Pages

Friday, May 24, 2013

Bathroom Monologue: Anton and Anton

Anton sits on his knees before the grave of Anton. For a while, Emil and Yulia's son holds Anton's left hand and does his impression of prayer; at three years old, he no better understands prayer than he does who is buried beneath his soles.

"Amen," Emil and Yulia's son mutters, releasing Anton's hand to rub at his eyes. The drive here has made him drowsy, and Yulia stoops to pick him up. She bows a quarter of the way she normally would, dipping herself and her child toward the headstone.

Instead of 'Amen,' she says, "Thank you for saving my husband, Anton." She says nothing more, and ends her bow. She did not think much of Anton, the drunken shadow of her Emil. She is two paces behind Anton when he checks her, her gaze already on the car.

It is four years to the Saturday since Anton Behrs was blown up pulling Emil from a foundry. That is what everyone knows. They commemorate it on Saturdays because Emil Behrs has never in eleven years missed a day at the exchange, and Anton will not let Emil fail now. He misses absinthe.

Since Yulia looks away, Anton doubles his gaze upon the grass beneath which Anton is forced to rest. Anton says, "It is very hard, losing a twin."

She says, "I'm not telling you not to grieve, Emil."

"We were too alike."

Her stillness suggests that they are not alike anymore. She is wise not to say it - again. She shifts Emil's son in her arms, and he or his jacket coos. Her hip cocks out, desiring to stride, to leave. She never respected Anton. She did not think they were alike. Everyone knows this.

"Could you take him to the car?" Anton asks, still respecting the grass. It could be trimmed more often. Anton will visit Anton more often.

"We'll wait for you," she says as she departs, as though that were in question. Anton will have to strive to ensure it is not.

Anton retrieves his smart phone– a model two years out of date, but two years better than anything Anton ever owned. He slides fingertips until purple and yellow line graphs appear, and he holds them to face the grave.

"They're growing almost as fast as our son. I'm getting the hang of this. Of these two things, anyway. Your name is on a placard at our offices now. There are still so many people who want you. No one wants Emil."

A horn beeps brief, half of a harsh note, and Anton jerks backward. Yulia has brushed against the steering wheel while searching for their son's toys. That is surely what she will say if he asks.

Anton leans until he kisses the grass, then rises to his heels to inspect the damage that grass has done to the knees of his trousers. He picks at thin green strands and murmurs, "I'm doing what I can, Emil. Everything I can."


This is a story idea I've had for two years, and dug out for the Friday Flash 4th Anniversary Blog Hop. It's 90 words too long to run in their game, which is a shame, but I couldn't junk it. Eager to know what people think of it, as well as if it fits the spirit enough for me to list.

45 comments:

  1. In the fifth paragraph is it Anton or Emil who 'doubles his gaze'. The following paragraph would suggest it is Emil. I am sorry, this one didn't work for me. I kept getting confused about who was talking and had to keep going back and rereading.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have nothing to apologize for. It's my writing that confused and did not work for you. These responses were the sort of thing I worried about in the experiment.

      Delete
    2. I got confused too, but I assumed that was the point, so it worked for me. I liked the circular nature. It reminded me of old school Twilight Zone-esque thrillers (not sure I'm expressing that properly)

      Delete
  2. I would argue that it works perfectly. The ambiguity is central to the big reveal that Emil is the one who died and Anton has taken is place. I loved it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm very glad it clicked for you! I'm hoping to figure out why it worked for some or not for others. I'm inclined to think it's my shortcoming.

      Delete
  3. John,I'm afraid I have to agree with Elephant. It's a superb story line which hooked me immediately but the ambiguity is too dense. And maybe - unless I'm being ultra slow here - there may be some words missing from parts of the text, viz. "Yulia has brushed against the steering wheel while for their son's toys ..." I suggest you need some sort of verb between 'while' and 'for' or it won't be comprehensible to the average reader. It could be that many people will give up on what should be a great story as in its present state, it's too complex.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was just a missing verb there. I've fixed that now, and thank you for pointing it out.

      Delete
  4. I favour ambiguity... Happy fourth anniversary John!

    marc nash x

    ReplyDelete
  5. I liked this but I had to read it a few times over before I got it. If it hadn't been you (or a writer that I thought worth persevering with) I might not have bothered. Sorry if that sounds blunt but figured you'd appreciate the honesty.

    That said, I think it's great in terms of description and concept.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter, I am not at all offended by these responses. If anything, I'm touched that I'm this sort of writer you'll put up with when the prose is mired or challenging. Do you think there is something about it that ought to be quickened or streamlined, or even made more obvious at a specific point, or do you think this stands up with required re-reading?

