"Going" by Amy Hempel

I love the short story "Going" written by Amy Hempel. In such a short story she was able to tell so much her Character. I also like how the story would explain itself on how and why each thing happened and the story starts off good right off the bat he is in the hospital and he wakes up noticing that there's a typo on the menu when he wakes up, instead of being concerned about his own health and what had happened in 2 days he was pretty calm to be just waking up. Another thing i liked about the story and like the connection of the binoculars while driving : two ways. Sometimes you can have two feelings at once and can be difficult to describe and Binoculars while driving (fast and slow, far and close all at the same time)is a great way to describe that feeling. Amy also made her character very interesting in a way that he had a bit of mystery behind him. The last thing he remembers was seeing a scorpion sting itself to death cause the bartender put tequila on its tail and then when he was leaving the man asked where he was going and he simply responded he was just "Going"... but Why 2 days of memory loss i still didn't get why 2 days?

"Big Me"

"Big Me" by Dan Chaon was a story i really enjoyed reading but i felt like i didnt fully understand it and needed to read it a second time to see if there was anything I had missed the first time because the first time I read "Big Me" the end of it left me with a lot of questions about Andy's life growing up, and how his imagination had taken a far bigger role then reality did which made him to have these "black outs". I wasn't sure if something more traumatic then what is explained to him is what actually happened and maybe his brain actually created these new more enjoyable memories that had this fun story of him being a detective who goes on these missions to gather as many facts as he can on Louis Mickleson the teacher who moved into his hang out house and will also be his 7th grade teacher who apparently looks like an old version of himself so... I going to have to agree with his wife when she said "If I told you that I had periods when I... lost time... wouldn't you be concerned? Wouldn't you want me to see a doctor?" to him having, 'black outs', at certain points was something to be concerned about, and its likely to be something his brain had intentionally blocked out because its something traumatic, and he mentions his childhood being terrible, and how dysfunctional his family is. I'm going to have to agree with Mrs. O'Day... im concerned for Andy and hope things work out for him

US Drag pt 2

i was very disappointed by the ending being so.. uneventful it felt like the story was building for something bigger to happen. I also did really see MUCH change but consider all of the characters were so unique in the some of the oddest ways yet not TOO odd, they all seem like they have personality disorders like Christopher might be autistic or something. I also feel the play would have been a lot better had they found ED or at least developed on the the "ed" situation considering everyone is staying away from ed i guess they did a good job at it then i guess, but i guess not finding ED makes it more realistic considering no matter how interesting me and my friends my be if we were to set out to find a serial killer I'd say were not very likely to find him. U.S. Drag spoke for its self in being a Drag for me

GOING Amy Hempel.

To me, being a writer is the ability to tell a good story in a few words. Amy Hempel fits into my box of a good writer.She is able to divert my thoughts in many different ways.The way she starts the story gets the reader involved immediately.My mind started working ,trying to picture whatever she was saying.She starts by talking about the hospital menu. She makes us realize there is a mistake with the spelling of "served" on her breakfast tray. It was rather spelled as "severed".She now connects this to her accident by saying a menu that says pot roast "severed" with buttered noodles is not what someone who flipped his car twice at sixty and landed side-up in a ditch would like to see.This smooth connection reveals her mastery of writing skills- being able to pass across a message without using a lot of words. She keeps doing this through out the story.She also links the nurse's question to her school teacher who talks about Realization.Just when you think she is going to narrate a particular event with details, she takes your mind off it,and starts talking about some other thing seemingly related to her previous topic. This makes her writing interesting and captivating because you leaves you wondering what she would say next.
Her "olfactory hallucinations" is one thing i found very hilarious, as she says she was able to smell the smoke of her parents' house burning three states away.I begin to wonder how this is possible,but then this adds to the 'flavor' of the story. In essence, this story is about her car accident and the memory loss. But the style she uses to say this is what makes it ideal.
Love the story.

Going

It is a strange little tale with many tiny images of madness. The way he used to drive through binoculars is just a tiny fact suggesting suicide and relates to the scorpion stinging itself to death with just one drop of the same Tequila he was drinking. The olfatory hallucinations which are an indication of schizophrenia, the worm smell he sensed after being out – meaning “almost dead” – for two days. Someone who was close to be under the ground, like the worms. The idea of someone being “there” just because the smell of her is there. And finally, the phrase that I liked the most: “I can’t even remember all that I’ve forgotten.”He realizes something that happened to him but does he? How do you do to know you just realized something? What is he realizing? What did you just realize?

Going" by Amy Hempel

Hi everybody,

I was really surprised at how short the story was. I knew it was supposed to be short but when I opened my book I thought "It's only a little more than a page?" The story isn't spectacular but it does have some interesting details. I liked that the character in the story was driving the car and was looking through the binoculars at the same time. I didn't think it was smart but I had to admire it because I don't think I would be able to come up with something so different. But I guess Amy Hempel would have been able to either seeing as how she got the idea from a real life experience.

I also liked how instead of saying that the nurse in the story was very beautiful she managed to convey the idea in a funnier way by saying "...this nurse makes every other woman look like a sex-change." I thought that was a unique way of describing her.

I also found it interesting how in the interview it was said that she wrote a story that was only a sentence long. I don't think if I'd consider one sentence a story but reading that someone has written one definitely surprised me. Does anyone else think a sentence is to short to be a story?

