[5428] Tickleneck

Hey friend, not a full critique but I enjoyed the read. Do a ctrl+F for "Charles" - I think autocorrect had an opinion on "Harles". Cheers!

Wow, okay, so first of all, this was really impressive. Honestly, there is very little for me to say that went wrong here, but I'll go over everything that came to mind while reading - everything I thought was extremely well done and a few minor places of potential improvement. Also, just to note, I am a visual reader and I stopped seeing words very early on and just imagined the story. A very good sign to begin with, but it also means I may have missed some little things with spelling, grammar, etc.

So, first off the descriptions and inner monologue are extremely well done and invoke the character so well. Even just in the first paragraph, reading "And this is how he dies", I was just shaking my head and feeling some type of sympathy. IN ONE PARAGRAPH. But to continue on this point, I really do love this type of narration. Like, "Does a hippo shape really cheer a child with metastatic bone cancer?" This kind of angst and mild aggression towards the weird mundane things in life, especially when mixed with something as serious as death - it's so real and I love it. At first it reminded me of those kind of angsty YA series like The Fault in our Stars or The End of the Fucking World (although these are obviously romances). I think after the first scene, though, I found the narrator to be more mature than I first thought and appreciated that this was going to be more than just another story in the same vein as those (even though I like those books/shows quite a bit).

Continuing on, I did get tripped up at one point. The 5 "W"s. I had to reread that paragraph a couple times to understand it correctly - partly because I didn't realize the narrator was a journalist. This might've been a simple mistake on my part, because after I reread it twice, I completely understood and even enjoyed the way it was delivered. Just something to note - if other people had issues with this section, there might be some confusing wording or something. If not, it was just me.

More on the characters, I loved Harles. I was already enjoying the story - just seeing where it was going - but when Harles came in the picture, this story went to a new level for me. I could probably sit and read a whole novella on a conversation with that man. Him and the narrator together, too, was just fantastic. They are a great duo.

The narrator beginning with his own confession - that was a fantastic way to show not only his wit, but his compassion. It didn't seem like some simple journalist trick, but a genuine show of respect and care. I'm sure you did other things as well - I remember the narrator directly recognizing this stigma on reporters. Like when he left his father's deathbed to be there, but it was presently in a way that actually felt genuine - you fought against that stigma cleverly. The narrator is just so human and grounded, I enjoyed his viewpoint quite a bit.

Back to Harles, there were quite a few quotes he said that I just loved. "Living off interest" and "Imagine living so long you get to see what history thinks of you". Their conversation was so engaging and I found myself wishing for more. Especially getting into the bit about him being a Nazi Sympathizer at one point... Yet I still liked him. There is a certain air of mystery, power, and wisdom to Harles that made him difficult to disregard or ignore in any way.

And the whole premise of him being immortal, I think that's what really sold me on this story. Not that there has to be some bizarre, fantastical elements in every story, but just having that one oddity... It made Harles feel so magical - and I wanted to know every secret that he knew - Every kernel of wisdom. Just really, really great job with these characters.

Oh - and just as far as prose goes, there was one thing I noticed. Instead of using dialog to explain the bit about cyanide, you use "telling". This is obviously a hard thing for people to get the grasp of, but you did it perfectly here, I think. Their conversation would've only slowed from some lengthy expository dialog about cyanide pills. Using "telling' to get this done in a short paragraph was absolutely the right choice, and it shows a good awareness of what is valuable to the story and what is not.

So, onto the 'bad'. I didn't quite love the ending. To be clear, I still liked it even. I saw what you were trying to do. At the beginning it talks about cancer being the worst way to go, so, naturally, the ending after the conversation with Harles would be to learn that there are fates worse than death. However, it seemed... too quick, maybe? I think part of the problem is that the last thing in the conversation with Harles implies that the narrator still isn't quite sold on Harles actually being 200 years old. And if he doesn't believe that... surely he wouldn't be completely sold on death being a 'good thing'. I'm still not 100% sure on why the ending didn't quite do it for me, but all I can say is that it seemed a bit too optimistic or at least the transition a bit too quick.

