Short Story Analyses.
Girl.
The story is about a girl living in Antigua learning how to behave in a way that is socially acceptable. The story is not explicitly set in any one place, but through the language used (i.e., words like benna, okra and dasheen) the setting can be inferred. The story is told in the first person or second person. It is in the form of a list, or a series of reminders. These reminders serve, presumably to regulate the behavior of the main character so that she does not behave like a ‘slut’, but like a ‘lady’. It is unclear who the story is narrated by, though it is likely either the girl’s mother, or an internal voice used by the girl herself.
The style of the story is original. It does not follow the standard narrative format.
It very rarely uses dialogue, and it does not use conventional sentences, but clauses separated for the most part by semi-colons. The text is not broken up into paragraphs. This can make the reader feel exhausted. Combined with the constant stream of imperatives, some which aren’t obviously related (such as
‘you are not a boy, you know; don't pick people's flowers—you might catch something; don't throw stones at blackbirds, because it might not be a blackbird at all’), the reader feels like he or she is being nagged constantly. This I think was the intention of the author, and I think the author’s style was successful in giving this feeling.
Incarnations of Burned Children.
The story is about how a baby was burned by boiling water, and how the baby’s parents reacted. The story is not given a setting, and the language is not obviously particular to any one narrow geographic location. The story is told in long, breathless sentences using language that is neither eloquent nor plain.
Some of the words used are childish (Daddy, thready veins, bitty lips). The story is written in the third person and without paragraphs.
The long sentences, broken up by clauses, are effective in that they give the reader a sense of panic. Some of the sentences are almost half a page long. They follow the actions and thoughts of the parents as they desperately attend to their burnt baby, and like the parents, the reader is not given time to rest. A prayer to
God interrupts the need for gauze. A craving for cigarettes interrupts the Dad’s concern. Thoughts and actions interrupt each other and this dies down a little, only to give way again as the parents discover boiling water has collected in their baby’s nappy. After all of this overwhelming prose the story concludes on a depressing note. Whereas earlier, one incident of the baby’s life takes up a good three pages, the entire future of the child is summarized in a third of a page. This ends the story on a sad note, a moment of pathos, that is at odds with the rest of the story.

No Ordinary Ham.
This story was bizarre to read. The main focus of the story was on the two main characters, Jake and Jimmy and their interaction with a ham. The narrator (Jake) has little interest in the ham, though he reacts to its size, while Jimmy seems to attach some deeper significance to it. The prose is conventional, with a significant use of colloquial language.
The story finishes with the ham being buried and Jimmy nodding to his friend, satisfied. This suggests the ham could be symbolic of something, probably a failed relationship. Jimmy grows affectionate towards the ham, and he mentions it is a crutch. The narrator himself seems to suggest that Jakes attitude towards the ham is a symptom of loneliness.
The story is funny, purely off the back of the ridiculousness of the situation. But for those who do not enjoy comedy the story is not effective. There is nothing in the style or language of the text that is original. Only the narrative is original. But that is not enough to make the story compelling instead of a novelty.
Today on Dr. Phil.
The plot of this story is relatively straightforward. Two characters, the narrator and Auntie Lien are invited on to doctor Phil to talk about their anger problems.
The main drama of the story; the most interesting part is in the contrast between the conversation of the main characters with doctor Phil. Auntie Lien talks about some aspects of Ancient Greek Drama, particularly Euripedes while the narrator talks about a fantasy he had of turning into the hulk when angry. The absurdity of the situation is tripled by doctor Phil’s response that is to repeat platitudes one imagines he has said thousands of times (i.e., ‘you have to name it before you can claim it’). The plot then descends into a brawl between Auntie Lien and doctor Phil.
The comedy of the piece is derived mostly from the aforementioned contrast.
The piece is satirical, though as it has been mentioned before, I do not usually like comedy writing. This is true of this piece as well. The piece has very little to offer the reader if it is not funny. It has no insight into anything apart from the banal content effected by the show Dr. Phil. But I this truth is already known, there is nothing much else to hold the readers attention.