The Writer's Block: Big Me

This story was very interesting but a little dark in the same time. I mean the Character Allison had a bit of a negative energy around her and not just her. Some of the other characters were very sensitive as well. However I am personally a fan of of this type of style of play making or movie writing. It a harsh reminder of what human beings are some are cruel and some not so much. If someone is attacked and stabbed like mentioned a being who wasn't very close with that person probably wouldn't care very much but then again that is not our fault. But I have to say that Ed person is a real sketchy character, going around and slaughtering people

Big Me

I liked this story. I can relate with the way the kid was because I used to be like that when I was young. I invented stories and sometimes I lived in the middle of an alternative reality. That was the result of reading everything I could put my hands on since I was very, very young and also because I think I was (and I may still be) a "martian." For this kid, the force of his imagination was so strong that he ended up even invading the man's space and taking his things. He kept his diary and the fixation made him see every detail through a magnifying lens. He was a writer from the beginning, and he took a very plain character and made him move like a puppet until he felt the fiction was starting to invade reality. He run away from that but he couldn't ran away from himself. That's why he will always remember that first story.

US Drag #2

I finished reading this play and I decided I like it very much because it is irreverent and funny and it portraits people exactly as they are. I think this is the most amusing thing about the play. The characters are sometimes so incredibly similar to a cartoon and yet you know they are believable because it happens you know people who are exactly like that. The characters in the play may be living in a huge city where anything can happen, but that makes them only obscure figures whose lives and problems are laughable and forgettable. They must take every opportunity they have to catch their five minutes of fame, even if it means lying and inventing fake "angst." They want to be taken into account, live under the light and attention from other people, be heroes... but they are so insignificant, they invent suffering they didn't know to end up being pitied, not admired. This play is just a big mirror, when we discover which reflection looks like us, we have to choose... either you cry or start laughing. Or you may hate the whole thing, but you can not be indiferent.

U.S. Drag...

Hey everyone,

So there was quite a bit to digest from this story and I can understand why so many people did not like the ending. From what I read, I felt most of the characters were the same in a sense, except for Angela & Allison of course. It seemed like most of the story revolved around the two of them living their lives with an interesting perspective of the world while the rest of the characters all felt like needy insecure people with problems I won't even begin to go into. However, the edginess of Angela and the soft hearted Allison kept me intrigued throughout the story because they were a good duo in dealing with these people.

The conversations seemed to have a flow that was predictable but at the same time interesting because of how different Angela & Allison were compared to the people they dealt with. The one thing I see similar between all of them all was that they were all damaged in some way and the topic of Ed was a conversation they could unify to. The fact that the issue with Ed was never fully resolved also bugged me a lot.

I was curious about why the play ended with Christopher and not the girls and it made me wonder what the play writers true intentions were in terms of what we should get out of this story. Maybe it's a tale about the loneliness some people endure because they don't possess a natural charisma that many do. Perhaps the play writer wanted to emphasize the extremes people go to for love and affection and Ed is simply the character that displays those extremes.

I won't dismiss this play as being complete fail because it did keep me interested, but I would have to see it to get a fresh perspective. Overall, as creepy as the dialogue may have been, I think it was an alright play. Hopefully, I will be able to come to a firmer conclusion after watching the play.

~Sal

US DRAG PART1&"BIG ME"

US DRAG part1.

Allison and Angela's Dialogue is so well written it makes it very easy to hear the voice of the two Characters. There's a Flow in the dialogue in all of the conversations that makes them all feel so real which helps it capture almost a mood in each of the conversations with out much narrative explanation unless it was something the what i would call out of the ordinary. One thing about the play so far is some of the characters come off extra odd like when Christopher wants Angela To lay in bed with him and he says "Could we like.. Just lie on the bed and have you hug me?" and Angela just says "i guess so" and lays in bed with him and considering how odd Christopher has already came off and the main issue so far seems to be abuse on woman you think Angela would be a little more on guard and staying SAFE!

US DRAG

As I had said before, I did not like this play. I don't really see a story in it. Nothing was really accomplished or done or explained in the end. ED was this mysterious character that hurt certain characters but he didn't really bring the characters together, I guess as I had expected. I feel like the characters didn't really change or grow except for maybe Allison I believe. In general it was a boring read and it needs some more drama, action, and meaning in the play.

The Writer's Block: U.S. Drag

The Writer's Block: U.S. Drag: As you guys wrote, I was somehow frustrated by this story. I wondered where our frustration came from, and came to guess that there is a difference between the theme which the writer tries to write and our interpretation. When we readers started reading, we believed that this story was a thriller. Although the writer poses us a riddle, she never allows us solve it. As a thriller, the story is incomplete because “There is no Ed”. However, as the writer quotes from Burroughs’s Naked Lunch in the beginning, this play is about “U.S. drag”, the contemporary sickness, in which people indulge in self-consciousness, money, fame, anxiety, sense of helplessness and loneliness. To some extent, I think the writer succeeded in depicting them. Each character is interesting, and the conversations between Angela and Allison are real. However, the development of the story is imperfect. For instance, I felt the scene where the two guys, Christopher and James, and two girls met was unnatural. Also, I didn’t really get the subtle change of Angela’s emotion.

U.S Drag

Like i said earlier,i did not like the end of the play for a couple of reasons.
Firstly because, whenever the characters of the play met,they most often talked about this mysterious guy "Ed" who was responsible for some serial killings and attacks.They tried to device plans and strategies to catch up with the "Ed" guy,and they came up with the "no help" strategy.It seemed that a common way for Ed to get his victims was by asking for help.So they thought refusing to offer help to strangers would help minimize Ed's attacks.But at the end of the play,nothing about this is mentioned.The playwright doesn't even mention if they were successful or not,and if they were,to what extent they were successful.
Secondly,the fact that Christopher ends up saying at the end of the play that he doesn't believe in Ed is very contradictory to me.All through the play,we have seen them working together to curb Ed's attacks, and all of a sudden,he changes his mind.We the audience,or personally,i donot understand the inconsistency in the character's state of mind.If there is a reason for this,i think we should be led into it.Perhaps,there is an intriguing twist to the story.If the play had just extended a little further to convey the reason behind Christopher's new stand point,i would have been satisfied.But as it is, the end of this play still needs to "end".

