ____
SleeplessinMD
by
Anonymous04/15/07
Huh??? I'm totally lost
This story is a bunch of jumbled words. What the hell is the plot? Talk about hitting the fast forward button....
by
Anonymous04/15/07
I am
Huh?
I am so confused...wish you would have developed this story better, including erasing the obvious mistakes you made which were noticed by the readers.
I think the wife knew what buttons to push to make her husband stay with her. I think the wife's priorities were his health before even trying to repair or not the marriage.
Obviously both had been unfaithful and neither had a moral leg to stand on. BUT I need to add that fucking his brother's wife added despicable to the mix, limitting whatever sympathy I might have had felt for him. If his wife forgave him, why couldn't he at least try?
Ending the story this way was a complete cop-out! If it had been a book I would have thrown it against a wall!
by
Anonymous04/15/07
hmm
now that her husband is dead, she can go ahead and fuck Jack whenever and wherever she wants.
by
Anonymous04/15/07
Complete agreement with the others
This was shit! Not only is the story incomprehensible, the writing is awful. What in the hell are the "ruminants of her marriage?" A ruminant is a cow, moron. On the other hand, she's a stupid cow... anyway, the whole thing was just horrible.
If Brenda had been 45 instead of 35 then the story would have been more plausible. Presumably David would be around 45 also. This would have made it more possible for him to have had "a massive heart attack". But even with that I don't know how he could undergo a triple bypass chest opening and be out of the hospital 2 days later.*****I think the author rushed through the story to get to the twist at the end. But even in a very short story it is important to remember that the devil is in the details.
by
Anonymous04/15/07
A lot of potential
This story had a lot of potential but you blew it in the details. Editing problems tend to congregate near the beginning and the ending of a story. You need to give extra time to those sections when polishing up a story prior to publication.
I thought you had a good plotline in progress but you rushed it. Sorry.
by
Anonymous04/15/07
You
must be joking,walking around a couple of days after a triple by pass!He must be Superman.
by
Anonymous04/15/07
Ditto The Other Comments
This "story" sucks. The "writer" isn't that well versed in the use of punctuation or grammar, he confuses one word for another (in more than one place) and he doesn't know how to form a proper paragraph. Much of this is composed of poorly connected, almost random sentences. The story line is familiar also. I've read virtually the same "story" a hundred times on this website except that a "writer" generally knows a little more about key elements in the "story." That a man was wandering around a couple days after triple bypass surgery is ludicrous. This “writer” needs a lot of study in how to write.
Awkward prose with several misused words coupled with poor sentence construction is just bad writing. The characters aren't fresh nor lifelike. They're mannequins without substance.
The plot is rather incredible, and I'm forced to agree with the previous poster who pointed out the absurdity of the man leaving the hospital shortly after triple bypass surgery. My friend couldn't manage this feat after his bypass but then he wasn't a superhero.
The "you did it so I was entitled" plot is tired and unsatisfying besides being wrong-headed. I'm always amused when people say "it didn't mean anything, it was just sex." If it's meaningless, then why do it? The story isn't good fiction but I thank you for your effort.
by
Anonymous04/15/07
ok
and because of what she did was the revenge worth it ...now she doesnt even have pics for the memories ...maybe she should just commit suicide now herself ...because i can see a life of regret left in front of her ...yes i agree her life is over ...if she lives she will know she is the one who killed her husband and betrayed him ...she would have been better off forgetting about his one time affair as he had obviously suffered enough from it himself ...now its her turn to suffer with no way of being able to change the outcome
The monster waited 2 years to get her revenge! What a truly evil person she is.
by
Anonymous04/15/07
lame
lame
by
Anonymous04/16/07
GOOD JOB
GOOD STORY, GOOD PLOT. I ENJOYED IT. GOOD READ, AND I DON'T GRADE A PERSONS WRITING STYLE. I EITHER LIKE IT OR NOT. GOOD JOB.
by
Anonymous04/16/07
Hard to believe you wrote this yourself
I'm a fan of yours & find your stories interesting, orignal & well written. This was well below your usual standard, almost as if somebody else wrote it. Good enough plot, but too hurried & leaving too many gaps. And yes, it's just not possible to be walking around mere days after bypass surgery. Even apart from the heart & associated problems,the pain from the ribs they need to break to get in there makes it hard to even breathe, let alone walk around. It's also hard to believe that irrespective of their other problems, the wife wouldn't do her damndest to get him back into hospital PRONTO.
