Quoted Text Wow. Michael, that's in response to the writing (very King-esque) and the impact of the story which packs a punch. You definitely have a gift with painting great visuals and making us feel it. Something about it reminded me of SK's Thinner - a great cautionary tale. Just the tone, I think.

Thanks, Libby, appreciate. I actually loved "Thinner", as silly as it kinda was. The silliness was part of why I loved the universally panned movie.

Quoted Text I thought it might end with Dwight going home with Angela to incur purgatory at her hands for the rest of his days but you instead continue with the perpetuation of violence (that being the message - violence begets more violence) with the kid's final decision. This is horror so I get it, but I'm not fully sold on it turning full circle to the kids and their ultimate violent choice.

Well, part of the reason why I did that, other than for horror reasons, was to kinda make the reader/audience wonder why those kids would do this... what happened in their lives that made them so sadistic. I know I don't follow up on it, but I felt like it would be repetitive to do so when we've already done that with Dwight. It's just supposed to show how different levels of abusive can affect people differently. I wanted to the reader to ask the same question about the kids without really going into too much detail about it.

Quoted Text Hey Michael, I haven't read the 1st episode yet. But, I liked this one. The entire Twilight Zone kind of thing going on here is very interesting. Luckily, I didn't have any confusion regarding Dwight being Human/Dog. It was very clear that to others he is a dog, but to him, he is a human. I agree with Dave. Don't make him sympathetic by telling us his abusive background. He is what he is.

Thanks, bro, appreciate it. I do like the idea of him not being sympathetic and I particular like the direction of the dialogue that Dave suggested in Fritzinger's final mini-monologue. But I'll explain further down the page after Dave's quote...

Quoted Text JMMO - no. For me it kind of "unhinged" here.  It makes Dwight a victim because it is a litany of horrible things that happened to him, as opposed to horrible things he did. It made me say... wait... does this guy really deserve this fate???? Am I rooting the wrong way here?

That was pretty much the intention. As much of a piece of shit as Dwight is, death is a pretty extreme penalty, especially the torture he's been through. The point was to show how abuse can affect people (and animals) in different ways -- sometimes the abuse creates a monster. Sometimes, as in the case of the dog he abused as well as his wife, the victims of the abuse often never truly heal. And he suffers the consequence of that cycle - he suffers at the hands of his victims. And then, to further things, there's another cycle with the sadistic children that further determines his fate, another cycle of abuse he had no part of.

Though it would be effective to have a clear-cut evil bad guy getting his comeuppance, I wanted the reader question their own ideas of retribution and their own animalistic views on justice.

-- Michael

And actually, Dave, I think I may have defeated my own argument.

Those Middle school boys - well, we have no idea of their backgrounds - be pretty coincidental if they all were victims of abuse too. They're probably just mean, without reason or excuse, so I'm coming around to your logic.
...
Just noticed your response, Michael... after I added my bit.
Now I'm really on the fence about giving Dwight a reason he turned out how he has.  

Okay. After reading Michael's response, things are more clear to me.

By telling us Dwight's background, the ending becomes more philosophical. It gives depth to the kids as well. Do they also face abuse in their homes? Are they gonna face something similar in their future as well?

By not telling us his background, Dwight is our regular antagonist who deserves the punishment. The kids behave the way they are behaving because, well, they are kids.

The first way certainly gives depth and more meaning. But I wonder, from the point of view of the general audience, how many will get the deep meaning behind it?

The second way is more appropriate for the general audience. It will give them a sense of satisfaction that we get after watching the bad guys get punished.

You can go either way. Both work IMO.

Quoted Text Those Middle school boys - well, we have no idea of their backgrounds - be pretty coincidental if they all were victims of abuse too. They're probably just mean, without reason or excuse, so I'm coming around to your logic.

Hm, guess it depends on what kind of abuse. I don't know a single person alive who hasn't been abused in some form or fashion at some point in their lives. I suppose it'd be very coincidental for each of those kids to have been abused the same way. But, when I was kid, I always became friends with people I had things in common with, people I could relate to. Most people in gangs usually had pretty tough upbringings, often dealing with abuse at home, drugs at home, etc. So, I really don't think it's THAT coincidental. Especially when kids are influenced by other kids, they do weird, mean shit sometimes, things they wouldn't do on their own. Like throwing rocks at animals, poking a dead animal w/ a stick (or one that looks dead), blowing shit up w/ M80's, etc. Some say kids just being kids, though I think it's safe to say there's been some errors in their parenting.

Quoted Text The first way certainly gives depth and more meaning. But I wonder, from the point of view of the general audience, how many will get the deep meaning behind it? The second way is more appropriate for the general audience. It will give them a sense of satisfaction that we get after watching the bad guys get punished.

Not really sure if there's much of a difference to the general audience -- the dude hurt an animal so, in the context of a film, they're going to want him to die in the most brutal, animalistic way possible whether he had a tough upbringing or not. Serial killers generally have experienced abuse as children and nobody really paints them as sympathetic characters. The difference here is that Dwight hit a dog and abused his ex-wife. Regardless if he suffered abuse himself as a child or not, the punishment doesn't match the crime if you really think about it. So, the fact that we're all rooting for this guy to get killed kinda turns the mirror to us as an audience because we sympathize w/ innocent animals -- and we open the story from the dog's POV, being beaten. So it's like we're experiencing the abuse ourselves. And this is the punishment we'd want to see w/ our abuser. Which makes us even more brutal than Dwight. Which further drives home the point that some people never really heal from abuse.

So, point is, whether they get the deeper meaning or not, they still get the brand of justice they want. Perhaps making Dwight a sympathetic character at the end will make it less enjoyable for them, but it's pretty animalistic either way for them to root for a guy who hit his wife and beat a dog to be brutally murdered and tortured.

