I agree with Laura Lollar, it is a great story. I would like to make some small comments on the story that don't diminish it; these are my thoughts as I was reading.
The focus of the story is: your main character, whose profession is never mentioned, could open and convince an old, disabled drug user to fight his demon and return to society, or most importantly, to his son and grandson. This is in itself a very serious topic in our society.
I admire your descriptions of Panera Bread's manager or the disabled man, but I think you put too much mysterious and attractive emphasis on the story. Violence, calculations, logic, primal, and visceral actually adorn the story, but they are not very useful, because a man couldn't use the violence; he told the police (?) that he was alone, and you saw that he was disabled. And why- Dance, north, south? These words are the huge definitions in the vocabulary for the local directions of your character.
Just remember, I love your story; it is one of the best I've read on Substack. My opinion may be mistaken. I am a fan of Chekhov and Maupassant; the fewer words, the better.
Larisa, thank you for the analysis. You’re the first to do so for one of these, and I appreciate the feedback.
I’m a detective and am responsible for investigating overdose deaths in my jurisdiction. The concrete events in this story are true. My conjecture is as honest as I can make it.
I purposely edit as little as possible and often don’t fully recall writing these pieces. Rather, I try to let them manifest as naturally as possible, and allow the words that come to me to paint the picture as I saw it.
The story itself is somewhat anticlimactic, but I am fascinated by human nature and its high and lows. I’ve had this interaction hundreds of times, and can say with certainty that violence can be felt before it happens. This man was very capable of being violent and dangerous, and measured (like we all do) the consequences before making the decision to try a better way.
Unfortunately, I rarely have an opportunity to follow up on these interactions, to find out where this man or others like him ended up, hence the somewhat fleeting nature of the piece.
Probably way more than what you were looking for, but I hope that clears some things up? I wanted to give your response the time it deserved. Thanks again
Thank you for answering. You have a crucial job: saving lives or finding the keys to it. But sometimes, or even worse, it is too late. I understand and appreciate it sincerely. My "analysis", thank you for this word, was purely literary. To make the story stronger, you don't need any embellishment, like Chekov's stories. To write our own stories, we need to learn from others. And again, I love your story. Great success with your writing!
Great post. I hope you consider writing a book one day.
Thanks, Laura. A book is definitely a goal of mine!
I agree with Laura Lollar, it is a great story. I would like to make some small comments on the story that don't diminish it; these are my thoughts as I was reading.
The focus of the story is: your main character, whose profession is never mentioned, could open and convince an old, disabled drug user to fight his demon and return to society, or most importantly, to his son and grandson. This is in itself a very serious topic in our society.
I admire your descriptions of Panera Bread's manager or the disabled man, but I think you put too much mysterious and attractive emphasis on the story. Violence, calculations, logic, primal, and visceral actually adorn the story, but they are not very useful, because a man couldn't use the violence; he told the police (?) that he was alone, and you saw that he was disabled. And why- Dance, north, south? These words are the huge definitions in the vocabulary for the local directions of your character.
Just remember, I love your story; it is one of the best I've read on Substack. My opinion may be mistaken. I am a fan of Chekhov and Maupassant; the fewer words, the better.
Larisa, thank you for the analysis. You’re the first to do so for one of these, and I appreciate the feedback.
I’m a detective and am responsible for investigating overdose deaths in my jurisdiction. The concrete events in this story are true. My conjecture is as honest as I can make it.
I purposely edit as little as possible and often don’t fully recall writing these pieces. Rather, I try to let them manifest as naturally as possible, and allow the words that come to me to paint the picture as I saw it.
The story itself is somewhat anticlimactic, but I am fascinated by human nature and its high and lows. I’ve had this interaction hundreds of times, and can say with certainty that violence can be felt before it happens. This man was very capable of being violent and dangerous, and measured (like we all do) the consequences before making the decision to try a better way.
Unfortunately, I rarely have an opportunity to follow up on these interactions, to find out where this man or others like him ended up, hence the somewhat fleeting nature of the piece.
Probably way more than what you were looking for, but I hope that clears some things up? I wanted to give your response the time it deserved. Thanks again
Thank you for answering. You have a crucial job: saving lives or finding the keys to it. But sometimes, or even worse, it is too late. I understand and appreciate it sincerely. My "analysis", thank you for this word, was purely literary. To make the story stronger, you don't need any embellishment, like Chekov's stories. To write our own stories, we need to learn from others. And again, I love your story. Great success with your writing!
PS. It was only my literary opinion.
Thank you, Tim.