US Drag Second Response

Hi everyone,

After finishing the play I kind of fell silent and after thinking for a little while came to the conclusion that the ending was a little bland. If someone were to ask me how I liked the ending I'd probably shrug my shoulders and say it could have been better but it could have been worse. Or maybe I'd just say I don't know.

I think the play should have been longer. It felt a little rushed and I would have liked it better if they had found Ed in the end. It just seems like it was cut short.

I liked the characters in the play. I wouldn't change them. I especially like Christopher as a character because he makes you want to laugh because off how dramatic he is but he also says things that make you want to hit him, which makes you like the play to some degree because it gets you to respond emotionally to the characters. One example of something Christopher says that makes things interesting is that he believes that Ed doesn't exist. This comment made me want to laugh because I thought that he was crazy for saying it but I thought it was interesting because it does make for an interesting story because it creates conflict.

Overall the play was pretty interesting and I still wouldn't mind seeing the play on stage, in spite of it's faults. I just hope that on stage the play doesn't seem to confusing when it comes to transitioning from pace to place and I hope it doesn't feel like it's being rushed.

US Drag Review Part Deux by Mark Mullaney

After finishing the reading I found myself not liking any of the characters. They didn't seem to be well rounded and almost all had the same personalty only with different neurosis. The two main characters were the most developed but even so I wasn't aware of their personalty changes, that became part of the conflict, until the characters came out and said "you've changed". Maybe it works out better when an actor can add more to it, but on paper it's pretty weak.

"Big Me"

"Big Me" is a kind of weird story with weird characters. Andrew is so mystical in everything he does. The way he narrates the story is so confusing. At one point he is talking about him being a detective and living a illusive life,and the next minute he is talking about when he was an adult and married, and how his dad became a bartender. He just keeps moving the story from his childhood experience to his adult life.It would be very difficult for an avearge reader to fully grasp the flow of the story.
Talking about creating an outsider,i think Dan Chaon was able to present Andrew to the readers as a complete outsider.He doesn't fit in his family,he follows people around,steals,breaks and sneaks into people's houses.He thinks of himself as a detective and creates his own imaginary world wherein, his parents are the landlords of his flat, and his siblings held other poistions.He is a very daring,courageous and curious protagonist i would for his age.I really like the uniqueness of this character.
However,i don't like the way the story ended.It leaves you saying "is that it?"

"Big Me" by Dan Chaon

Hi everyone.

Dan Chaon is great a creating captivating characters. I found the character from “Big Me” to be very interesting because he comes off as pretty weird and different. I like the fact that he is really imaginative, seeing the town he lives in, Beck, as a big city with mysteries to solve. It’s even more interesting because everyone he encounters in his “city” has some sort of a role that he has given them. Like his parents being the landlord and wife that live downstairs from his modest one room flat.

It makes a lot of sense that he would become quiet imaginative seeing as how he lives in a very small town but at the same time Andy/Andrew’s imagination seems to get a little out of hand. You might find yourself asking if he can distinguish real life from his imaginative world, because he takes his imaginative world/ persona to a different level when he brakes into peoples houses and steals “clues” and tortures cats to get confessions. I wonder if he actually has some kind of mental disorder, which seems probable, especially when starts having blackouts, or if he is just a really strange kid who’s active imagination just takes over sometimes in order to help him have fun.

At first I thought maybe this is just some sort of childhood phase but the story goes on to describe him 20 years later when he’s married and has children. He mentions how he keeps his blackouts a secret and how he can’t tell his wife about how he sometimes follows strangers around to see what they are up to, because he still plays detective even as an adult. I really like Andrew as a character he makes you wonder how stable he is. He seems like he could be a real person. What does everybody else think about him?

US Drag

I don't think i like this play very much.Its kind of confusing for me to follow from scene to scene.I didnot understand the subject matter of the play.I can't clearly say what the play is about.It's just so much of a little bit of everything.More to that,the play ended in a kind of awkward manner.It leaves you sort of saying "huh,i don't get it"If they were able to find ED and get closer to stopping all his mysterious attacks at the end of the play,it would have made more sense to me.
Allison and Angela are interesting characters.They reflect the mindset of most girls today, as they are never able to keep a job,and yet they think they are the best and deserve the best out there.I did not get the part where Angela met Christopher for the first time in his house, and he was asking her just for a hug.I did not know if it was a sex scene or something else,and also the fact that she got paid for that.Just does not make much sense to me.
However,i liked the humor in the play.

US DRAG

This play is very weird, I'm not so sure I like it. I find the two main character are all over the places I'm not exactly sure if I have really understood the characters yet. I did however find the play humorous. I think its funny that the other characters all have a passion for something but Angela and Allison just want to drink and get easy money. For some reason I feel like Evan is Ed he seems like he could be the sociopath type because he had a "rough" childhood. It's my prediction. I could be wrong but even though I didn't really enjoy the play so far, I am curious to read more.

US Drag

I love this play, the entire time I was reading it, I could not stop smiling at the sarcastic humor shown through all the characters. That is what I think I like most about this play is the characters, it reminds me of the type of characters that only appear in a Grand Theft Auto series, that is, the characters all seem like they are on the verge of insanity, and are horrifically stereotypical and funny. For example, as Amanda said, the girls, appear to me as the typical high maintenance bitchy type of girls who would use their good looks and excellent manipulating skills to get whatever they want.