Having got that off my chest, I look forward to your next.
The beginning of this story sunk it. How did the husband do all the damage to the property? Was she in the shower when it happened or did she just walk through the door of the house and discover everything? It seems like you felt bad that you hadn't written a story in a while and decided that you had to get one out and get it out in less than ten minutes.
I have to say the age of the wife with the two kids not at home is a bit of a question of where they are and the time out of the hospital after bypass surgery is impossible. That said I liked your story and found it short and to the point. It leaves the reader with a lot to think about and that is a great story.Thank you for the great entertainment and keep writing.PT
A little pushing it with the leaving the hospital so soon.. It goes back to communication in a marriage.. Talking everything out might have prevented her affair and his demise.. Certainly is a really dark ending..
by
Anonymous04/16/07
Do I have this right?
She observed and photographed her husband a few years before in a one time sex session with a relative. She decided to keep the picture and watch her husband and nothing further happened and she saved the evidence. Now she is having an active affair hiding it from her husband, he comes in finds her having sex, gets mad destroys some things, and winds up in the hospital having heart surgery. In the mean time she gets divorce papers and threatens, no blackmails, her husband into coming home. He leaves the hospital before time, comes to her they talk, he goes to bed and dies. The only one punished here is the husband. He died knowing he was married to a lying, cheating, unfaithful, betraying slut. At least the husband had the morals and ethics to stop before it became an affair. Wife figured she had a free ticket and could carry on a full affair only she got caught. Let her live with fact she killed her husband and destroyed his trust in her and their marriage. Husband wasnt an angel but he walked the higher ground, she was just a slut.
by
Anonymous04/16/07
She deserves the outcome!
As most of the commentors indicated - she deserves to be left alone. In fact, we wonder if she planned this whole situation? Hey, she gets a bonus - he dies, she gets to spend the money and visit the stud in California.
by
Anonymous04/17/07
Not Good
1. He would not even be off the IV's in two days let alone able to walk out of the hospital.
2. How many years had she kept the secret--remarkable to say the least!!!
3. This is the worst wrtting you have done. It is disjointed, poorly thought out and totally silly.
I felt that the story was concise fast paced and shocking (in a good way).
I would have stayed a bit longer though on each of the characters. As is, it almost feels like a quick sketch, rather than a portrayal of characters which come to life in the reading.
Despite the head spinning speed, there were interesting themes. For example, the asymmetry between the planning of a scheme (based on the present knowledge) and the chaos effect of unforeseen circumstances. Another theme is the double jeopardy which lying puts us into. At first, it forces us to hold in a secret than to lie by not resolving the underlying issue(s) which brought it about. And the second jeopardy is when belatedly we act on the first lie by acting out, and using it (at least implicitly) as an excuse to lie again. The result: we reactivate the old unresolved problem (maybe its resolution would have prevented the appearance of the second?) while exacerbating the situation with the new lie.
Recently I read that the image of death in connection with betrayal is not that uncommon. To a large degree it signifies the death of trust (if not love itself) in the relationship. In this light the ending, even if not meant to be allegoric felt to me as a realization of this type of death of the old relations which comes along with the death of trust.
Many comments to this story and to another story (“ALMOST?” by thecelt) have in common what I believe is the apparent unfamiliarity (or at least inability to recognize it in a story) with the third person limited (or combined) point of view as a narrative form. I would not have tried to point out this surprising fact, and expose myself to the potential shower of personal attacks (which could run the gamut from my personality and knowledge to my mental status and wished longevity…), had I not thought that at the least some could take my comments at face value – namely, an opportunity to become aware of a certain technique in writing and how it’s meant to be read. None of it is my invention of course; none of it (as a form of writing) is rare or new. What I write is not meant to be insulting or derogatory to anyone, either to those who find it new to them or to those who are familiar with it. It came as a reflection on the KIND of reasons which were given to disliking the story, which I feel are a result of a misunderstanding.
