Dec 23, 2021
I thought I'd leave a comment since I did finish the entire thing and I have a bit to say.
So first off, there's some stuff to like here. A lot of the early interactions with Devin and the mother are done well enough, the idea of the mother not letting the C-section scar heal is a good one and the story seems apt pacing wise.
However, I really didn't enjoy this. In fact, I find a decent bit of the content within quite concerning.
The ultimate twist is signposted very early on. Now, this isn't necessarily an issue, it merely led me to believe that the nature of the twist would itself be used to say something. And it does, but in the worst way.
Chapters 7&8 really ruin this work, it's where the concerning elements really shine through. First is the oddly religious angle taken in chapter 7, the mother recounts her journey from not thinking of the pregnancy as a living thing, to feeling empty and alone without her child, attributing its death to some kind of divine retribution. It is, to me, a concerningly hardline view of such a situation and, whether intentional or not, one that seems endorsed by the text.
The reason it seems this way to me is because there is no meaningful separation between narrative and character voice that comes across, illustrated by chapter 8. The voice of Devin in this chapter does not feel distinct from the mother other than the fact that it is a different POV. Otherwise, both feel like different extensions of the same narrative voice, it reads much like a moral fable in certain respects. This is especially gross to me when presented with what reads very much like an uncritical depiction of Stockholm syndrome.
Make no mistake, Devin was emotionally abused and neglected by this woman but the text seems to uncritically agree with his assessment of her ultimate love for him.
Now, these are topics which I'm not opposed to seeing covered, they are potentially quite interesting, but in the short story format there is nowhere near enough nuance introduced and, again, it ends up reading as an uncritical endorsement of some rather unsavory moral points.
This is not to say any of this is intentional, more that it is written in such a way that I can't help but come to some of these distasteful conclusions by inference.
Anyway, that's about all I have to say, I would seriously consider giving this an inspection if what came across to me was not intentional.
