The Masters Review, a Platform for Emerging Writers. Seems like something the Emerging Writers Network should have known about prior to January 22, 2016 doesn't it? Well, we didn't. Stumbled upon it when either Jeff or Ann VanderMeer linked to this:
FALL FICTION WINNER! We’re so pleased to introduce “Animalizing” by Marisela Navarro, the third place winner in our Fall Fiction Contest judged by Ann and Jeff VanderMeer. In “Animalizing,” our narrator starts walking a friend’s dog and suspects it sees something dark inside her. As she works with the sea urchins in her lab and develops a bond with the dog, she begins to think differently about the creatures in her care. A sea urchin embryo is a beautiful sight….
I clicked on the link and read the story. And then I cut and pasted it to a Word doc so I could print it out and read it again later on Friday night. And again yesterday. And once more this morning. I am still not completely sure what the freak is going on but I really like the writing, some of the offbeat lines that seem to come out of nowhere but fit very well. Interesting observations.
"Our friendship was very much like coming upon a puddle."
Describing a park area that was closed off once you were inside: "There was a sense someone could emerge from anywhere within the 360 degree angle, that they were on their way, and there was nothing you could do about it."
Describing the process to collect sea urchin embryos: "...by spinning the seawater in a centrifuge we cranked by hand. This was always the most fun part of the process. To me it seemed like I was taking these babies on a carnival ride."
"It is foolish to assume a certain thing could never happen."
There's also an interesting bit that describes how we sometimes converse with each other--the narrator telling a story that begins with a dog ringing his doorbell and going from the point he opens the door to the dog on the porch and beyond. At the end he asks his friend if he really believed that a dog had rung his doorbell and he replied that he didn't, but just assumed somebody else had left the dog there and rang the doorbell. How often do we gloss over a crazy detail so that the rest of a story we're being told makes some sense? We rationalize out the offbeat detail in order to be able to accept the rest that seemed believable, even though that original detail would, in or mind, make none of the story even possible in the first place. Could this be what Navarro is really trying to get across and throwing out some of those crazy, offbeat, details throughout just to prove her point? It's a story that is well worth your time to read.
Comments