My other reason for getting into this issue is my need to encourage authors to write, using this form of narrative if they choose to do so. My concern is that with many responses which do not do justice to stories which are written in this form, there will be a natural selection of sorts towards a narrower range of narrative forms.
As I said, this form of narrative is neither rare nor new. For example, Jane Austin and Henry James have used it in the 19th century and it gradually has become more and more common. Rather than having the wife or the husband telling their stories in the first person, or having the story being told from the third person omniscient point of view; the third person limited pov, allows the narrator to tell the story mostly from the perspective of a character, but without identifying directly with the character. It is not too difficult to identify this mode as you realize that most of the information follows the level of knowledge, values interests etc of that character. And yet, being told from a third person, the narrator can create distance from the character in many ways. One way to create such distance is by the choice of language. It could be either very similar to the kind of language the character would use, or it could be purposely very different. Both could be used to create an ironic effect or to help identifying with the character. Another tool to create distance is the composition of the scenes. It can create contrasts which should lead the reader to the understanding that the perspective of the character is limited or wrong. It could also be revealed by direct assertions which the character could not have made. Indeed at that point the narrator temporarily abandons the limited position. For example it could convey the common norms like “many in her town would have disagreed with her actions”, or even by moving to the pov of another character. In all those cases the narrator distinguishes him/her self from the character they otherwise stay close to. It makes for an overall more subtle narration; it provides opportunities for irony and at the same time allows deeper psychological penetration to the psyche of characters (by allowing for explanation by the narrator which the character may not be aware of).
One mistake one should never make is confusing that narrator with the implicit author of the story. Only when you take into account the overall strategies of the story, you can judge whether the implied author (or the norms of the story) are actually identical to those of any of the characters. In other words, you can never automatically assume that the Narrator = Author. In fact, in the case of the third person limited narrator, one could almost argue the opposite. If an author used the third person limited, you could almost be sure that it was used, at least in part, to allow for good presentation of the character, combined with good measure of distance from it. Otherwise, the author would have used the first person pov (with the wronged character) or more likely, the third person omniscient.
Another issue of course is judging a story by its theme(s) which has some merit (like not enjoying them). But where I found myself again puzzled is when I realized that readers pour their (justified) moral outrage at the AUTHOR (totally unjustified) who had chosen to depict a character which behaves in a manner that is morally outrageous. But wait a minute, what if that was exactly the purpose of the author? Was not that a success? The only part that is missing in this type of narrative is that the author allows US to come to our own conclusion rather than having a particular character saying it FOR US or the NARRATOR him/her self doing the same.
In the open market of literature authors have been exposing their readers to this mode for more than a century, isn’t it time we ‘allow’ the authors here to use a more sophisticated form of narrative by understanding how this type of narrative really works? Go to The wikopedia (although the value of point of view in literature there is too abbreviated IMO) or any modern book on literary devices or “how to read a story”/ a novel and search for this value. We could do justice to the authors and get more out of the stories.
How was he able to tear up a painting and tear down photo albums after he had just having a triple by pass surgery he wouldnt have the strength to even hold an ax or a gun he died in a real hurry though.
I hope she got what she wanted and she rotts in hell she sure had the nerve to hold a sex fling he had with his sister in law that happened 4yrs ago thats not fair.
Pat
by
Anonymous01/21/08
Too Rush
This story has a good plot & a good ending. I like it! But you were rushing too fast to get to the end. What a pity.
by
Anonymous04/14/08
Nope
She sucked and he was a wimp. So she had some grainy photos from some years ago. Who f*ng cares.. She should have taken him down then and there. This way it became blackmail instead... And she got off all to easy.. A Wimp_Story... Yoron
by
Anonymous06/30/08
merry widow
did she understate the # of times, where twice could not necessarily be consistent with her utter self indulgent joy? how do you forgive someone, then use it against them ? why not insist on hospital, given the gravity of the procedure ?
a cynic would say she'd have her regrets, but go on after the destruction of him...he - once and felt something like shame, her, the thrill of the whole thing was something she felt. crocidile tears ?