Quoted Text While Michael's story has a great point to it, I'm afraid mine is only there to gross you out. Nothing deeper than that.

Even though I went the Twilight Zone route (w/ out Rod Serling telling us what the point was), when I watch horror anthologies, I actually much prefer tales that are strictly there to gross me out and entertain. Looking forward to reading it!

-- Michael

Quoted from spesh2k So, point is, whether they get the deeper meaning or not, they still get the brand of justice they want. Perhaps making Dwight a sympathetic character at the end will make it less enjoyable for them, but it's pretty animalistic either way for them to root for a guy who hit his wife and beat a dog to be brutally murdered and tortured.

That's exactly what I meant. Either way, this is an interesting and enjoyable read.

Hey, Michael. Sorry for the delay on the review. Let me jump right into it.

SPOILERS!

First off, I'm an animal lover. So you score some serious points with me with how you handled this story. Dwight is an absolutely despicable character and it was extremely satisfying to see him put through the same Hell he put his poor dog through. Fuck Dwight. Lol

Gonna echo the others and say that the writing itself is great. You really know how to paint a vivid picture. No issues what-so-ever on that front.

Story-wise, this is very creative. Awesome characters too. Especially Fritzinger. And I actually like that you gave a reason for why Dwight is the way he is. Gives him some real depth. Still hate the fucker though! Lol

LOVE the use of Dolly Parton's "Crackerjack". Great song choice. Though besides that song, there really isn't much of an '80s vibe to this and that's a little disappointing.

Still, this is a really cool and creative tale with a very satisfying (and funny!!!) ending. Great work, Dude.

Sean, the wraparound story definitely has my interest. Really curious to learn more about these characters and what the Hell is going on with the timeline. Can't wait t see how it all ties together.

I'll be reviewing episode 3 shortly.   

Michael, I feel like I've read this a long, long time ago.  Is that possible?

I also seem to remember that it wasn't for me, in terms of story, theme, and writing, and looking this over rather quickly, I've decided not to comment, as the writing style on display here is not at all for me, sorry to say.

I will comment on the wraparound story, since I've read the 1st 2 now.

I wish I could be more positive, but I'm not impressed.  Where it's going, I have no idea, but it's not working for me.

You have Driver and Passenger in dialogue blocks, but you continually call them the driver and the passenger in your prose, which is odd to say the least.

Dialogue not at all working for me - very unnatural.

Lots of use of "then" over and over, which does not work for me.

So, sorry guys, but Episode 2 is not for me, but I'll continue on to Episode 3 and see where we are.

I read this one some time ago. A little disappointed you didn't remember. Maybe my notes were not that memorable or helpful, lol. I don't remember. I do remember the story though. It is a good one. It's a complete full circle story that packs a lot of different emotions into just one short. You are good at that. People want to feel something when they watch or read something. My effort for this series lacks that. All I have is grossness.  

What is great here is that everyone reappears and plays a part in the second half. All while Dwight gets what he deserves. If this one wouldn't be so tricky to film, I'm sure it would have already been produced.

Some typo type stuff, but I don't really worry about that.

Thanks for the wraparound story, Sean.  

Quoted Text I read this one some time ago. A little disappointed you didn't remember. Maybe my notes were not that memorable or helpful, lol. I don't remember.

Of course I remember!

Quoted Text I do remember the story though. It is a good one. It's a complete full circle story that packs a lot of different emotions into just one short. You are good at that. People want to feel something when they watch or read something. My effort for this series lacks that. All I have is grossness.

Well, my effort for the series was probably minimum -- I just took a horror short I 4 wrote years ago and added 8 pages to it lol. I normally don't write shorts this deep and I normally don't spend much time on them, this was the one exception.

Quoted Text What is great here is that everyone reappears and plays a part in the second half. All while Dwight gets what he deserves. If this one wouldn't be so tricky to film, I'm sure it would have already been produced.

Yeah, everyone who contacted me about it ended up backing away from it because they didn't wanna work with a dog. Would take somewhat of a larger budget.

-- Michael

Quoted from spesh2k Yeah, everyone who contacted me about it ended up backing away from it because they didn't wanna work with a dog. Would take somewhat of a larger budget. -- Michael

I wouldn't have a problem working with a dog per se, but it would make me sad to think of it as abused and such. I have no problem with a naked man in a cage though.

Quoted from Grandma Bear I wouldn't have a problem working with a dog per se, but it would make me sad to think of it as abused and such. I have no problem with a naked man in a cage though.

I always prefer 2 or 3 naked chicks in a cage.  

Hey, I vaguely remember reading the original short version of this too.

Riveting stuff. Great writing as usual. You really put Dwight through every horror imaginable. It was satisfying at first, then goes so far you just start to pity him. I don't know if that's the reaction you were going for, but it was a strong range of emotions, where by the end I had no appetite for any more punishment.

The only real issue I have is with Fritzinger's speech on pg. 24-25. I wish there was some way to impart all that, or at least the essence of it, through the actual story instead of having him say it. I do think it's already there to some degree. You have the pitbull who gets cared for and is now healthy and strong.

Maybe if we can kind of see the range of possibilities. Like if there's a moment towards the end where Dwight's getting beaten as a dog and he has a flashback of being beaten as a young child. Then he sees another young shelter dog being hugged and taken home to be raised by a kind family. We'd sort of be able to see that cycle, where it starts, and how to break it.

That may not be exactly what you're going for. Or the best way to express it. But I think you have the pieces there to just let us experience this vicious cycle through everything that's happened up to that point. And we're left hoping Dwight can still find the care he needs.

Hope that rambling makes sense.