Jun 16, 2024
Hello!
I really enjoyed this piece. It has a pensive quality to it with an almost supernatural flair, seeing as the woman we're following appears to be timeless if I read the story right. Or perhaps, she is just the reification of the collective guilt of war. Either way, a very interesting interpretation of the prompt – visiting the Japan of the present, whilst coming from the Japan of the past.
That being said, I find the story progression a little esoteric and unengaging as a whole. The first act (I will consider each scene break an act from hereon out, coalescing the latter two scenes into one) offers the reader a brief foray into the story world and concept, but does so in a very abstract manner. As a result, it's very difficult for me to latch onto anything concrete and differentiate between what is 'narrative' (i.e. real, part of the story) and what is 'reflective' (i.e. thought, part of the character's musings). The second act continues on the same pattern, featuring an episode that attempts to juxtapose the old with the new, and the protagonist's feelings on that. However, the way we are guided throughout these emotions is very distant and overphilosophical, making me have to work overtime to gauge the meaning – thereby missing out on the plot. It took me two reads to glean some aspects from the conversation – and I only afforded this a second read out of duty, not preference. As for the third act, the pattern repeats once more, so the point need not be belaboured. I did enjoy that one though, since it feels like the conclusion of the framing device. It also expresses the character's opinions (anxiety in the face of progress, alienation and a slight reticence and disgust) in a far more direct fashion, which benefits the story. Part of me wonders if this couldn't have happened earlier, so as to ground the story from the get-go, therefore allowing the subsequent character musings more direction.
As for the style itself, I am unfortunately not too keen on it. There is a constant pivot between present and past, which I can appreciate might be stylistic, but it is also dissonant when framed the way it currently is (one past tense sentence surrounded by present). Perhaps the delineation can be made clearer? Separate paragraphs or formatting could assist there. Another thing which I struggle to believe is intentional, is the use of dialogue tags in the second act. It is very on the nose and pointless, as we can somewhat glean who is talking most of the time. And with such ostentatious tags as 'communicated' and 'opinionated' (why not opined?) they are a real pause in the reading experience.
Best of luck in the competition,
Bubbles~