THe reason she didn,t bring him down when it happened wasn,t to hold it over his head, as he didn,t know she had it, the reason was it was a pic, of him with his sister-In-law, and she didn,t want to ruin the whole family, unless it was to go on happening, the reason she kept the pic .was if he ever strayed again she could use it then,But it was her that strayed the next time,I would have liked to hear a little bit more about this Jack guy her lover ,he Appanetly was a good friend,or her husbands bro, or A brother-In -law,
by
Anonymous02/28/09
WHAT
what a slut
by
Anonymous03/06/09
great story
Pity folks don't recognize the originality in your story. I really enjoyed it.
by
Anonymous03/19/09
Again
ANother one just too far over the top...
by
Anonymous07/15/09
GREAT
Amazing how you write these stories with so many different endings. You go for one extreme to the other so well. LOVE them all. These people that say some of the stories are over the top, well they have no idea. Truth is REALLY stranger than fiction. THANK you for all your writing
by
Anonymous08/13/09
no sorrow for her
no sorrow or pity for her, where she made her choices, to her detriment.
by
Anonymous10/29/09
words
she died a widow and provided for herself, cynical, perhaps.
her actions did ultimately contribute to his death, and sometimes it works out like that, for her.
How could a woman having gone through an episode of cheating by her husband and by her own description, suffering heavily utter the words "It didn't mean anything."? Of course it meant something. It meant betrayal and disrespect whether David ever found out or not. Brenda KNOWS this. David cheated with his brother's wife. He betrayed his wife and brother. That makes him pond scum. However, even though the story is light on details it sounds like they did it during a party and were probably drunk because they were both embarrassed about it the next day. There were no further trysts and they even avoid each other. As soon as David was sober he realized he had screwed up. Drinking is not an excuse but it sounds like he regretted his action and never did it again. Brenda, knowing the pain of stepping outside the marriage, does so anyway. She does it quite soberly and enjoys it so much she does it again. The story opens with her enjoying the memory of her latest fucking. No regret or guilt. She wasn't going to do it again but only because her lover was leaving the area. If David had lived he should have had some deep concerns about Brenda. By her own admission she didn't know WHY she did it. That means it would likely happen again. Apparently her bond to her husband isn't strong enough to make her reconsider such action. She says she now regrets it because she hurt her husband so badly BUT she already knew from personal experience that he would be hurt. The situation hasn't changed. The factors leading to her cheating, whatever they were, are still in play. Luckily David died and doesn't have to worry about her remaining faithful anymore.
Also, someone doesn't walk out of a hospital 3 days after bypass surgery. He wouldn't have the strength to walk out and my bet is that they would have medicated him to prevent him from leaving. If he miraculously had gotten out and if there was the slightest sign of trouble they would have pulled him back in immediately ESPECIALLY with something so stressful going on in his life. This is just too dumb to be believed.
Not great but thought provoking as os many have said. It really is hard to totally love and respect someone that has cheated on you, so she isn't a total villain. Once again when the husband cheats its forgivable to a lot of you. But when the wife does...OMG! How could she? I rather thought the husband overreacted...wasn't he a prior cheater?
by
Anonymous07/15/11
Too bad the slut did not use one of the guns on herself [sigh].
Once a cheater(s), always cheaters with revenge. These two idiots are as stupid as that fag "shoe-no-IQ" & his cronies.
English
Screwed up the details
If I can read the story once and see a flaw in the time line, you the author should easily see it too. I'm talking about you stating that the wife is 35 years old. Then later you wrote "She sat in the chair next o the bed and looked at the face of the man she had lived with and loved for twenty three years." That would mean that they hooked up when she was 12. TWO WRONGS!
Too Little Too Fast!
You had the makings of a great story but everything you had there was so compressed and not enough of other details were present. For example, the husband has a heart attack, leaves the hospital and comes home where he dies. Yet, Brenda drops his fling on him and promises to expose it if he does not meet with her immediately. Her first concern should be his medical condition. She could have held the papers until he recovered but no she had to have her talk.