Also, I particularly liked the character of Christopher, he just seems like the exact opposite type of person you would see as a bestselling author. Completely lost in his own vision of "truth" and so immensely timid that he needs to pay someone five thousand dollars to hold him all night. I just love it, just love it.

U.S Drag

I really enjoyed reading this play, and am thrilled at the opportunity to see it on stage. The dialogue is very well done in the sense that it perfectly conveys a very black type of humor, while also sounding at least reasonably realistic. The interaction between Allison, Angela, and James at the beginning of the play is a good example of this. The exchange is dark and still believable. This exchange is a perfect way to open the play because it also immediately shows how flawed these characters are. The girls, for instance, only care about the brutal murder James is telling them about because discussing it gives them an opportunity to have free drinks and to manipulate James into giving them money. These personality flaws are shown in even greater detail when the girls join SAFE for the purpose of actually catching Ed and receiving the reward money rather than warning the public about a threat to their safety.

Overall, I thought this play was very entertaining.

U.S Drag

I found the play to be highly interesting, so much so that I couldn’t put it down. Allison captured my attention from the get go, because of her demeanor and the way she carries herself. She and her roommate seem to never be able to keep a job, but think that they are beyond intelligent. They must be the center of everything, which makes them selfish. Me, myself, and I, so on and so forth. However, Allison is the worst one- money hungry and an ungrateful individual. Christopher is interested in her and I never understood why, perhaps because he took her forthrightness as a good sense of humor. Those two characters were my favorite in the play. I loved how the author threw in all kinds of people into the story and connected them by the organization, SAFE. Towards the end I thought that Christopher was the attacker, a troubled man who’s always hiding. A kind of guy like that fit’s the bill. What do you guys think? Oh, OH!!! THE ENDING WAS CRAP!!!!!! I thought they would reveal the attacker, but, nooooo… They want to tell us that Allison became a success, while Christopher grew to be disliked, by his new book. Oh, yes… I want to know who Christen is and why is she significant? At the end he asks her if he can help her put chairs away after signing a book for her (this is the first time he offers to help someone directly by asking), she feels as though he shouldn’t. She then asks him: “Will you help me?” He responds with: “I’ll help. I’ll help you, if you help me.” The play ends!!!! WHY? It seems as if Christen is a part of him or something, well, she said she knew him. I don’t understand how. What happened after this point? I am so frustrated with how the play ended, I say again, but overall, it was a good read.

U.S Drag

This is an interesting story. At first it seems as if the characters are having a causal conversation while they are drinking, its seemed as if each character was really down to earth because I can hear this dialogue being used on big screen films. Its not cheesy and it show personality flaws with people, it reminds us that unfortunate thing can happen to anyone no matter who they are such as children being attacked by a murderer and someone talking about showing a lack of remorse that makes great story. But it did bother me when they said the woman arm's were bruised and Allison thought she was beaten with a knife, i found that amusing.

"U.S Drag"

I could not find the author's name, does anyone know the name of this author?

Anyway, I thought this play was quite funny. The characters are vibrant, and the plot is interesting, so far. The part I found amusing was when Angela was with Christopher, and they were talking about getting Angela a job with him, even though she doesn't really fit into much of the positions.

However, I was confused about one part; what is the connection with the SAFE organization and the main characters?

"U.S. Drag" by Gina Gionfriddo

First of all, this is a very funny play. Second, as every funny scene we find, there is an undercurrent of bitterness that just makes the funny part a bit sharper.

The author has a very distinct way to portrait the characters of several people who navigate in some very dangerous waters. She gives us a very amusing picture of those over-pampered, over-educated and terribly self conscious young Americans who are always too much for every environment they inhabit but, sadly, even if it is not enough for them, they can’t afford them. They don't want the world in which the rest of the people live, so they build their own little planet and move there.

The reader can see the difference in the reaction of this kind of rebels with a twisted cause, their naiveté, their diluted ambitions and their not so practical enormous amount of knowledge, and the same kind of people when they are raised in a very different (normal) environment. I think it is funny how some people can discard reality in this very tragic-comic way. Maybe this is a bit what happens when we visit a mall. No matter how ruined, old we are or how much sophistication we may be lacking, once we hit the stores we get a little bit of the “cake frosting” and feel exactly as the marketing experts want us to feel.

In the world the characters of this play inhabit, once you get a taste of the environment, you can feel intellectually gifted, a community fighter, a freedom soldier, an environment defender, a leader, a yuppie…you name it. The problems is they never got the instructions booklet.

U.S. Drag by Mark Mullaney

I find this play intriguing in several ways. First off it stands out for me from plays I've seen and read in the past, as this one focuses heavily on the discussions of the characters. So far the story is reliant more on conversation than actions, and any movements the characters make are more for ambiance and to display character, rather than progress the story. For example the first scene where the two girls are looking around James' apartment for alcohol. It doesn't add to the plot but it makes for a bit of lighthearted entertainment during the discussion as well as giving some insight into who these girls are.
Another interesting element of this story are the main characters themselves, Allison and Angela. They seem to be stereotypical goofy best friends who's lives are entirely entwined with each other, causing them to behave almost as a single person and creating more distance between them and the people they encounter. From my experiences, though, I've rarely encountered female characters that behave like this. Sure, there are many female characters who are very close, but not often with the personalities shown here, particularly the tricking of other people, and the talk of get rich quick schemes.

It's all rather Laverne and Shirley-esque...

"U.S. Drag" By Gina Gionfriddo

Hi everybody.

