Tragic

[Richter]

It was a tragedy they died.

IF they had been reasonable, if they had said YES to the rules, the restrictions the observations and controls, they'd be alive.

That chip in the car never letting her drive above 70 mph, and the camera to watch her for falling asleep?  They'd have saved her.

Restricted sales and medical approval to make sure they were healthy enough to eat that unprocessed stuff people used to eat all the time, instead of state approved, easy to digest SMARTFOOD, that might have kept him from a heart attack and death at age 45.

A camera in the house to inform police of the intruder that killed her husband and children as they slept?  It could have made all the difference.

What a tragedy they didn't take them.
What a tragedy they died.
What a tragedy they lived with privacy, and the freedom to make their own mistakes.

[Kai]

:/

I don't know how to feel about this one.

[Richter]

That's actually the response I was aiming to invoke.
Just hoping it did so in the right way.  Feedback on revision / polish is always welcome!

Edit: I can't spell.

[Cainad (dec.)]

This one is kind of

[singer]

That's actually the response I was aiming to invoke.
Just hoping it did so in the right way.  Feedback on revision / polish is always welcome!

Edit: I can't spell.

... these examples of 'tragedy' could be juxtaposed against examples of 'success' ...

[Adios]

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Patrick Henry McVerry.

[The Dark Monk]

Anybody else laugh while reading this?
Am I a horrible person?
Btw - Freedom of Choice > Not
I AM NOT A ROBOT.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

I ummm, I will have to get to you on this.  It is disturbing.

[Golden Applesauce]

This is good.

(Should it be "processed stuff" instead of "unprocessed stuff" ?)


Just as a brainstorm, what if it focused on people being killed by others not following The Rules?

The person who died when hit by the car that didn't have the speed-limiter chip.
The child who died because his mother thought she knew better than the state-approved dietary plan.
The family that died because the father wouldn't stand for the police camera in their house.

Selfish people who chose freedom for themselves and death for you.

[nostalgicBadger]

For this to be effective, their deaths actually have to feel tragic in some level. Even if the reader does not agree that the cause of their death is tragic, that they should have agreed to the regulations, etc. the death itself needs to be felt.

But it's not.

The reader doesn't know these people. He is in no way invested, and he has no reason to empathize. Death itself is not really tragic, especially the person who dies. Perhaps for those he leaves behind, but the reader knows nothing of these people. The piece basically presents a hypothetical individual and kills him in the same sentence.

Death doesn't work without character development.

[hooplala]

For this to be effective, their deaths actually have to feel tragic in some level. Even if the reader does not agree that the cause of their death is tragic, that they should have agreed to the regulations, etc. the death itself needs to be felt.

But it's not.

The reader doesn't know these people. He is in no way invested, and he has no reason to empathize. Death itself is not really tragic, especially the person who dies. Perhaps for those he leaves behind, but the reader knows nothing of these people. The piece basically presents a hypothetical individual and kills him in the same sentence.

Death doesn't work without character development.

Wrong again, dipshit.  Not everything in life is defined by your anal Writer's 101 rules.

Look at the forum, asshole, this is Or Kill Me... this wasn't a fucking short story it was a rant, and I felt the emotion and I felt the point.  If you didn't its probably because you're 'life retarded'.

[nostalgicBadger]

Wrong again, dipshit.  Not everything in life is defined by your anal Writer's 101 rules.

Look at the forum, asshole, this is Or Kill Me... this wasn't a fucking short story it was a rant, and I felt the emotion and I felt the point.  If you didn't its probably because you're 'life retarded'.

That's not a Writer's 101 rule, it's why this "rant" didn't work for me. Using the word "death", even implying how somebody died, does not automatically evoke an emotional response. The word "death" is an abstract concept, and only an abstract concept until you can somehow humanize it, which the writer failed to do. Why should I care about the death of somebody who doesn't feel at all like a person?

By the way, for a purpose like this, you can develop a character in a sentence or two. Even something pretty generic like mentioning the woman's child could help to elicit a stronger response.

Maybe you got something out of this. That's fine. It did nothing for me though, and I'm pretty sure that's not a sign of retardation. The writer asked for a critique, and I was offering my input. The writer did not ask to be defended from criticism. So. fuck off.

[Cramulus]

the "death" in the piece is the death of privacy and freedom

it has nothing to do with the characters, who are just vehicles for the imposition of regulation.

I think that by identifying the characters, you'd lose some ability to relate to the piece. They'd no longer be the everyman, they'd be specific dead people.

[hooplala]

Wrong again, dipshit.  Not everything in life is defined by your anal Writer's 101 rules.

Look at the forum, asshole, this is Or Kill Me... this wasn't a fucking short story it was a rant, and I felt the emotion and I felt the point.  If you didn't its probably because you're 'life retarded'.

That's not a Writer's 101 rule, it's why this "rant" didn't work for me. Using the word "death", even implying how somebody died, does not automatically evoke an emotional response. The word "death" is an abstract concept, and only an abstract concept until you can somehow humanize it, which the writer failed to do. Why should I care about the death of somebody who doesn't feel at all like a person?

By the way, for a purpose like this, you can develop a character in a sentence or two. Even something pretty generic like mentioning the woman's child could help to elicit a stronger response.

Maybe you got something out of this. That's fine. It did nothing for me though, and I'm pretty sure that's not a sign of retardation. The writer asked for a critique, and I was offering my input. The writer did not ask to be defended from criticism. So. fuck off.

What Cram said.

Guess what nB?  You're on a forum here... a public forum.  Everything you write is up for my criticism, whether the author of the OP asked for me to do so or not.

Perhaps you should post some fiction on here... so we can all take a look at what sort of fruit your many rules and opinions have provided us with?  Hm?

[nostalgicBadger]

Perhaps, Cramulus, but without the human element, aren't privacy and freedom merely abstract concepts as well?

It's very possible that I'm missing the point, but if the idea was to create a sense of tension between conflicting drives toward freedom and protection, I do strongly feel that involving the reader as a human would strengthen the piece. Otherwise, the death of the person doesn't really feel like a sacrifice.

If that's not what you're going for, I suppose I just don't get it. Perhaps you could explain.