Who was Jack since David knew him? How did David know about their affair since it had only happened once? She said that she was filled with remorse but her actions did not indicate a person filled with guilt. If David only found out that second time how can he have her served with divorce papers while he was having a triple bypass heart surgery?__________________________________________ ____
The title says that it did not mean anything but the reality is the story did not mean anything because the reader had little to hold onto in terms of the characters._______________________________________ ____
SleeplessinMD
Huh??? I'm totally lost
This story is a bunch of jumbled words. What the hell is the plot? Talk about hitting the fast forward button....
I am
Huh?
I am so confused...wish you would have developed this story better, including erasing the obvious mistakes you made which were noticed by the readers.
I think the wife knew what buttons to push to make her husband stay with her. I think the wife's priorities were his health before even trying to repair or not the marriage.
Obviously both had been unfaithful and neither had a moral leg to stand on. BUT I need to add that fucking his brother's wife added despicable to the mix, limitting whatever sympathy I might have had felt for him. If his wife forgave him, why couldn't he at least try?
Ending the story this way was a complete cop-out! If it had been a book I would have thrown it against a wall!
hmm
now that her husband is dead, she can go ahead and fuck Jack whenever and wherever she wants.
Complete agreement with the others
This was shit! Not only is the story incomprehensible, the writing is awful. What in the hell are the "ruminants of her marriage?" A ruminant is a cow, moron. On the other hand, she's a stupid cow... anyway, the whole thing was just horrible.
Could Have Been Better
If Brenda had been 45 instead of 35 then the story would have been more plausible. Presumably David would be around 45 also. This would have made it more possible for him to have had "a massive heart attack". But even with that I don't know how he could undergo a triple bypass chest opening and be out of the hospital 2 days later.*****I think the author rushed through the story to get to the twist at the end. But even in a very short story it is important to remember that the devil is in the details.
A lot of potential
This story had a lot of potential but you blew it in the details. Editing problems tend to congregate near the beginning and the ending of a story. You need to give extra time to those sections when polishing up a story prior to publication.
I thought you had a good plotline in progress but you rushed it. Sorry.
You
must be joking,walking around a couple of days after a triple by pass!He must be Superman.
Ditto The Other Comments
This "story" sucks. The "writer" isn't that well versed in the use of punctuation or grammar, he confuses one word for another (in more than one place) and he doesn't know how to form a proper paragraph. Much of this is composed of poorly connected, almost random sentences. The story line is familiar also. I've read virtually the same "story" a hundred times on this website except that a "writer" generally knows a little more about key elements in the "story." That a man was wandering around a couple days after triple bypass surgery is ludicrous. This “writer” needs a lot of study in how to write.
Correct: it didn't mean anything
Awkward prose with several misused words coupled with poor sentence construction is just bad writing. The characters aren't fresh nor lifelike. They're mannequins without substance.
The plot is rather incredible, and I'm forced to agree with the previous poster who pointed out the absurdity of the man leaving the hospital shortly after triple bypass surgery. My friend couldn't manage this feat after his bypass but then he wasn't a superhero.
The "you did it so I was entitled" plot is tired and unsatisfying besides being wrong-headed. I'm always amused when people say "it didn't mean anything, it was just sex." If it's meaningless, then why do it? The story isn't good fiction but I thank you for your effort.
ok
and because of what she did was the revenge worth it ...now she doesnt even have pics for the memories ...maybe she should just commit suicide now herself ...because i can see a life of regret left in front of her ...yes i agree her life is over ...if she lives she will know she is the one who killed her husband and betrayed him ...she would have been better off forgetting about his one time affair as he had obviously suffered enough from it himself ...now its her turn to suffer with no way of being able to change the outcome
IT DIDNT MEAN ANYTHING?
funny neither does this story
Grim!
The monster waited 2 years to get her revenge! What a truly evil person she is.
lame
lame
GOOD JOB
GOOD STORY, GOOD PLOT. I ENJOYED IT. GOOD READ, AND I DON'T GRADE A PERSONS WRITING STYLE. I EITHER LIKE IT OR NOT. GOOD JOB.
Hard to believe you wrote this yourself
I'm a fan of yours & find your stories interesting, orignal & well written. This was well below your usual standard, almost as if somebody else wrote it. Good enough plot, but too hurried & leaving too many gaps. And yes, it's just not possible to be walking around mere days after bypass surgery. Even apart from the heart & associated problems,the pain from the ribs they need to break to get in there makes it hard to even breathe, let alone walk around. It's also hard to believe that irrespective of their other problems, the wife wouldn't do her damndest to get him back into hospital PRONTO.