I wouldn’t mind watching the play on stage. I really enjoyed reading the first part of the play. The characters are interesting to me. You can see what motivates them and they are pretty humorous at times. Allison and Angela are motivated by money, Ned wants a woman, and Christopher seems to want his family to not want to kill him and he wants someone to talk to. I liked Christopher as a character a lot because he would say something like, “Have you read my book… I’m gonna give you one. Is that really weird? Was that a bad thing to say? Now do you think I’m like really full of myself because I offered you my book.” Christopher says stuff and then beats himself up about what he just said. I guess the way I picture it in my head is just funny. I liked the Angela/Christopher scene the most I think. Because of the bed scene and the comment about raiding the mini bar.

Maybe it’s just me but Angela and Allison frustrate me. They seem to not care if they have to use people to get what they want, which is money, and they seem like they are a little proud or possibly conceited because they think they are somewhat better then people. But at the same time they sound like they are being practical and I can’t help but like them. They are smart but they are naïve as well, thinking that they can find Ed and get the reward. But that just makes the story more interesting because now you really want to know what’s going to happen to them. I like how Gina Giofriddo keeps your interest with diverse characters and an interesting plot. I’m definitely going to finish reading the play. Did anyone else like the play? If you did, why did you like it? If you didn’t why didn’t you?

"We Didn't" by Stuart Dybek

We didn't is a story about two very unfortunate teenagers who discovered the body of a dead pregnant woman on the beach, very close to the place where they were trying to have sex for the first and only time. The story is full of images that make me think of the vision an adult has of the little details that make him remember his youth. The author describes in a perfect way the emotional tension and the anguish of the two teenagers dealing with their sexual urges, their fear and the surprise they get when they end up in the middle of an unexplained death the night they finally decide to “do it” after so many times when they had a chance and “didn’t.”

There is a high charge of frustration, guilt and anxiety that is like a line drawn since the moment they discover the dead woman on the beach. Surprisingly, there is also a comic side in the story that is more evident when he describes some details like the sand on the condom or the underwear floating in the rain water. This story feels like one of those memories we have (some of us, the old ones…) from the time when we were young, inexperienced and quite naïve. Those moments full of trepidation and emotion over things that become bitter-sweet memories as the years go by.

We didn't

I love how he wrote the story, especially the beginning. The flow is so smooth and easy to follow, at least for me. The way he started the story prepared the reader for a bad end. He pulls us in when he uses the word "you" and makes us want to know, what he means by "we didn't". Then he jumps into the dialog between the character and his girlfriend, when he 'almost did', but a dead pregnant woman would act as a stopping block to anything happening between them. The author does a great job showing the deterioration of the couple, step by step, up until the end. At the ending he uses "you(r)" again as if he's talking to her, but in a way it feels like he's talking to the reader. The reader is put in the place of "you" and makes us feel like what he's going through. That is what i got from the reading.

We Didn't

I found this story very interesting. At first I was a bit confused about what was actually going on. What I recall reading was about a teenage couple who were aboutt o engage in a sexual connection but then didn't get a chance to because of an extreme coincident. I found the line, "I was trying to calm your terror with reassuring phrases such as 'Holy shit! I don't fucking belive this!" to be very comical because those wouldn't neccessarily be the words I use to comfort someone. I would actually become more nervous hearing those words if I was the female in the story. I thought it was sad that this women who was found dead at the beach ended up ruining their relationship. they seemed like they had been in love in the beginning. I understand that certain events in peoples' lives can change them but to ruin their relationship, it seemed sad.

The Writer's Block: "We Didn't" By Stuart Dybek

The Writer's Block: "We Didn't" By Stuart Dybek:

I was interested in the narrative in this story. He used “you”, so it made me feel that this story is intimate and wonder when he talked this story, and how old he is now. Using “you” can be dangerous, especially this story is about the fail of intimacy between a young couple; we readers are not “you”, so it can be too sappy for us to keep reading. However, Dybek definitely succeeded in connecting us to their experience with an exquisite distance. It seems to me that this author chose a brave way to narrate. Plus, I really liked the episode of the dead woman with a baby. It’s understandable for me that she didn’t want to make out.

“We Didn’t” shows us what love is. I felt sorry for this couple, but, at the same time, it reminded me of the fact that sometimes it can be even comical to other people, no matter how we really needs love, and every love or relationship is personal, serious and special to the one who is in love. Also, no matter how old we are, love is always painful.

We Didn't

"We Didn't" by Stuart Dybek. The story is a love story about two kids who don't do it, and it leaves me feeling (perhaps appropriately) unsatisfied. The writing itself is brilliant, full of powerful language and haunting imagery. Every sentence inspired a different visual, and the pictures are incredibly vivid. My favorite bit of imagery would probably be, "The lake had turned hot pink, rose rapture, pearl amethyst with dusk".

Another aspect of the writing that I greatly appreciated was the way the author utilized all of the five senses in creating this story. Examples of this are "kisses tasting of different shades of lip gloss" "your slick scent mixed with the coconut musk of the suntan lotion" "gasped sharply as a cry of pain" and so on and so forth.

The tension between the main character and his girlfriend Gin is palpable. After they witness the discovery of that woman and her unborn child things are never the same between them, something the main character notes bitterly. They argue constantly. It's as if the dead woman changed everything, as if she is still with them where ever they go. I thought this was a very realistic portrayal of how a traumatic event may effect two similar people very differently.

Overall, I loved how the story was written, even if I didn't enjoy the plot of the story.

We Didn't...

Yes, I think I agree with YHernandez on all points. I feel that the descriptions were indeed very vivid, they really put you right in the story. Another example of this would be when he is describing the dead woman's features: "Her hair was brown and tangled in a way that even wind or sleep can't tangle hair, tangled as if it had absorbed the ripples of water- Thick strands, slimy looking like dead seaweed."(Dybek, 158)

I also agree in the fact that I wasn't quite sure if I liked it or not. Yes I got it that it was supposed to be a vivid, and at some points erotic love story, but it still didn't feel like I could really feel the passion because of using so many odd illusions to random sources that it really disjointed the whole flow of the story.

