The introduction of the piece starts with the somber scene of a father standing over his child's casket. The emotional disparity immediately pulled me in and made me want to understand what could have caused this untimely death.
As I read through the individual back rounds of each child I kept reminding myself that all these things, likes and dislikes, are all in the past. I don't know what it was about these rather average back stories that I found compelling. Maybe it was sympathy pulling on my heart strings. Maybe it was all how I compared my own teenage years. Or maybe it was to see how the writer would interweave these two lives- and cut them short. Regardless, the writer managed to keep someone with A.D.D intrigued enough to keep reading so, I'd like to learn that.
The simple word choice gave the story a simple feeling. That is to say it felt as simple as a tragedy can be simple. Good lives/times simply leading to an end for no reason other than a simple accident. The emotions-the real noise that could have interfered with the tragedy- barely ever addressed. This story was not a matter of "why?" but strictly "how?"
I was reminded of what it is like to write for the newspaper. Formal, "Just the facts, Ma-am" sort of stuff. However, it read like a human-interest piece - the author trying to create an emotional tie for the reader but not feeling one herself.
I think overall it was the uniqueness of how it was written and the subject matter that pulled me in. The author is telling a simple story about a tragedy. How she kept control of the piece and the readers thoughts displayed masterful skill.
No comments:
Post a Comment