Having got that off my chest, I look forward to your next.
Very confusing
The beginning of this story sunk it. How did the husband do all the damage to the property? Was she in the shower when it happened or did she just walk through the door of the house and discover everything? It seems like you felt bad that you hadn't written a story in a while and decided that you had to get one out and get it out in less than ten minutes.
Very good entertainment
I have to say the age of the wife with the two kids not at home is a bit of a question of where they are and the time out of the hospital after bypass surgery is impossible. That said I liked your story and found it short and to the point. It leaves the reader with a lot to think about and that is a great story.Thank you for the great entertainment and keep writing.PT
Good story
A little pushing it with the leaving the hospital so soon.. It goes back to communication in a marriage.. Talking everything out might have prevented her affair and his demise.. Certainly is a really dark ending..
Do I have this right?
She observed and photographed her husband a few years before in a one time sex session with a relative. She decided to keep the picture and watch her husband and nothing further happened and she saved the evidence. Now she is having an active affair hiding it from her husband, he comes in finds her having sex, gets mad destroys some things, and winds up in the hospital having heart surgery. In the mean time she gets divorce papers and threatens, no blackmails, her husband into coming home. He leaves the hospital before time, comes to her they talk, he goes to bed and dies. The only one punished here is the husband. He died knowing he was married to a lying, cheating, unfaithful, betraying slut. At least the husband had the morals and ethics to stop before it became an affair. Wife figured she had a free ticket and could carry on a full affair only she got caught. Let her live with fact she killed her husband and destroyed his trust in her and their marriage. Husband wasnt an angel but he walked the higher ground, she was just a slut.
She deserves the outcome!
As most of the commentors indicated - she deserves to be left alone. In fact, we wonder if she planned this whole situation? Hey, she gets a bonus - he dies, she gets to spend the money and visit the stud in California.
Not Good
1. He would not even be off the IV's in two days let alone able to walk out of the hospital.
2. How many years had she kept the secret--remarkable to say the least!!!
3. This is the worst wrtting you have done. It is disjointed, poorly thought out and totally silly.
Somewhat hurried but thought provoking
I felt that the story was concise fast paced and shocking (in a good way).
I would have stayed a bit longer though on each of the characters. As is, it almost feels like a quick sketch, rather than a portrayal of characters which come to life in the reading.
Despite the head spinning speed, there were interesting themes. For example, the asymmetry between the planning of a scheme (based on the present knowledge) and the chaos effect of unforeseen circumstances. Another theme is the double jeopardy which lying puts us into. At first, it forces us to hold in a secret than to lie by not resolving the underlying issue(s) which brought it about. And the second jeopardy is when belatedly we act on the first lie by acting out, and using it (at least implicitly) as an excuse to lie again. The result: we reactivate the old unresolved problem (maybe its resolution would have prevented the appearance of the second?) while exacerbating the situation with the new lie.
Recently I read that the image of death in connection with betrayal is not that uncommon. To a large degree it signifies the death of trust (if not love itself) in the relationship. In this light the ending, even if not meant to be allegoric felt to me as a realization of this type of death of the old relations which comes along with the death of trust.
Common misconception on the narrator
Many comments to this story and to another story (“ALMOST?” by thecelt) have in common what I believe is the apparent unfamiliarity (or at least inability to recognize it in a story) with the third person limited (or combined) point of view as a narrative form. I would not have tried to point out this surprising fact, and expose myself to the potential shower of personal attacks (which could run the gamut from my personality and knowledge to my mental status and wished longevity…), had I not thought that at the least some could take my comments at face value – namely, an opportunity to become aware of a certain technique in writing and how it’s meant to be read. None of it is my invention of course; none of it (as a form of writing) is rare or new. What I write is not meant to be insulting or derogatory to anyone, either to those who find it new to them or to those who are familiar with it. It came as a reflection on the KIND of reasons which were given to disliking the story, which I feel are a result of a misunderstanding.
