By Coco Jane
I’ve always lived in confinement.
Mom hasn’t, though. She told me about ‘out there.’ There are no walls. Warm food, flowing water, everyone goes wherever they please. It is dangerous, but free.
Here, Mom says, there’s no danger. We’re alone except for the two-legged creatures. They never crossed the water—until yesterday. I’ve never shared space with anyone but Mom. I got scared and cried.
Mom bit the creature. That’s how she faced danger ‘out there.’
Then the one called ‘Zookeeper’ came and killed her with a loud stick.
Mom was wrong. It’s dangerous here. I want to live out there.
I like the premise, but the execution of the story needs clarification. You wrote “lived in confinement.” “out there are no walls.”
I imagined a cage, in a zoo, with bars in front and walls on the side and behind.
“. . .two legged creatures. . .crossed the water.” Is the cage on an island, a bit of land surrounded by a moat. Or are the animals free to roam that island? If so, then “confinement” is misleading. If the zookeepers never crossed it before, how are the animals fed?
Granted, 101 words makes it difficult to explain situations. Word choices are crucial. maybe you could expand this to be flash fiction, a story under 500 words, or 300. it’s got possibilities.
No all zoos are cages. Often they are more open areas with grass and trees–and a moat between the animals and the people to keep them safely apart.
Predator animals are generally put into cages for a short time while food is placed in their habitat areas.
I thought it was quite good. It was about that person who climbed into the animal enclosure at the zoo and got bit. It was his fault but they killed the animal who was just trying to defend itself. Some things have to be filled in by the reader. Use your imagination, people!
Thank you, Deanna.
I know what zoos are like, cages and open spaces, some with moats. It is the choice of words. “Confinement” and “walls” that creates, for me, an image of a cage.Then the setting shifts, and I imagine an island with a moat. Yes, a reader has to use his imagination to envision the setting, but this has two settings. I think the setting has to be consistent and not shift unless the action shifts, which in this story it does not. Perhaps, I expect more than is possible in 101 words. With some revision this story can work.
I loved this story! It was well written and brought tears to my eyes. I never liked zoos, even as a child.
Thanks, Dianne. I like zoos because I like to see the animals, but I always feel bad that they are confined, especially those in cages.
This is excellent. Zoos are a unique form of torture for animals that people accept. But the animals surely want to live out there, taking their chances that life free is better than life in prison.
Heart breaking and well thought out in perspective. I believe Adelaide has missed the point.
Sorry, but I haven’t missed the point. it’s sad that animals have to be caged in zoos. Sad that the animal was killed. However, a story, regardless of the point, needs to be coherent and consistent. I thought this journal was a place to write very short stories that are complete and followed a logical progression, whether the story be realistic, fantasy or science fiction. A good story is more than just an idea or a point to get across. A good story requires a seamless progression from A to B, and i find the two settings in this story a weakness. Creating emotion is fine. The emotion is there, but the writing needs some revision.
Coco Jane you are absolutely correct in telling your story YOUR way. The point of this site is to allow writers to express themselves by using WRITING skills. You did a very good job of doing just that. The point of any good story is to have a beginning a middle and an end – the three act theory – and if a twist is appropiate that’s a bonus.
Thank you for your support, b.
Great viewpoint that grew clearer with every line. Neat and satisfying.
Very touching…
I disagree with everyone that says the story is confusing or needs revising. It also doesn’t need any extra clarification. I’ve never been to a zoo before but I didn’t have any issues understanding the story. It’s actually quite good and sad. The whole purpose and art of flash fiction such as this is painting a story with few but effective words. It’s the reader’s responsibility/expectation to bridge the missing gaps (that the author purposefully and needfully left out) with their imagination and intuitiveness and appreciate said art. I think sometimes people get hung up on too many details of things that it takes the enjoyment out of it and kind of defeats the purpose. It also becomes quite pedantic.
Just wanted to insert my opinion and praise the author on doing such a great job on this story. Keep ’em coming. 🙂