Thank you so much (for both your kind words and your constructive criticism)!
The point was intended to be about pollution and I appreciate you pointing out that it wasn’t strong/clear enough—that’s something I want to work on. In the same vein, the narrator’s intention with the garbage fished out of the creek would be to throw it out so it isn’t litter, but I agree I don’t really make that clear, especially since they call it “treasures” and say that they don’t see it as unnatural. This is one of a few pieces that I’ve written inspired by various Superfund sites in New Jersey. The specific one in question, https://semspub.epa.gov/work/02/437463.pdf, is not as serious as some of the other ones I’ve written about on the Passaic River, or the American Cyanamid site (here are some cool photos) near where I grew up. It was both a major fear and inspiration to me as a kid.
I also really like all the suggestions you made about the oak, both avoiding the “I characterized him” and making sure that I continue to use “he” and not “it”. That and the gimmick of the chemical names not being necessary throughout the whole piece—I was on and off about that myself, whether I should keep them in just that one paragraph or leave them in the whole piece, but now that I have a second opinion it makes sense to take the extras out.
Will make changes based on this and consider the ideas you describe here in my future writing—I appreciate you taking the time to write this. :)
I’m not sure that I’m necessarily advocating taking the other chemical names out. After all, they play a necessary role right at the very end, and I don’t know how that would work without all the previous use.
I didn’t mean to imply that there was any doubt that pollution was a central topic! That would be hard to miss. But it’s not so clear what you’re trying to say about it. (Or whether you’re neutrally refraining from saying anything in particular, and just showing it in its natural habitat, as it were.) Perhaps if I were less ignorant that last parenthesis would tell me a clearer story. (Though I guess googling the chemical names would probably have sufficed.)
Thank you so much (for both your kind words and your constructive criticism)!
The point was intended to be about pollution and I appreciate you pointing out that it wasn’t strong/clear enough—that’s something I want to work on. In the same vein, the narrator’s intention with the garbage fished out of the creek would be to throw it out so it isn’t litter, but I agree I don’t really make that clear, especially since they call it “treasures” and say that they don’t see it as unnatural. This is one of a few pieces that I’ve written inspired by various Superfund sites in New Jersey. The specific one in question, https://semspub.epa.gov/work/02/437463.pdf, is not as serious as some of the other ones I’ve written about on the Passaic River, or the American Cyanamid site (here are some cool photos) near where I grew up. It was both a major fear and inspiration to me as a kid.
I also really like all the suggestions you made about the oak, both avoiding the “I characterized him” and making sure that I continue to use “he” and not “it”. That and the gimmick of the chemical names not being necessary throughout the whole piece—I was on and off about that myself, whether I should keep them in just that one paragraph or leave them in the whole piece, but now that I have a second opinion it makes sense to take the extras out.
Will make changes based on this and consider the ideas you describe here in my future writing—I appreciate you taking the time to write this. :)
I’m not sure that I’m necessarily advocating taking the other chemical names out. After all, they play a necessary role right at the very end, and I don’t know how that would work without all the previous use.
I didn’t mean to imply that there was any doubt that pollution was a central topic! That would be hard to miss. But it’s not so clear what you’re trying to say about it. (Or whether you’re neutrally refraining from saying anything in particular, and just showing it in its natural habitat, as it were.) Perhaps if I were less ignorant that last parenthesis would tell me a clearer story. (Though I guess googling the chemical names would probably have sufficed.)