Zuri

I used something different with Bart in chapter 6. Quite original if I might say do myself. I was going to comment on exactly that 😂 That Bart calls it is that a nod in my direction, as I have been chaffing you about your usual way of phrasing it? ^^ Especially, since feels a little like breaking the fourth wall, so to speak. At least, it's in keeping with almost always using euphemisms where possible. You seem to have forgotten the Xanax promo code 😉

@Paladin Just because you don't trust a person to not break the promise of a sexually exclusive relationship (or as Lee puts it, "staying faithful"), it doesn't mean that you don't trust said person with the kids.

He seems to doubt, Stephanie would make the move to tell the kids herself or volunteer in any way, but he seems to trust her to do so, when he asks(?) her to do so, calling upon her guilt(?) and the trouble it is about to cause to the kids, so she has an opportunity to leave on good terms from the kids. As for his choice of words, as Carlo already pointed out, there might have been a couple more poor choices of words, however somewhat understandable, given the circumstances. He might not imply, using physical force or similar to make sure, she does so.

That would be my concern if I left the explaining and rectification of a breakup to the one I blame for it. But Karl seems to still trust her that much.

That the mother doesn't want custody is somewhat refreshing.

I used something different with Bart in chapter 6. Quite original if I might say do myself. I was going to comment on exactly that 😂

M theory it is, then ^^ Indeed. He probably also refers to it as "love making", doesn't he? 😜

Finally someone else who likes this restaurant 👍

I have been to Olive Garden once and to me, it was quite fine there. We had a waiter who made my gaydar go off the scale and who told us that his boyfriend studied German when he heard that our group of co-workers was from Germany. Quite an unexpected by overall very pleasant fella. So, essentially Young Sheldon? He is implying something specific here, isn't he? Each to their own, but it's a little icky to me when gay people say "only anal is sex". That's similar to saying "only vaginal is sex". Another nice term, I learned recently, is "solo sex". I think, this term is helpful since here's another common devaluation, this time, of masturbation. Carlo's humor improved significantly since this exchange in chapter one:

I had planned to comment this, but I apparently forgot to: It's quite obvious, they have gay parents.

Oh, Lee is by no means a stranger to things going too smoothly for several chapters 😉 Before anyone asks: I always comment under the current chapter right before I start editing the next one, so know, I don't know more than you do, yet.

Most of you will probably be familiar with the rule/advice "show, don't tell". (Actually, this advice is a little flawed in itself, as outlined in "Bad Character Intros vs Good Character Intros (Writing Advice)" by the YouTube channel "Writer Brandon McNulty", but that would be a whole over topic for another day ). What we are focussing on today, will be the telling aspect. Because, even though, there can be good "tell", when "show" wouldn't work, and then, there's bad "tell", which I will refer to as "recount", but I'll get to that in a bit. To explain what brought be to that distinction, I have to tell you about my experience when writing a short story. I've written it in three parts: The first being the introduction of the unlikable protagonist, ending in the sudden arrival of the antagonist. The third part picks up that plot line and leads to its (somewhat) resolution with an open end. So far, so good. What bugged me, was actually writing the middle part. It's the antagonist's introduction, however, contrary to the protagonist's, it's written as a flashback. And that's where it never felt quite right. Getting the point of the antagonist across properly required me to write a lot of exposition and drop the whole backstory right in front of the readers, because, well, it's a short story after all and we don't have all day. It felt rushed and cramped. But the problem can never be, that it is a short story, but the lack of talent on the author's part or the story just not being the right fit for the short story type in particular. Okay, let's consider, the story can work as a short story. In this case, we have to assume, "tell" is the only was to get that much exposition across, assuming, again, that it is necessary to convey the antagonist's motives. That leads us to the question of what distinguishes "tell" from "recount". You, depending on your linguistic affinity and ability to draw conclusions, might already have an idea. Actually, I came up with this distinction when editing a short story here on GA. There, it occurred to me, that the way, this necessary recollection of the character's past, that drives them in the present, can indeed be done in a good or a bad way. When you have to tell about the character's past, you probably don't want it to be all show, but it makes a difference whether you condense it to "He had done this, and then he had done that, before moving on to a third thing". So, what's the difference, then? It's in how a reader perceives it. It feels pretty matter-of-factly. It doesn't help to relate to the character, because it feels lifeless. Not, that recounting things is always wrong, but doing it at length can rob your story from its soul. Even though, it's a collection of past events, you have to slow it down a little and dive it. It doesn't have to be an all-interactive "show" with tons of dialogue (maybe a few quotes here and there), but it should describe a couple of events with a few more details that people are able to imagine them happening. It's a bit like the difference it makes whether your history teacher makes you remember mere year dates or focuses more on the events and their reasons.