Final thing - and this is a small one. I had trouble with the texts from Jane. The way they are formatted without any separation from the internal monologue was a bit jarring. It never left me completely confused, but I did have to focus a bit more and make sure I was reading it right.

All-in-all, this was a brilliant read and I am quite impressed. You should be proud of this one.

I wish I had some critiques but early on I just started to enjoy the ride. Great stuff!

Thank you for posting. I don’t have the right mindset as of right now to do a full critique that this piece warrants. I left a bunch of notes on the g-doc and noticed two things that stood out to me as a reader, but first things first, I did enjoy the beginning of this piece after the MC leaves the hospital to go on assignment a lot. It captured a certain style of story and even though the “reveal” is it or isn’t it thing was clearly hinted at, I enjoyed the progression. Kudos or good job or gold star or whatever kids these days are saying.

So what are the two things? Something at times in the specificity of the situation felt off or had me trying to figure out was it just the MC’s POV or did it feel like that weird sort of superficial construct with lots of words so that it feels a certain way, but upon examination feels off. Like, I don’t know any ICU right next to a children’s ward. A NICU by an ICU…maybe. But even then for all I know that is the layout of NY Presppy? It like the wording of the MC’s “worst way to die” and “most people” just read a certain way. I marked most of those thoughts in the doc and honestly that just might be me as a reader, right? Like metastatic bone cancer for children would not be in a children’s ward most likely. Hell, most pediatric cancers are not bone cancer (osteosarcomas) but hematopoietic or little nasty blue cell funky neuroendocrine scary bugaboos like Ewing’s sarcoma or something. IDK. The MC might think bone cancer for a leukemia (bone versus bone marrow), but it just read odd to me as they are supposed to be an educated journalist type who one would assume with a father dying of cancer did some research. ALSO the man is dying from esophageal cancer and in the ICU, but unconscious. Why is he not in more of a hospice setting or bed that is not say in the ICU since he is more or less “waiting for god” stage. I think a lot of readers will have no issues with these things, but like the womb reference where my mind first went the placenta is all over the endometrium sort of like furniture, some of the similes were just reading a bit off (BUT made sense as coming from this MC except for the sand snakes which seemed really odd given the urban MC type). In a similar vein, the father having died, but no messages left on the phone, but texts got through from his editor person? Like what? Sister hasn’t texted Dad died? It just read convent fake like some of the hospital description and treatment of cancer. I have a personal hatred of certain absolutes discussing pain in “most” or “worst” terms and that is probably just a me hang up.

IDK, make sense? Maybe I am just whiny. I need my multivitamin and laxative plus my bath in butter oils to maintain my 200 year old self.

The dialogue? There is a switch that happens after the MC leaves the room and has sort of this rushed (kind of muddied conference with Dobson) and from there I sort of felt like “yada yada” immortality and eternity trope hashbrowns with a runny poached egg. Harles stopped reading correct to me and more of a stock immortal character and the Dobson thing had me trying to figure out what was said. IDK. It takes up a large bulk and I fought skimming. We then get back to the NY reality land and dad is dead (Yet somehow the MC does not know despite the hospital trying to contact him and there being a sibling who likes anything with the Gallo.

Make sense? So yes, I enjoyed it and thought the structure overall worked. The dialogue after the reveal (which was well foreshadowed) went downhill for me as a reader. The framing of it with the dad dying of cancer worked, but the MC POV felt kind of pedantic know it all let me tell you about yourself. The ending and push to leave felt rushed despite the length spent on the immortality/eternity stuff. YET, I think a lot of readers, certain type of readers, will really enjoy this and completely disagree with my complaints/criticisms. Harsh? Helpful? Clueless?

Also, I could be completely wrong here, but the mom being Ashkenazi and believing literal stuff/TANAKH would seem to imply that she is orthodox if not chassid? Yet, his dad is goy? There seemed to be a whole interesting backstory to the character and the mom/dad that seemed intimated at, but also underdeveloped or more at a red-herring to throw in some sort of ethnicity-flavor. “Oy let’s nosh over this kerplach and babka.” “Toda, but I got to get to midtown to catch my flight and you know how long it takes me to bench.” IDK…make sense?

