Roar.
Hiss.
Roar.
Hiss.
The predators are ready for attack. Both their eyes burning with fury. Two beasts out to get one another but I feel that really I’m the prey. They both wish for ‘happy families’.
Happy my arse… She is sharpening her liquored claws as he grips his feet into the ground. I can almost hear both their hearts pounding synchronized with each other. Oh, this is tense; the fight of the century.
They Charge. Roar. Hiss. Roar. Hiss. I usually feel safe here, my haven, but now, its but a war zone. The violent movements increase. I’m warm but the screams I hear are cold and bitter. I feel a thud and she is on the ground…as well as me. At this point, I want to break free and stop this violence. But, I am weak and powerless.
My mother is paralyzed on the floor. I kick to try and conscious her; she does not stir. Father has killed my home, my tranquility, my life. My little heart is pounding wildly. Then, silence…
No-one seems to understand this...
ReplyDeleteTell me if you do please and if you don't then ask me :)
I get it! And i think it is really effective! the way you start with the animal noises and incorporate the animal theme into the whole story is very effective and it really works! Well Done!!!!
ReplyDeleteLol thanks, now that you've read it
ReplyDeleteI'm just clearing this up: the narrator is not a child, its a fetus in the mothers womb. :)
Powerful stuff. And a foetal narrator is definitely original! :)
ReplyDeleteA couple of queries though: did you mean 'liquored', because I am not sure the word exists; and 'conscious' can't really be a verb - perhaps 'wake her' or 'bring her round' would work better?
The animal metaphor is interesting, although I am not sure how well it fits with your narrative conceit. But your last eight words are great, and bring it to a thoroughly memorable conclusion. Well done.
Dear C.,
ReplyDeleteThis is really original, well done! I think this is just the kind of thing this task is meant to bring out – it’s very alive, very intense, very clever. I wonder, though, if there might be a little too much ‘novelty’ in the one piece – you have two really fantastic ideas, (1) wildlife documentary style, and (2) foetal narrator, and I think both at once might be more than you need. There is a lot of power in both of them, and my personal view (although others may well disagree) is that it would be better to focus on one and let it stand out in the reader’s mind. Also, I think that the two premises you use kind of conflict with each other – obviously if we’re talking about a foetal narrator, it’s not meant to be ‘realistic’, but nonetheless if you’re using this narrative conceit, it is appropriate to give us only the images or sounds that we could imagine a foetus having – maybe vibrations or voices, even an acid taste of fear coming through the mother’s blood –these things would ‘build in’ to the conceit of a foetus’s viewpoint. Instead, though, the piece begins with a visual of the two ‘animals’ charging at each other, so we are assuming the narrator is watching from outside (and also that it is someone with an experience of watching nature documentaries!) Do you see what I mean?
As a final suggestion, if you’re using a premise which ‘tricks’ us into thinking you’re talking about something more ordinary, it might be worth sustaining this for longer, which gives more of a ‘kick’ or surprise when we finally realize how it’s meant to be read – for example, if you left out the mention of ‘happy families’ or any of these ‘human’ references, the reader would go on until Para #3 thinking we are watching two animals fighting. And then we’d really get a surprise!
Well done, this shows great imagination, and well expressed!
Claire
Thank you :]
ReplyDeleteI'll take it on board!