My other reason for getting into this issue is my need to encourage authors to write, using this form of narrative if they choose to do so. My concern is that with many responses which do not do justice to stories which are written in this form, there will be a natural selection of sorts towards a narrower range of narrative forms.
As I said, this form of narrative is neither rare nor new. For example, Jane Austin and Henry James have used it in the 19th century and it gradually has become more and more common. Rather than having the wife or the husband telling their stories in the first person, or having the story being told from the third person omniscient point of view; the third person limited pov, allows the narrator to tell the story mostly from the perspective of a character, but without identifying directly with the character. It is not too difficult to identify this mode as you realize that most of the information follows the level of knowledge, values interests etc of that character. And yet, being told from a third person, the narrator can create distance from the character in many ways. One way to create such distance is by the choice of language. It could be either very similar to the kind of language the character would use, or it could be purposely very different. Both could be used to create an ironic effect or to help identifying with the character. Another tool to create distance is the composition of the scenes. It can create contrasts which should lead the reader to the understanding that the perspective of the character is limited or wrong. It could also be revealed by direct assertions which the character could not have made. Indeed at that point the narrator temporarily abandons the limited position. For example it could convey the common norms like “many in her town would have disagreed with her actions”, or even by moving to the pov of another character. In all those cases the narrator distinguishes him/her self from the character they otherwise stay close to. It makes for an overall more subtle narration; it provides opportunities for irony and at the same time allows deeper psychological penetration to the psyche of characters (by allowing for explanation by the narrator which the character may not be aware of).
One mistake one should never make is confusing that narrator with the implicit author of the story. Only when you take into account the overall strategies of the story, you can judge whether the implied author (or the norms of the story) are actually identical to those of any of the characters. In other words, you can never automatically assume that the Narrator = Author. In fact, in the case of the third person limited narrator, one could almost argue the opposite. If an author used the third person limited, you could almost be sure that it was used, at least in part, to allow for good presentation of the character, combined with good measure of distance from it. Otherwise, the author would have used the first person pov (with the wronged character) or more likely, the third person omniscient.
Another issue of course is judging a story by its theme(s) which has some merit (like not enjoying them). But where I found myself again puzzled is when I realized that readers pour their (justified) moral outrage at the AUTHOR (totally unjustified) who had chosen to depict a character which behaves in a manner that is morally outrageous. But wait a minute, what if that was exactly the purpose of the author? Was not that a success? The only part that is missing in this type of narrative is that the author allows US to come to our own conclusion rather than having a particular character saying it FOR US or the NARRATOR him/her self doing the same.
In the open market of literature authors have been exposing their readers to this mode for more than a century, isn’t it time we ‘allow’ the authors here to use a more sophisticated form of narrative by understanding how this type of narrative really works? Go to The wikopedia (although the value of point of view in literature there is too abbreviated IMO) or any modern book on literary devices or “how to read a story”/ a novel and search for this value. We could do justice to the authors and get more out of the stories.
confussing
How was he able to tear up a painting and tear down photo albums after he had just having a triple by pass surgery he wouldnt have the strength to even hold an ax or a gun he died in a real hurry though.
I hope she got what she wanted and she rotts in hell she sure had the nerve to hold a sex fling he had with his sister in law that happened 4yrs ago thats not fair.
Pat
Too Rush
This story has a good plot & a good ending. I like it! But you were rushing too fast to get to the end. What a pity.
Nope
She sucked and he was a wimp. So she had some grainy photos from some years ago. Who f*ng cares.. She should have taken him down then and there. This way it became blackmail instead... And she got off all to easy.. A Wimp_Story... Yoron
merry widow
did she understate the # of times, where twice could not necessarily be consistent with her utter self indulgent joy? how do you forgive someone, then use it against them ? why not insist on hospital, given the gravity of the procedure ?
a cynic would say she'd have her regrets, but go on after the destruction of him...he - once and felt something like shame, her, the thrill of the whole thing was something she felt. crocidile tears ?
Here's to Nope
THe reason she didn,t bring him down when it happened wasn,t to hold it over his head, as he didn,t know she had it, the reason was it was a pic, of him with his sister-In-law, and she didn,t want to ruin the whole family, unless it was to go on happening, the reason she kept the pic .was if he ever strayed again she could use it then,But it was her that strayed the next time,I would have liked to hear a little bit more about this Jack guy her lover ,he Appanetly was a good friend,or her husbands bro, or A brother-In -law,
WHAT
what a slut
great story
Pity folks don't recognize the originality in your story. I really enjoyed it.