One thing I could say I liked was the clear tone that he presented in the story. All the way through I sort of read this in a resigned tone, one of utter defeat. I liked how he did this, it seemed like it was almost a letter that he would give her many years later after rethinking that maybe she was the one that got away.

"We Didn't" By Stuart Dybek

Honestly, I'm not sure of what to comment about Dybek's story plot. I did read it all, and I understood that it was a love story about him and his partner, but I guess I would say it seemed like a disappointing love story, to the character at least.

However, I will say something about the way he described the scenery in the story, of which I thought was very vivid. For example, his story reads, "Headlights bounded toward us, spotlights criss crossing, blue dome lights, fleeing bare assed through the liter of garbage that daytime hordes had left behind and that night had deceptively concealed" (Dybek, 158). In my opinion, that line was very visual; I can clearly see the quick movement of the situation they're in.

So, did you think Dybek did well in making the story "visual"?

Stuart Dybek We Didn't

The story we didn’t is really interesting, it’s very sexual but focuses on the details of what makes things romantic, not the romance itself. Personally I feel that’s the key for a good love scene in a play, movie, show etc. When the author mentions they made love while a storm was going on setting probably setting barnes on fire somewhere in Indiana. I thought that was really interesting because most writers would go with the conventional moonlight scene. The part that touches me the most is when the story mentions a baby that drowned in the woman was considered a love child and the soul may be around in the water. It doesn’t touch me in a good way or negative, it makes me think much more like if the baby was reincarnated as a turtle or something of the sort.

"We Didn't" - Stuart Dybek

"We didn’t" by Stuart Dybek is definitely my favorite short story we've read in this course so far. This poetic story is the most realistic view towards relationships and how a simple underlining issue where either one partner is misunderstood or there is simply a complete miss-understanding in a situation between the two which can create a whole snowball effect of creating more problems simply cause the underlining issue has gone unresolved.
The story also has a very "what if" type feel to it which is something we all think on a daily basis especially when considering the possibilities of how a relationship could had one minor detail been changed about it from the beginning, it could sometimes create an entire different feel to the relationship and could even make or break the couple all together.
But there were certain parts of the story I had a bit of trouble understanding was why it was a pregnant woman that had washed up onto the shore that caused them not able to "do it", why a woman and why was she pregnant I wasn’t sure if that held any significance in tying with the story or the simple fact that a dead person interrupted there first intimate time together which spoiled the rest of the relationship considering even though he wasn’t as affected by the event Gin was so traumatized by that happening she can never be intimate with ever again, regardless of his love for her..

We Didn't

When I first started reading the story ,I was like what??What is the author trying to say by "We Didnt"? The first part of the story that says "we didn't in the light; we didn't in the darkness....we didn't in your mother's Buick eight" is very confusing to me.We see towards the peak of the story that he starts describing a sex scene at the beach where it is quite open and public.Anyone could see them there.The contradiction now comes in here:If they did it at a place as public as the beach why then did the author say at the beginning that they didnt do it in the light? I don't seem to get it.
However, i think it was an epic love story.The first sex scene is so typical of first time lovers who are always scared of pregnancy. This depicts the lives of adolescense in our societies today.The modern world has been hijacked by a strong desire for sex than for love.The way he descibes the scenes reveals his mind set at the time. All that was on his mind at the time was sex.
One other thing i don't understand is the symbolic meaning of the pregnant woman found mysteriously dead in the sea. How this finally affects their relationship is very significant. This image hunted her to a point where it created problems between them.Their argument over this woman's mysterious death served as the basis for their future disagreements on every other issue.This makes me wonder if her death was truly not a bad omen for these two.Perhaps the relationship was never meant to be.
The guy however falls in love with Gin at the end but Gin is no longer interested.This situation reflects what happens nowadays,when love is one sided and thus can not work out.

"We Didn't" By Stuart Dybek

I really enjoyed reading this story. And no, it's not only because it was a sexual story. It was because it was a story, that to me, seemed to be more about love.

I like that Dybek starts off with the excerpt from Yehuda Amichai's "We Did It" because you have something to work with when you start reading his story, "We Didn't. " By him starting off with the "We Did It" excerpt Dybek teases you into wanting to know what the character specifically didn't do? You want to know what they didn't do in front of a mirror, in the light, in the darkness, in the water, and in the high grass.

I think that even though the story was sexual it was really more about love. The male character describes his wanting to tell the female character, whose nickname seems to be "Gin," how much he cares about her. He says how initially it was more about sex but that later on it changed into something more profound. I like the way Dybek uses the show don't tell approach. He doesn't just say that the male character liked/loved "Gin" he describes it. An example being

"I stepped into the rain, and you came back out, calling after me."

"What? I asked, feeling a surge of gladness to be summoned back into the doorway with you."

"Want an umbrella"?

"I didn't"

It makes you feel bad for the character. It makes you care. Or at least it made me care because everyone has an experience involving love or liking someone. And a lot of these experiences don't turn out so well. I think Dybek does a good job making the reader connect with the character.

Does anyone else think the story was more about love then sex?

After i was thrown into the River and Before I Drowned

I found this story very interesting. The author completely went into the mind set of a dog. He created this dog, Edward and gave him a personality. The mindset of Edward was very different from a human's daily thought process. I enjoyed reading this story. I found it funny that he believed that the squirrels do nothing but talk trash about the dogs when they raced. I also found it disturbing that a dog would put squirrels in it's mouth to crush all it's bones and kill it. I like the ending of the story. It was sad that Edward died but at least he made it to a happy place in the end so it wasn't such at sad ending after all.

