For PB, enjoy the use of title and by-line to create a context for this picture. That is one refined way to respond to the stimulus, not just writing in response, but actually taking the picture and integrating it into the context of your submission. Conceptually this was very nice, and it seemed like an attempt at that style of so-called ‘Gonzo journalism’ but the last part made me realise that was perhaps not what you were attempting. E.g., “And it’s a Pulitzer for John H. White, for the still that he’d get
of two people who had never met,
aside from a cigarette, a neighborhood, and skin that’s tinted.
For a newspaper that probably wouldn’t waste the text to have their obits printed.“ I kind of feel like if this part had been omitted, instead of a commentary on injustice/exploitation the submission would have been more effective as simply an outsider giving a first person retelling.
For Vulgar, reading yours is more like an exercise in the sum of all parts greater than the whole, to write a criticism like “the references do not apply to this picture” I think is incorrect and missing the whole picture. E.g., “we play eternal Mancala with the sandcastles destroyed.” It connects to the picture on a thematic level, not a descriptive level. The same is true for other references after a bit of thinking tangentially. However, I feel like this one is missing the political/social underlying themes you usually work into it. Normally, there will be some comment on environment, corruption or wealth redistribution (which could have worked considering right half of the picture) and you kind of addressed that with the ending “but for scramblingcitypollutionlaws, by litterin' the gutters” but perhaps not enough for full effectiveness. Voting for PB.
|