The Critics’ Corner
Michael J A Tyzuk writes about...
James Wasserman’s “Smoke and Mirrors”
When comparing the job of critic and editor there is no doubt in my mind that the editor has the dirtier end of the stick. As a critic I can get the luxury of being able to look at a story and, though I strive to find the good in everything I read, limit myself to elements that work for me and elements that don't work for me. The editor, on the other hand, not only has to think like a critic, but also has to apply the same kind of ruthless, painstaking attention to detail that forensics people give when they investigate a crime scene.
The first thought in my mind when I read through “Smoke and Mirrors” was how much I liked the overall concept. The second thought in my mind was to take note of several grammatical, or some would say stylistic, errors. I could give the same kind of paragraph by paragraph accounting of the grammatical mistakes that one of the participants at Critter's Writers Workshop gave “The Other Side” when I submitted it for review, but that would feel too much like picking nits. I will limit my comments on grammar to this: there are several occasions where a comma is used where the use of a different device that creates a full stop, such as a period or a semi-colon would have been more appropriate. End of nitpicking.
As far as the story is concerned, I found the overall concept quite compelling. A man with a bleeding head wound is discovered walking down the street in a town he doesn't recognize. He is taken to hospital, treated, and released. Over time he finds himself seeing a psychoanalyst because of some migraine style headaches that seem to herald previously repressed memories coming to the forefront. As the story goes on we realize that the Doctor in question has been feeding the main character depressants rather than pain medication. The Doctor takes this unusual step because the main character was the drunken driver behind the wheel of the car that killed his brother, and the Doctor wants the patient to feel just as guilty as possible.
As someone who has had a past history of depression I found myself sympathizing with the plight of the central character. It's a difficult thing, trying to figure out who you are and where you fit in in the grand scheme of things. As difficult as that is to do when you have no memory of who or what you were before, it's even worse when you remember exactly who and what you were before but you can't for the life of you figure out who the hell you are now. Or maybe that's just me.
As far as writing style is concerned, I found James' economic use of the language very reminiscent of one of the Gregory McDonald Fletch novels, just without the smart-ass central character. This kind of approach has its plus side and its minus side. On the plus side it makes for very light, easy reading. On the minus side it also kind of robs the reader. For a story like this, people are going to want a glimpse into the thought process of the central character; they're going to want to see what's making him tick at any given time. For a story like this, people kind of expect that kind of access, and using such an economical style of writing effectively denies the reader that kind of access. James does a great job of describing the events that happen around the central character as he wanders through his day, but does little or nothing to show us what the character is thinking or feeling. A lot is left to the readers imagination, and in this case I'm not so sure that's a good thing.
The problem with short fiction is that economy is the watchword. You have this story you want to tell, this limited sequence of events that you want to deal with, and you want to do so in the smallest number of words possible. Personally, shorter fiction is something that I've never been especially good at, so I applaud anyone who tackles it just because I figure that the level of difficulty involved guarantees that they should get at least something out of the deal. However, in this case I think that the story could seriously benefit from being expanded. Delve a little deeper into the central character's psyche as he begins to remember what happens to him. Show him questioning whether the things he's thinking and feeling are real, or just figments of his imagination. Show us the horror he feels when he begins to realize the terrible thing that he's done. This kind of story demands it, I think.
Bottom line: “Smoke and Mirrors” was very well done, but I think that the economical style of writing and the abruptness of the ending don't do the story justice. James has the perfect template for a much larger, deeper work and I think that it would be a shame to let that template go to waste.
Michael J A Tyzuk
Copyright © 2005 by Michael J A Tyzuk
The discussion may be continued and is open to all.
Please feel free to join in!
