(no subject)
Mar. 3rd, 2004 01:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tanaiseReading Selection for Tuesday, March 2: "Parallel Highways" by James Van Pelt (http://www.sff.net/people/james.van.pelt/sample.htm )
This story was a lot harder to deal with. See, this is the plot:
A couple, driving. They crash. They die. They start over again. The third time, they make a choice that is contrary to all previous actions, and chose to die. And this time, when they start over again, they seem to be given a new option.
But this isn't the story, and in fact is pretty much nothing to do with the real point of the story. All of the really interesting parts in the story have nothing to do with the plot. The switching places, which emphasizes how trapped they are and how little control they have over the situation has nothing to do with the plot. The whole build-up to redemption has nothing to do with the plot, until they get to the actual pivotal moment where they have to chose. I didn't notice the three-tries framework consciously until I started reading comments from others, but I did notice that the story went a little long in my mind--I thought the stuff between the second and third crash could have been condensed.
Until the last crash, the characters have no physical control over the story at all. They're not cardboard, they're just passengers. Even upon reaching the end of the story and looking back at the beginning, it's hard to tell if there really was an choice in the story. Which is when my history background kicks in, and I start wondering if they would have seen the new guy before she took her share of the blame. I start wondering about faith of words vs faith of actions and if either one alone would have been enough to save them, and if they really were saved, or just given the chance to move to a different level.
And once I start thinking, it's hard to stop, and this story suffers from too much thinking--I start wondering why they're being punished for that particular thing--they didn't die as a result of the crash, so it's not directly related to that crime that I saw, so why *this* crime, and why both of them together? And what lesson are they supposed to learn from this story? Don't kill people? Don't be indirectly responsible for the deaths of others? Is everyone on the highway guilty of the same thing? Is there really anyone else on the highway but them?
See? Much too much thinking. And it's all non-plotty.
This story was a lot harder to deal with. See, this is the plot:
A couple, driving. They crash. They die. They start over again. The third time, they make a choice that is contrary to all previous actions, and chose to die. And this time, when they start over again, they seem to be given a new option.
But this isn't the story, and in fact is pretty much nothing to do with the real point of the story. All of the really interesting parts in the story have nothing to do with the plot. The switching places, which emphasizes how trapped they are and how little control they have over the situation has nothing to do with the plot. The whole build-up to redemption has nothing to do with the plot, until they get to the actual pivotal moment where they have to chose. I didn't notice the three-tries framework consciously until I started reading comments from others, but I did notice that the story went a little long in my mind--I thought the stuff between the second and third crash could have been condensed.
Until the last crash, the characters have no physical control over the story at all. They're not cardboard, they're just passengers. Even upon reaching the end of the story and looking back at the beginning, it's hard to tell if there really was an choice in the story. Which is when my history background kicks in, and I start wondering if they would have seen the new guy before she took her share of the blame. I start wondering about faith of words vs faith of actions and if either one alone would have been enough to save them, and if they really were saved, or just given the chance to move to a different level.
And once I start thinking, it's hard to stop, and this story suffers from too much thinking--I start wondering why they're being punished for that particular thing--they didn't die as a result of the crash, so it's not directly related to that crime that I saw, so why *this* crime, and why both of them together? And what lesson are they supposed to learn from this story? Don't kill people? Don't be indirectly responsible for the deaths of others? Is everyone on the highway guilty of the same thing? Is there really anyone else on the highway but them?
See? Much too much thinking. And it's all non-plotty.
