"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?