September 16th, 2010 at 01:22am
I read this earlier, which is funny...to me... and I really liked it. There were some parts I was a little confused about, but I'll get to those later. I was a little apprehensive because the topic was a little different for me. I had never read anything from this point of view (the doll) so I was slightly iffy. Needless to say I liked it, so this review shall be fairly easy. Onward.
The first paragraph was a good start. I got a slightly cocky attitude from the doll, and she also seemd a bit pissed off. I say pissed because of the way she described herself. The stringy blonde hair and the metal insides and the way she said that the people handled her. Well thats not really a proper way to word things. I think she was just fed up with how people percieved her to be a plaything, I think she felt that she was a person as well, even though she wasn't.
The walls will make you sound unstable; I will only make you sound pitiful. I wanted to touch on this for a moment. I loved this comparison!
I never would have thought of something like this. At first glance, talking to a wall doesn't seem to be much different from talking to a doll. To me, at least. When you really think of it, you're still talking to yourself. Nobody is truly hearing you. But the eyes and nose and the ears and everything that a doll really does make a difference. I never would have assumed that it would, but it does. Nice thing to add in there.The second paragraph was good as well, but there was a typo. The part where you went to italicize "mommy" you didn't put the slash in the second "" thing. I just thought I'd point that out.
Oh, and by the way, I love the word redundent. I think it sounds so much better than repetitive. Mahor points there. :file:
The part where the doll begins to talk about being attatched... I'm catching jealousy. Before I continue/forget to point this out, thoroughout this whole thing you put a lot of emotion into this dolls character even though she's an inatimate object. She isn't supposed to feel anything, but I'm sensing so many different emotions running through her head. It's very cool how you did it and it looks very natural.
I say the doll feels jealous because of the stingless puppet line. She keeps comparing herself to the woman. You can say whatever you want, I have pre-determined lines, etc. It's not in a nasty way at all, though. I think she just wishes she could do everything the woman can do.
and more cliché redundant stupid lines, Just an opinion, but I think it would sound better if you put"stupid, redundent lines" instead of redundent, stupid lines. And I think there should be a comma between the two. I'm not all the way positive though. It may be optional whether or not you put it in, but I think redudent, stupid would qualify as a list... :think:
After that was where I became confused. The photgraph made me think that the woman's daughter or someone close must have died and she's using the doll as a replacement... which was why she referred to the doll as Mary Lou. I was pretty set on that at that point.
Maybe it's because you're a woman. Maybe women have broken parts and girls don't. That's why they don't smile. That so much reminds me of a little kid. Just the way she figured that. It's a innocent obervation though! The little girl is smiling and the woman is smiling as well, but it's fake. It's just so simple and cute, but in a sad way.I don't want to be nit-picky at all, and I might be wrong, but I'm thinking that you kind of contradicted yourself. The doll thought the woman was sad, right? And if she did then how would she know? The doll doesn't seem to understand anything about human behavior, but she somehow understood the difference between sad and happy. I might have just misinterpretted the whole thing somehow, and if I did then completely ignore this section. I just stumbled upon that thougt ... :shifty
You forgot the slash in the "" thing again when you said "I miss you" (here: With all your love, your I miss yous, your Marie Lous. )
The part where the doll questions the meaning of love, I think that goes deeper than just the doll's perception of the word. When I read it, it made me think of actual people as well. Love really is just a word, when you think about it for a long enough period of time. It's more than just saying the word, I think. It's more about your actions and the way you express it. (I am young, however, and I may be wrong.. :shifty) It just made me think about the word as a whole, when I read that paragraph. it gave a raw perception of Love, one that was unbiased in a way.
Earlier, I mentioned about the photograph making me come to one conclusion and after reading the whole thing I became confused. I'm going to touch on that now.
When the lady came and peeked into the room and talked about the real Mary Lou loving herself too much, I was lost. Not completely, because I had somewhat of an idea about what was going on. I'm just not sure of myself and what the story was getting at.
Was the woman Mary Lou or was Mary Lou her daughter? The mommy thing made me think that it was her daughter as well, or maybe it was just the only thing the doll could say and it wasn't connected in that way. I'm not too sure about that.
My only real problem with this story is that i was very confused at the end. I think that the "twist" in the story, if you want to call it that, was a little bit too vague and it might be a little hard for people to pick up on what you were trying to convey near the end.
Everything else was good, though. The only real error I found were those typos and it wasn't even that serious, really. Just a small mistake. I think you did a good job with this though, and I hope you got/get an A. :D
P.S.
I'm sorry this got here so late. I really meant to post this sooner, but I became a little busy. No excuses though, I should have had it out earlier. I hope you weren't too angry and I hope that this was at least slightly worthwhile.
There were a few ‘general’ contradictions, I think. On one hand, the doll (Whom I refuse to call Marie Lou) seems unaware of the human body and how it works with her referring to tears as water (which was a nice touch, by the way) the doll later goes on to use the word ‘ribcage.’ I don’t know, when referring to tears as water from her eyes, it seemed a little off base to go on later with that, though that may be because I thought I seen the idea of a purely fair-minded doll – simply a doll.
But later on (and by that I mean next few words), there’s a caught of her being angry, pissed off and on the subject of attachment, she definitely seems jealous which brought me to another thought – she is, in fact, a doll; a child’s plaything (despite her owner not being a child. Also, I loved the bit of distinguishing between ‘woman’ and ‘girl.’); it’s as natural as plastic can be to want to become attached.
And later on it seems as if she becomes a little bitter for example:
You always say you love me, but the first time you took me home you said that you didn't want to name me; just so you won't get attached to me that much. Does not throwing me out means that we're already attached?
[…]
Yesterday you called me 'Marie Lou' and kept wiping at your face. Does that mean we're 'attached' ? Why does naming me mean we're attached?
That, in the end, she seems just a tad pissed off in that, ‘OH SO NOW YOU WANNA BE MY FRIEND’ way. I’m unsure if that was intentional because the antagonism doesn’t seem to stream any farther than that.
There is also this bit here, unrelated to the above:
You're not like me. I know that because I'm only supposed to say certain lines, you can say whatever you want. You're not made to be something that does one thing all day. You do whatever you want. You're a stringless puppet.
Somehow, the subject seemed a little jumpy – sometimes I’m really itching to hear what the doll is thinking about the situation, her emotions but then we’re right back to her owner (Whom, it seems, the doll doesn’t’ quite care about.)
Really though, everything was good – It’s simply so it kind of left me wanting a bit more from it.