50 Word Short Story: Break
Break
By T. Dalton
"Did you break it again?" He stood, annoyed. She stooped over, grasping her chest, collapsing against the wall to the kitchen floor. "I said," he continued. "I can't keep replacing it. It costs a hell of a lot of money, you know."
“Then be more kind.” She clutched her heart.
This is part of @jayna's ongoing 50 word short story competition. This week's theme is "break".
Love it! Okay, I think I’ve got it figured out what’s going on. Tell me if I’m right. The man accuses a woman of not taking care of her heart because it is broken. The woman physically collapses, her broken heart in pieces on the floor, and tells him to be more kind because her accuser is actually the one who broke it. Am I right?
basically
That's right a-hole stop being such a dbag!
Glad she told him off.
Love it
Well written, @dirge. The punch line is priceless!
thanks for reading
more kind to do what ?
Nice imagery in this one @dirge, well done.
Really clever writing here @dirge
If that wasn’t the best roast the person got, then I don’t know what roasts are. I mean the upkeep of a heart is real simple, but alas if he only knew that and would be more kinder. But I’m tempted to say it could’ve been better if she said: “would you kindly not break my heart!?!” Anyways, resteem’d it.
Thanks for the resteem, comrade.
Speaking purely from my own writing aesthetics.
= 6 words with an adverb
= 8 words but broken up into short sentences, lacking an adverb.
I prefer my way because, though its 8 words instead of 6, the break into shorter sentences promotes brevity.
I like to avoid adverbs at all costs, following Mark Twain's advice.
Also, I didn't want to say outright that it was her heart that was broken. I wanted that to be clear enough from the scene. Since it's 50 words, and it should be a story (and not just description) there needs to be a 'truth' that is revealed by the end.
In this case, the truth is that she has her heart broken in the literal sense.
If she said "would you kindly not break my heart", it would be too straightforward, taking away a level of unreality from the scenario that contributes towards the hidden truth. A heart literally breaking is unreal. Being too obvious about that can detract from its ability to add 'magic' to the story.
..taking notes
all aesthetics are either convention and opinion :)
..Even laws, stretching a bit the concept, yet they're applied ✌️
Well since I did start a war of semantics on this part of the internet, I might as well end it here as well to take the full responsibility of such. But I feel like I am pressing on this scenario of a Wittgensteinian problem to hard and not declaring it as such. For often Illinois's, the most liberal state in the seven seas, education has rather been a crappy one ever since Common Core was integrated into our state. But because we developed this too much to simply turn our backs, let us simply state how we see our phrasings to the whole World in this comment §! Even if we both die in the process of yelling across the internet to let it be known how we signify these two phrases!
Anywho, you took it in a straightforward sense instead of the ex-romantic conclusion. Especially when “would you kindly” is a suggestively sarcastic remark that shows it cannot ever happen, but is the necessary fantasy screen that leads to the “stop breaking my heart” phrase that she wanted to say. But even then, breaking is like that of stealing: we know that it’s impossible to steal or break a heart, but for ex-romantics it feels undifferentiated from its “actual” and “figurative” definition. In fact, the two scenarios, the actual and figurative, becomes such a blur to them, that the male figure knows that it’ll cost him to keep making blank checks and the female figure in pain of the male’s unfulfillment of the blank checks. And the potential symbolic economy that they developed together clearly can allow for this to happen, even if we are unaware of such.
Regardless ironically, the clutching of her heart promotes the literal image and signification of a damaged and aching heart. Especially when we couple that with the end phrase of “then be more kinder” which makes it seem that kindness has mystical effects to undo the pain, when it should be the first step. Which, anyways, your phrasing seems to me to implicate that very same straightforwardness you found in mines but tried to avoid in yours. Albeit the conditions for that is covered away by the conditions that promote a sense of a damaged relationship and a emotionally scarred person. Yet what stops that same signification from happening in mines when we both know the male and female figure are so invested in the symbolic economy that they refuse to speak of the bland reality and must engage in word games with each other.
Which in that sense, the “then be more kinder” would take on an even more straightforwardness in the unconscious scene. But, in that irony, without the straightforwardness that is established in the imaginary and symbolic register, the scene and their symbolic economy suffers. For the straightforward essence doesn’t disavow magic, nor dispises it, and is even blind to it and everything around it but itself. In fact, your scenario would clearly destroy the magic of the scene, if it wasn’t destroyed by the male figure stating outright that it costs him to “repair/replace hearts,” just like mine did.
But of course this all could just me in the Discourse of Science/l'Université and I probably cannot differentiate between straightforward and implicative. Like I said, a war of semantics that is purely a Wittgensteinian problem. Anyways, good CQC (close quarters combat) there. Gotta say:...
I liked the way things are suggested to the reader more than plainly displayed.. bravo @dirge.
This was really well done, its hits a very strong nerve in very few words.