My thoughts exactly 👍 But yeah, after all, it's nice to see the next generation having less trouble than the previous one and being happy for them—however, unfortunately, this seems to be changing in the opposite direction with current politics. And this could have been an instance where one would be happy for them, but it seemed to be a little too contrived, a little over the top, just for the sake of kicking off that particular role reversal story. But even Rafe doesn't have it easy, only that he created difficulties, people in the closet wouldn't necessarily have in the exact same way. I really get that this special treatment is annoying and doesn't result in an equal society. However, what disappointed me about the book, is that Konigsberg advertised the concept as something novel, while in reality it was a character with internalized homophobia, hiding in the closet all over again, only with a slightly different packaging. The questions, Rafe has to face during the course of the plot, are vastly similar to every nth off-the-rack queer coming of age story: Falling in love with your best friend, wondering if he is gay and if not what happens when he finds out about your sexual orientation. So, for the most part, despite it being a quite modern tale, it feels very rehashed. The fact, that Rafe is out in Boulder doesn't influence the story beyond the beginning that kicks everything off. And the worst thing might be that, other than people who are afraid to come out, he actively decides to reverse what he successfully accomplished, treating this success as it was the opposite. Ironically, that's my biggest take-away from the novel 😅 There's actually so much more about the book, that came to my mind when reading the book. I wrote it down quite a while ago as a blog post, actually.

Damn, I should have written "German" 🤦‍♂️ This couldn't be more embarrassing. But don't you all say, Hitler was German? I mean, if that isn't insulting, I don't know, what is 😜 Do you prefer Old German/Old Saxon, since that's what your language derives from? 😜 Quite hypocritical if you ask me 😜😂 Thanks, Anton, for taking the spotlight off of me 😅

I mean, Germany undoubtedly has its classics and they are as up-to-date as can be So, essentially "little little" 😜 And when it's only the reading that's a problem, I might do audiobooks of my stories when requested 😉

Now, thinking about the scene from chapter one, Brandon might have been at a disadvantage—the kids would have been entertained either way, I suppose 🤔

Except for one thing, I just hinted at things, but you did the improvements, so don't sell yourself short 😉

If you love the story that much, that you want to know, which parts Lee improved.

But I can't say, we haven't seen a particular real estate lawyer suddenly doing criminal law lately 😉

Wanted to handle this one separately. The idea of faith was the impetus to writing this. Yeah, it’s not a strong hold in this story, really just the two points; post funeral and the closing paragraph. Loose connection to the Anthology topic. I, as an editor, can't do more than bringing it to your attention 😉

Quite interesting, however, I, in my profession in software engineering couldn't even remotely do any of the other disciplines, no matter the name. I, with my education as "IT specialist for application development, am not even qualified to do tasks of an "IT specialist for system integration".

I think, it’s a bit weird, that you introduce “the first of several tests of faith”, but then never again in the short story explicitly refer to Richard's faith. I know, it is called “software engineering”, but that’s vastly different from what I consider to be “engineering” ^^ Nice addition 👍

the story in drowns head 🆚 the story written down Say something, I'm giving up on you! Okay, I cut it out 😅 Happily ever after? Boring 😈