      Delete
    2. Nothing obvious. Now that I get it, pinpointing why I was confused before is tricky.

      Delete
  6. I love the names and description in this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hate to say it, but I was confused as well. It was as if there were three Antons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an interesting response. Who would the three Antons be in

      Delete
  8. I liked this too but I also had to read it over again to understand who was who. Of course the reveal (which is great in its surprise) told us that but it also caused me to think I'd missed something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Deanna. What did you think you'd missed?

      Delete
  9. Quite intriguing. And really confusing. I loved the twist at the end, and even loved a lot of the imagery/confusion throughout. The "Anton sat on the grave of Anton" opening made me go, "What? I must keep reading." However, when you transition immediately to the little boy in that same paragraph I spent the entire first half of the story thinking that the child was somehow being forced to look at his own future grave (morbid)... I think I skipped a word or something the first time I read it!

    It sort of reminds me of the inverse of the "aha' moment at the end of the Prestige. It was pretty dense to get through and I had to read it twice because I missed stuff the first time (that's not a bad thing, necessarily). I'm still not sure I "get" all of it.

    A head's up, this sentence seemed awkward to me: "We'll wait for you," she says as she departs, as though that there were in question.

    Anyway, I liked it. I would be interested in a longer version - I enjoy the economy of words you have here, but I don't think a few more in key places would hurt. (I know you were trying to get it to fit inside a certain limit, though).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That criticism of the opening paragraph going immediately from Anton to Emil's son makes total sense to me.

      If I may be too full of myself for a moment, I really like the line, ""We'll wait for you," she says as she departs, as though that there were in question." Can you say what struck you as awkward about it? I'm probably stuck considering it from the wrong angles.

      Delete
    2. The "though that there were" all in a row feels a bit clunky, that's all. Maybe I'm just tired. I like the general point of this line.

      Delete
    3. I'm the one who was tired and you are absolutely right. This was a case of author-blindness and I've fixed it now. Thank you!

      Delete
  10. It took me several tries to understand the identities in play here. What I don't understand is why his wife is letting her complicity in the deception boil over into anger at him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is that the element you re-read it to comprehend?

      Delete
    2. It took me a few tries to understand the Emil/Anton thing. As I read it, the wife has come to suspect (or even perhaps to know) the substitution, but only after it's too late to do anything about it without completely disrupting everything. Her response is conflicted and hard to understand.

      Delete
  11. Does the wife know who really died? It doesn't seem like it. She didn't like Anton. She is only barely grateful Anton existed at all because she believes he saved her husband, Emil. She makes it pretty clear that she believes Anton was a worthless scumbag... which makes me believe even she doesn't know that she's now "married" to Anton and that her beloved Emil is the one who really died.

    This is meant as a compliment: I very often can truly see your writings being discussed in a literature class!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've been very considerate with your comments this morning, JL. Thank you! And it would be a kick if my projects like this one got studied, but I'm okay to study how they're firing and misfiring for different people too. And I do take it as a compliment!

      Delete
    2. Oh, oh! (You're going to be like, "what the heck, all my comments today are from that random person I met through A-Z)

      But, the best stories are the ones you mull over for hours after reading them, and I just had a moment of, "whoa" about the wife. It seems to me, that no matter what, Anton is the Personality that died. So perhaps it doesn't matter if the wife knows or not. She despised Anton, and no matter whose body is in the grave, for all intents and purposes, Anton is the brother who is gone (as Anton is now masquerading as Emil and having to Become him). So, either she doesn't know, and can't fathom why her husband is grieving so heavily the loss of his worthless brother, or she does, and wants to leave all traces of who Anton was buried with her husband. (See? College discussion material for sure!)

      We do know that there is one good thing about Anton. Even if he was the schmuck the wife thinks he was... he recognized his brother's sacrifice on his behalf and is willing to see that sacrifice wasn't wasted.

      I like discussing stories :) particularly ones like this.

      Delete
  12. I found part of it a little confusing, because I couldn't figure out who was talking, the little boy or the father. Otherwise, I thought it was excellent. I liked how the little boy's name and the uncle's name and the fact that the father was a twin all helped to make the story more sympathetic. Lovely.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think I'm too dense to have gotten this one- it wasn't until I read these comments and I went "Oh!...." The switching of the names had me re-reading more often than I'd like to admit.