The Writer's Block: After I was thrown into the river and before I dro...

I think the most significant point of this story is the fact that the author succeeded in finding the voice of dog.Steven's way of talking is vigorous and breathless as same as his running or hyper music, and the voice makeseverything in this story.His entire life is adventurous but very short, and he literally run through his life like arock star. Before coming to the U.S., I had lived with dogs, and they unavoidably cannot live as long as humanbeings, so I felt this story shows us life and fate of animals.

My frustration is that the author described the squirrels as bystanders and negative. If I were him, I would havewritten about them with respect as much as to dogs. Otherwise, it seems that the author used animals only tomake them be a substitute of human beings.

As Brendan wrote, the title is intriguing and stimulates reader's imagination. After finishing the book, I askedmyself: what if his life after he survived being thrown in the river was just his dream before he was dying. Isit possible to think that he might have already died when he was small?

What do you think? Also, I felt like I can hear music from this story such as Hip Hop or Indie Rock, and if youmake soundtrack of the story, what kind of music is it?

Love is in the Air

This story is beautiful ! In the beginning, i was asking myself how love is supposed to be in the "air" with military officers doing their job at some station. But as the story progressed,i was able to see how it all interwines into a love affair that only existed in the air.
The tiltle, i think was carefully chosen to reflect the story and is itself captivating.Immediately i read the title i said to myself "wow,this should be a good one".
What i destest however about the story is the fact that Kang was not able to get this girl out of his mind.So much so that,it affected his job to a point where, he had to resign.I think this is crazy.If you love and can't have love in return,it is reasonable enough that you should move on.Besides you can't just fall in love with a mere voice to an extent that,you lose control of yourself and let a common voice hunt you down to resigning from work.That, to me is stupid.A voice alone is not enough to make one act like Kang.I think he was just obsessed.
However,the story was good and worth reading. I only wonder what the story would have been if Kang actually got hooked up with this girl?Would it have had the same ending?

Love is in the Air

After I was Thrown in the River and Before I Drowned

The story made me think more on living creatures portray us. Everyday birds chirp and squirrels jump around us in the park while we walk to school or work. They must have a world of their own. I like that fact that the squirrels were the audience while the dogs raced. It was so human like. What I've realized is that the dog Edward seemed like a selfish jerk. Especially not being a good listener, I could only imagine the hard time his owner had. It seemed as couple of these dogs had egos especially Edward. He had no sense of sportsmanship by biting and nudging other dogs when they race. This was a interesting tale.

"After i was thrown into the River and Before I Drowned

This story is one of a kind.It is very creative and appealing as Eggers tries to tell a story from the mind and eyes of a dog.It is also very captivating because, when i started reading the story,i asked myself what would the writer possibly be writing about a dog for over three pages. But when i was done reading, my questions were all answered.Its a great story about the life of a strong and mighty dog;a dog who takes pride in himself. A dog who thinks he can do anything,eat anything and almost thinks of himself as human and invincible.He doesn't think he can ever fail or fall.He is a survivor.When the writer says he eats pizza,chicken,yoghurt.....,He compares him to humans.He says he loves to run which is the most glaring example of his physical strength. Also,the fact that he survived after he was thrown into the river at the age of six months is another reason why he thinks of himself as a survivor.He is strong and he knows it;and the strongest amongst the other dogs. These, to me, are great qualities to give the protagonist; in this case,Steven.
It is even more interestimg to see at the end that, this strong,vibrant and machine-like dog finally dies.Its sad that he died but it goes to show that life is a rise and fall process.There is a beginning,a peak and then a fall.So like everything else, Steven met his downfall which resulted in his death.What i consider most intriguing is how he makes the dog die and then move on to the next like from where he sees and lives again,this time out of his body.This signifies the writer's belief in life after death.
The only question i have for everybody is why he says God is the sun.Could this just be for writing purposes or is there some element of truth embedded in this statement?

Ha Jin: Love is in the Air

This story was really compelling in a unique way. The women who spoke to Kang was very mysterious. At first I thought maybe she is bored and is looking some some excitement is toying with a man's emotion. But after reading more, the woman came off as more trustworthy. She gave her age and location with ease when she spoke to Shi Wei. Personally, I that a woman speaking in such a flirtatious way especially if she is a stranger is questionable. You would want to analyze the situation deeper because i may be to good to be true. The structure of the story was OK. I wished the writer gave the audience more specific details about the characters in the beginning of the story.

“After I Was Thrown in the River and Before I Drowned”

At first when I was reading this short story, I thought the main character was a small dog (chiwawa or something), but as I read on I found that was not the case. He was a big dog and he was mighty fast. I love how Eggers portrayed the main character- he is strong and never gives up, especially when it is doing something he loves. The dialog is simply superb- the way he makes the characters act is how I would imagine a dog’s actions. The bull dog is a great example of this; he was pigheaded, and all about himself. I also like how the dogs are not fond of adult humans and squirrels, hahaha.

To run is what they strive for and without it, there’s not much to do. It’s like taking away their freedom in a way. Towards the ending of the story one of the dogs, Susan, is injured. The next time, the main character "dies" while doing the obstacle course. He finds himself in a different world, where everything’s better. No building! Here he was free and the entire land was devoted to his running, walking, and anything/everything he wanted to do. This was his heaven. What I got from this story, especially the ending was that perhaps doggy heaven is reliving whatever made him/her happy. What do you think? What other ideas have been raised in your mind about the story?

After I was Thrown in a River...

