Scratch-Off discussion

Ok, i'll kick this off.

I thought it was written pretty well, and it didn't descend into cliche apart from a few unnecessary 'fucks' and the first conversation between the doctor and the narrator - all that 'getting out of dodge' stuff read like hard boiled schtick rather than actual character dialogue and, as this was a character based rather than narrative based piece, that really showed through. The scene with the sick mother, always an easy target for getting the emotions going, nonetheless got my emotions going. good stuff

It was a rip off of Palahniuk though. through and through. It reads like one of his novels, but much shorter, and this poses problems.
Chuck's novels are often seemingly meandering, picaresque, relying on the accumulation of small details to build up into a meaningful whole as the reasons behind each detail is revealed. You don't get this luxury over the length of a short story. short stories should be more focused, as they have no room to dance around the subject. A meandering short story is a very strange beast.
Of course, all these 'shoulds' are just my opinion, and every rule can be broken, but i don't remember Palahniuk's own short stories being this unfocused.
Why do you spend time on the doctor character?
Why does he choose the scratch cards as a routine?
why is a routine important to him?
how does the routine of the scratch cards fit in with the 'lost dog' scam (by the way the most obviously Chucky bit in the story)?

There don't seem to be any answers other than that the narrator is miserable, which seems a bit vague.
So it collapses into just a series of details with no focus, a collection of sub plots with no plot. lethal in a short story, in my opinion.
You shouldn't write a short story the same way as a novel. they are made from different fabrics - their respective lengths affects more than just the number of words they have.

So there you go, that's my take.

I gotta agree with the guy above. This felt like the beginning of a novel, not a short story. It felt like you tried to cram a bigger idea into the confines of the short story. It was ok, I'd like to see it fleshed out more. Also, this is not what I think of when I think of pulp crime fiction.

F.T.W. Kid

I thought it was really well written, but some of the emotive-bits seemed a bit muddled. I think I just needed a bit more explanation of how the guy breaks down, first from his friends predicament, then from the bandages/routine being missing. I think maybe we just need to be in his head a bit more.

But I was very impressed with the writing, it's got a great feel to it.

Interesting story with some very original elements. I liked the routine of calling the lost dog owners, the Brenda story and the Bruno story. My only comment pertaining to that arc is that I felt the exposition explaining it robbed it of a lot of its potential power. Saying, "I do this because I want to see that and experience that" doesn't have as much of an impact as if those ideas bore themselves out in the action. I liked that it was a mix of a bunch of weird, disparate elements -- Palahniukian to be sure, but cool in its own way as well -- but I also agree that it feels like a much longer piece, in which a lot of these elements can be explored -- the OCD, the lost pets, the relationship with the weird friend, the relationship with the mother and father. In a way it felt like a pastiche of bits of chapters from a novel.

But overall I think your writing is really good and you should continue to pursue it in private life and in school. A really good editor/instructor could help you deconstruct some of the ideas in this story and give them a little more life. Really good work!