    If this were a literature class I'd keep my hand down until someone revealed what we were supposed to be talking about. Sorry!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't even count the number of times I did that in literature courses!

      Delete
  14. Love this, John!

    I thought at first it was a multiple personality syndrome scene but soon realised where you were going with it. Clever, very clever.

    I've nominated you for a Sunshine Award over at my blog.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I liked this. I liked it a lot. I didn't necessarily find the story confusing, but I was glad the last line confirmed what I thought had happened.

    I read the ambiguity as intentional. I mean, I've never experienced taking on another person's life in an effort to be them without anyone knowing, but I can't imagine that's a particularly cut and dry type of thing. It has to be somewhat confusing every day, not only in raising his nephew, but also in being married to the sister-in-law that hates his guts. Not only that, but it sounds like he's getting used to an entirely different lifestyle (more tech, less alcohol...).

    I want more. I don't think this is just an "I love it so much, please don't let it end" thing, either. (Although I really do love it.) I think I really would find it even more compelling if there was a bit more length to it. (Frankly, I think the story is deep and complex enough to warrant a MUCH longer story...but that I *DO* think is an "I love it so much, please don't let it end" thing!)

    Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm usually the dense one, but I figured out what was going on while reading. The story's a little dense, but it needs to be. Anton is being his brother, and it must be taxing to keep up such a deception for 11 years. Especially for an alcoholic who had to quit cold turkey. I thoroughly enjoyed this.

    Interesting that Yulia hasn't figured it out… or has she? There's enough anger and frustration in her demeanor to suggest that maybe she's playing along as well, perhaps because she'd rather be deceived than to let Emil go.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I liked it, but did find the name Anton being used twice confusing.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I love the twist. I wonder if Yulia suspects anything and if Anton will ever confess. And did he convince everyone he was Emil so he could be close enough to look after his brother's family. Or was the explosion part of his plan? So many questions. Which is to say I really enjoyed this. I've missed your writing, John!

    ReplyDelete
  19. I was confused for the first half and had to read it a few times before getting to the end, but once it clicked, it clicked hard. I loved it. It's damn difficult to pull off, but you did a great job of it. I had similar difficulties writing a piece where the guy is having an argument with himself.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think that this would work a little better if there was more anonymity at the beginning. Instead of saying "Anton," say "he" and make us think that it is Emil at the grave. That would eliminate the confusing aspects of the story and still pack a punch at the reveal. My two cents. :) It is a really good piece, but you never want your readers to have to work that hard for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that would work. I was intrigued by the prose from the beginning but it took me a few reads to start to click..

      Delete
  21. Oh OK I got it John -- it was a jolt midway through when the narrative switched all of a sudden to the husband but then it settles down. In a flash I think its hard to switch POV - so maybe thats what caused the confusions. Draw out the hand off between the woman and her husband so we know what's going on, and then it can sink in as to what really happened :)
    (Hey I never felt any need to change anything in any of your stories before - this is a first! for me!)

    ReplyDelete
  22. As some others mentioned, I had a hard time discerning who's who in this story. I think you could beef it up a little and find a way to give us clarity without being too obvious about it, but I like the concept, and enjoyed reading it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I liked this, even though it was, as people have already commented, murky at first. It was like watching a photograph develop -- the revelation wasn't a curtain being jerked aside, but a mist slowly evaporating. Actually, not evaporating -- coagulating around the Anton who will now forever be Emile, solidifying until he is completely encased in a hardened shell of not-Anton.

    The touch about the sister-in-law/wife never liking Anton just makes it even more poignant.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I must admit, I had to re-read this several times to fully 'get' it. I don't know if that's just me being dense or not, and it's a clever idea, I just think it takes a while to blossom.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I stopped at the absinthe, suspecting something and had to go back to reread. I figured out Anton is living as Emil, but I still do not understand these sentences, even after several reads:
    "They're growing almost as fast as our son. I'm getting the hang of this. Of these two things, anyway. Your name is on a placard at our offices now. There are still so many people who want you. No one wants Emil."
    But, isn't he Anton posing as Emil? And what are the graphs?

    I feel like I'm very dense about this.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It was confusing in the beginning but I think I got it.

    It is better than the Twitter promo tweet. :)

    ReplyDelete
  27. I like this one, but I got a bit confused too. By this:

    "Your name is on a placard at our offices now. There are still so many people who want you. No one wants Emil."

    Which name is on the placard? And from the rest of the piece, it seems that Emil is the only one that anyone ever wanted. So the "No one wants Emil" really throws me.

    ReplyDelete