Again
ANother one just too far over the top...
GREAT
Amazing how you write these stories with so many different endings. You go for one extreme to the other so well. LOVE them all. These people that say some of the stories are over the top, well they have no idea. Truth is REALLY stranger than fiction. THANK you for all your writing
no sorrow for her
no sorrow or pity for her, where she made her choices, to her detriment.
words
she died a widow and provided for herself, cynical, perhaps.
her actions did ultimately contribute to his death, and sometimes it works out like that, for her.
Stories filled with anger and violence; no redemption, just despair.
Makes your stories depressing to read and who needs that at the end of a tale? I'm looking for uplifting reading.
The Only Good Wimp. . .
. . . is a dead wimp.
good jhob of showing the "Fog of War"
Brenda didn't know what was happening, but she knew David had seen them, and all she could do is wait. Good ending.
Two cheaters, nobody wins
How could a woman having gone through an episode of cheating by her husband and by her own description, suffering heavily utter the words "It didn't mean anything."? Of course it meant something. It meant betrayal and disrespect whether David ever found out or not. Brenda KNOWS this. David cheated with his brother's wife. He betrayed his wife and brother. That makes him pond scum. However, even though the story is light on details it sounds like they did it during a party and were probably drunk because they were both embarrassed about it the next day. There were no further trysts and they even avoid each other. As soon as David was sober he realized he had screwed up. Drinking is not an excuse but it sounds like he regretted his action and never did it again. Brenda, knowing the pain of stepping outside the marriage, does so anyway. She does it quite soberly and enjoys it so much she does it again. The story opens with her enjoying the memory of her latest fucking. No regret or guilt. She wasn't going to do it again but only because her lover was leaving the area. If David had lived he should have had some deep concerns about Brenda. By her own admission she didn't know WHY she did it. That means it would likely happen again. Apparently her bond to her husband isn't strong enough to make her reconsider such action. She says she now regrets it because she hurt her husband so badly BUT she already knew from personal experience that he would be hurt. The situation hasn't changed. The factors leading to her cheating, whatever they were, are still in play. Luckily David died and doesn't have to worry about her remaining faithful anymore.
Also, someone doesn't walk out of a hospital 3 days after bypass surgery. He wouldn't have the strength to walk out and my bet is that they would have medicated him to prevent him from leaving. If he miraculously had gotten out and if there was the slightest sign of trouble they would have pulled him back in immediately ESPECIALLY with something so stressful going on in his life. This is just too dumb to be believed.
lol @ Zed....
That was funny!
I loved the earlier comment!
The only good wimp is a dead wimp, I loved it!!!! R.T.
I was thinking
That the ending should have included her putting the gun in hear mouth and pulling the trigger.
She deserved that much.
do you ever write a story where the man
isn't a wimp, you have got to be the biggest man hater out there. Oprah doesn't have anything on you.
I was okay
Not great but thought provoking as os many have said. It really is hard to totally love and respect someone that has cheated on you, so she isn't a total villain. Once again when the husband cheats its forgivable to a lot of you. But when the wife does...OMG! How could she? I rather thought the husband overreacted...wasn't he a prior cheater?
Too bad the slut did not use one of the guns on herself [sigh].
Once a cheater(s), always cheaters with revenge. These two idiots are as stupid as that fag "shoe-no-IQ" & his cronies.
23 years
1* rating for a worthless old hide story. No one fuck old hides.
HE CHEATED FIRST SO SHE IS THE SLUT?????
I quess all you women haters out there should covert to islam so you can stone your women to death..
DWornock is a sick puppy.
No comments on the story, just his? hate of anyone older than he? is. Interesting.
My comment on the story is that it's a sappy piece of writing.
A REASON
We all need a reason for life and living and if not bad things happen. TK U MLJ LV NV
Click here to leave your own comment on this submission! or
Back to It Didn't Mean Anything or
More submissions by Grey Eagle 286.