Fly philosophy
by Uri Peleg
Recent Reviews
Review By: mujo
Nice stuff – which is to stay – a nice genre of story. Loosely philosophical, real science used to support constructed facts, constructed facts presented as reality. I like it. When it works well its got all sorts of special twists that neither speculative nor straight fiction offer in their isolated forms. With this piece, however, it didn’t work to its full potential.
Firstly, there were a few technical problems that screwed it up :
You’ve got a turn of phrase that can often be quite awkward. I think I know what you’re trying to say, but you’re just not getting it across. This has an immense irritation value for me, and it’s something you can’t have happening as often as it does. It starts in paragraph one with «So in the world walking around are people who do not really care about their lives or their future», and just keeps happening. Get on top of it.
Watch your choice of words. In paragraph three you have «flies that surrounded him all the time» but only created an «intermittent buzzing». No, it’s not a big deal, but if I’m paying attention to this as opposed to the story itself then something is wrong with your delivery.
For this type of story to really work it needs precision in it’s details. This is what plays in the reader’s mind – you can get them wondering what was real in your piece and what fake. So when you propose a machine that attracts flies you should tell me exactly why it does so. Be it the subsonic harmonics created by the tin used in the harvesting blades resonating in low iodine Portugese soil, or the experimental machine oil derived from the sap of the Dutch Elm that excuded the distinct smell of rotting horse carcass at ambient temperatures of over 35 degrees centigrade. Whatever you choose, do it well. «something about the sound or the metal or the smell attracted the flies» just isn’t good enough to sweep me away with the depth of your pseudo research.
As I said, all these points are technical in nature. They can be isolated and improved upon individually. The more difficult problem to tackle here is the whole from which I have been picking out these points. The whole just isn’t a story. It’s a series of descriptions and nothing else. I made similar feedback for Clare M. Bryan’s story on writerspub «Waving Good-bye To Daddy».
Story = Beginning + Middle + End
It will always be this and it will never be anything else. You can start anywhere, you can finish anywhere, you can play around with narration, you can account for these three essential elements any way you see fit – but they must be accounted for. Because if it’s not a story it’s missing that special kick. «For whatever reason, humans seek to make stories out of events and happenings. Not because that structure actually exists in life – it doesn’t – but because we feel the need to. We story-fy our lives. We story-fy existence.»
I can see any number of ways you can turn this piece into a real story, using only the elements and characters you have already introduced. The question now is, can you see the openings too?