This is in great shape for a first draft. You’re a talented writer who can clearly establish a narrative voice and tell a cohesive, well-written story. Mortality and the concept of existence are heavy themes to take on in only 5000 words, but you mostly pulled it off. I loved the specific details used to make this story feel real, details about Mel Brooks and his father’s career, a single mother contacting him – specificity like this makes writing come alive. The voice is clever and fitting for a journalist, the bit about how a good journalist is “half a beggar – needy and drinking too much,” show that you’re an experienced writer with a knack for characterization. Most importantly, the language you use flows, and adds momentum.

The physical descriptions are also really well done – I really enjoyed the description of the library as a “womb of books and comfort,” and the description of Harles ears as “saucer-sized, gray and flat and wrinkled like medallions of pork.” These are unique, engaging, vivid descriptions. This story is also anything but boring.

However, you should take more time with the ending. My recommendation is to leave your narrator with a more complicated, unresolved mindset, still grappling to understand these experiences. The last line “…but for once I think there must be worse ways to go,” doesn’t hit as hard as it could, and I think it is because it is too straightforward, too clean – there are multiple reasons for this. The first is that we know little about this protagonist and his relationship to his father. I think it’s necessary to establish both of them further in order to raise the emotional stakes of the story. Second, the lesson he gains from Harles’ lacks subtlety – immortality is obviously a curse disguised as a blessing, and it is better to die quickly than suffer forever, but in my mind, it is unrealistic to expect him to understand this so quickly after learning of his father’s death. Maybe it is realistic for this character – but to accept that, we need to know more about him, maybe more about his father. Another way of putting it is that your plot is moving too quickly for your characters to catch up –the big idea is dominating the story’s momentum, without truly considering how it complicates the feelings of the characters involved. Allow them time to be confused, and accept that the ending doesn’t need to be so neat and tidy. These themes are far too complicated for an ending such as that – maybe that’s just personal opinion.

You ask about the dialogue – this still needs some work. At a more micro, nitpicky level there are some lines that strike me as odd, like “Son of a bit. Dobson told me you knew,” and “I’m trying to swear, the machine won’t let me.” Why would he go to the work of typing this out? I think we could get more truncated dialogue from Harles.Trust the reader to understand the censored swears once they’re established, trust them to understand that there is a misunderstanding occurring. You present yourself with an opportunity by making Harles unable to speak – his dialogue should be pared back to only the essentials. This will make the themes more subtle and make his character feel more ominous/mysterious.

I think the biggest problem with the dialogue relates back to what I said about the relationship between plot/character. When the narrator returns after being kicked out, the dialogue is moving too quickly and is too much of an information dump about the themes you are trying to convey. The ideas are ahead of the characters. Again, subtlety is key – lines like “oughta put him down” feel like they arrive too quickly and the long paragraph on page 9 where he talks about eternal youth feels too expository. This passage, and a similar one on page 8 where he talks about Budapest could be broken up and cut down. Have Ken ask more questions, have Harles be cagier. These ideas are better off conveyed in a more abstract or subdued – maybe even drawn-out way – obviously someone who’s immortal would not act with the same social cues normal people would, but it’s implied this man is secretive and withdrawn. The amount in which he speaks about these ideas feels like too much tell, not enough show. As a reader, I already understood the takeaway the narrator would have as soon as they start to talk about immortality. Have characters start and stop sentences. Have characters think things and not say them. Have misunderstandings occur. Trust readers to fill in the gaps.

You’ve done almost too good a job setting up the realization, which means that the ending isn’t as satisfying, because I already understood the revelation the narrator would have before he had it. So that’s why I think you should complicate the ending. Maybe he misunderstands what Harles is trying to tell him, maybe he feels intense guilt on wasting his father’s final moments with a sad old man who has nothing but time, maybe he is relieved his father is gone for other issues related to his past, maybe he wanted his father to die and is using Harles’ bitterness to justify his mindset – make it messier. The story is good, the ideas are interesting, but at this stage it is still too neat for the complexity you’re attempting.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have questions. Great start, either way!

I'd also like to say that I really enjoyed this and forgot I was meant to be reading with critique in mind