I would first of all like to say I really enjoyed this one. I totally agree with LTellez in that it works well by jumping from point to point as one would think a dog would. I also like how he views the world. In a sort of aloof "I get it, but I don't really care" sort of way. The beginning really stuck out to me and immediately I was thrust into the world of this hyper dog that loves to run. The writers voice almost immediately made me start reading it faster in my head as if hearing it from the voice of this nice dog.
In addition, I'd also like to take a moment to talk about the title. I really like it, it works for me. I like how it sums up the whole dog's mindset, showing that this was his life, as he saw it, through the two major events. In his mind, he was born when he was dragged out of the river, and in real life as well as his mind, he died on the bottom of that river bed. I was just wondering what type of dog was he? It frustrates me to no end but I saw in my mind about a 3 year old golden retriever. how bout ya'll?

After I was thrown into the river and before I drowned - by David Eggers

I read the story and found the writing can really reproduce the way a dog concentrates immensely on something for a long (or short) while, and then suddenly changes and starts going after another thing. It also gives you the impression of the dog being a bit "superficial" because he reduces his life to some non-important things such as running, leading the pack and eating and because the way the dog in the story loses the thread of what he is saying and starts jumping from one idea to the other.

Well, a dog is exactly like that… so the story flows naturally. And dogs remember things that happened to them in a certain moment. This causes them to dream and sometimes move and whimper when they are asleep. This dog remembered his past life and could talk about it; he dies and then goes to heaven. I think the end of the story maybe a little simplistic. It makes the story turn into something you see in a cartoon or something similar. One may think that the author was trying so hard to be original that he went past his opportunity to get a gripping end and used something similar to one Disney movie I saw a long time ago.

Ha Jin - Love Is In The Air

I found this story was a very lovely love story. I found it interesting that this man as so infatuated with this women's voice. He didn't ever get a chance to meet her or know here but it casted a spell over him. It makes me think of online daters or people who fall in love with people through letters. Its a different way to connect but it can be just as powerful as a physical connection. I found it interesting how he began to doubt that what he was feeling was love. how do any of us know when we are truly in love? I feel like he also went through a terrible heart break in the story and it enabled him from doing his duties. It distracted him a great deal and he it began to mess with him. I thought it was a very sad ending to such a beautiful love story. I was hoping for a happy ending.

"After I Was Thrown in the River, and Before I Drowned" by David Eggers

Hello again everyone.

I'll start out by saying that I thought the story was OK. I didn't like it as much as Ha Jin's, which is my favorite story so far, but I did like some things about it.

I thought the story was humorous, realistic and descriptive when necessary. One line I read that made me laugh a little was "You know fast dogs. Dogs that just run by you and you say, Damn! That's a fast dog! Well that's me." I though it was funny because even if you've never seen a dog run really fast you can still imagine one running like a maniac. And I could definitely imagine myself saying something like that if I saw a dog running really fast. I'm not sure if anyone else thought that line was funny but I thought it was.

The portrayal of Steven, the dog, sounds realistic because he mentions how he loves running and jumping and he describes how he likes digging his claws into the ground. And he mentions how manages to jump between the gap near the creek that is around twelve feet wide. And he sounds like a very energetic dog so I'm not surprised that he could run or jump like that.

Eggers mentions things like the type of dog Steven was racing, like Edward, the bull terrier that I think is worth mentioning. Because you can look the dog up and see a picture of the dog and see if it's personality matched with the dog in the story. I think Edward being a bull terrier made sense because he was trying to bite and bump into Steven while they were racing, so he was trying to cheat, and when you look at a picture of a bull terrier it kind of looks like a dog that would do that. Unlike Susan the retriever, which looks like a friendlier type of dog and is described that way in the story.

I did like the fact that he made the character seem realistic but at the same time hearing Steven he loved to run so much was a tad annoying because I got that he loved it early on with the howling noises and funny sentences. So the repetitiveness is realistic but also slightly annoying.

To the person who wrote the response before me asking what the story was really about, I wasn't to sure what it was about ether. Eggers did mention something about some of the dogs jumping and the other dogs watching and judging. So in that case I guess he's talking about people judging you throughout your life and some people trying to put you down, kind of like the squirrels in the story. But I'm not sure maybe someone else understood it and they'll explain it to us better.

I'll end by asking if anyone else thought the story was humorous to some degree and what part was funny to you.

"After I was thrown into the river, and before I drowned" by David Eggens

Hi,

I didn't enjoy reading Egger's story very much. I managed to finish reading it until the end, but as I read, what I didn't like was that I got confused by the way the sentences were written; it was mostly run on sentences. I know, it's supposed to represent how a dog would think. However, I also didn't like how I had to read some lines twice in order to try and understand what it meant.

However, I did get a sense of what the story was about though; the character, Steven, explained that at the beginning stages of his life, his owner treated him badly and threw him in the river. Soon after he was found by a fisherman, who saved him and gave him shelter, until a family came and adopted Steven. Throughout the story, Steven mentions how much he loved to run, and he thought of himself as a very fast runner. Steven would go out to run with a group of other dogs, and they would have races every time they met together. However, at the end of the story, he ran so fast and tried to jump over a river bank, but ended up falling in the water and dying.

(note: I'm not sure if what I wrote above spoils the story for anyone...)

Even though Steven was dead, he was still "alive" in a way; living inside his own dead body. When I read this, I thought of the phrase "All dogs go to heaven", which was when Steven was alive again, and was living in a better place (in a another dog's body, of course).

Even though I understood the basic plot, I am not sure of what the core meaning of it was. Perhaps it has to do with dogs, and how they should enjoy freedom? Yet, freedom could be dangerous? I don't know

Readers, what are your interpretations of this story?