Young man internment camp.

[thejdawg2]

I'm thinking of developing it more, but I'm not sure if it seems worthwhile. Any opinions, no matter how harsh, are appreciated.


Do you feel it's a worthwhile outline, or beginning to a more indepth piece?

--------------------------------
It started the only way it could have: they came for us. Disguised as police, wearing garments called “greater good” and “safety of the country.” We were all rounded up, then young men of the country, and shown what it was like to be Japanese back in 44. Bruised, beaten, and placed into camps and we did the only things we could: we stole, we we hid, we hoarded food, we cried, and we died. But the one thing we didn’t do was fight back. We were known as too dangerous for the world, and so we were locked up.

Strewn all about the park in which we were herded were reminders of our lives past. Clothes and books, mostly, but there was the occasional piece of art or music laying around.

The Black guys handled it best: they played sports. It kept them in shape, kept them competitive, kept them the way we were supposed to be. The other young men of the country, all young and under the age of 25, cowered in fear, and behind each other as someone was taken away, disappeared.

One day it became too much, the fear. Me and my friends couldn’t handle the camp any more, and we decided to run. We found the clothes that made us look oldest, and we waited. Then they came again. They came for the Black guys. Their speed, their power, the way they stayed men while the rest of us became children made them dangerous. So the police came for them.

They came in long columns, tear gas flying before they marched in. Guns trained on us, random shots ringing out, but this wasn’t just a riot squad. They came for blood, and they got it, from those who refused to go quietly. It was Edmund who went down first from our group. Shot in the back making a break from the camp. He wanted to see his elderly father.

The other three of us stole away to a quiet corner, and then made our break. Through a hole, and armed with packs of food for the journey ahead. We went to my grandmothers. She was old, and quiet, and it seemed like the best place to collect our thoughts.

We saw my aunt there, she said all this was the best. She said the little children of the world would grow up safe for once, instead of in a world containing young men. She saw the bruises and the blood on me and my companions, and she smiled. She said it was for the best. What gave us hope was that she said she wouldn’t tell.

We stole away to bathrooms, to clean ourselves up. In a floor to ceiling mirror, I saw how pathetic I had become. Lean and pale, with a bloody nose, and someone else’s clothes. And running shoes, because that’s all I had left in me, knowing how to run. As I cleaned myself off, I heard the sounds that would define my short life ahead of me.

They were coming for us, I could hear it down the street. I looked at my shoes one more time, and I went to the door. We decided it would be best to split, because it’s so much easier to run as one. And we said goodbye.

I looked at my shoes, and knew they were my future. My ability to run and hide, and to never be a man again.

[RevenantsKnight]

Do you feel it's a worthwhile outline, or beginning to a more indepth piece?

I think it's definitely workable; the ideas at the heart of this have the potential to get a reader (well, me anyway) interested. As it is now, it indeed reads like an outline, or a collection of possible ideas, due to a paucity of detail, so it's definitely not done now, but it's still got my attention. If you can come up with a few good character ideas and take some time to write out what you have in mind, I would guess that this could be well worth reading. I say take a shot at it, and see what you end up with.

Some comments on your beginnings:

It started the only way it could have: they came for us. Disguised as police, wearing garments called “greater good” and “safety of the country.” We were all rounded up, then young men of the country, and shown what it was like to be Japanese back in 44.

A grammatical note: the second sentence in this passage isn't one; there's no subject. You could combine the whole of it with the first sentence in something like "they came for us, disguised as..." or, if you want to keep the first sentence as is (it was rather effective at getting my attention), you could add "They were" or something like that to the start. Also, if you're referring to a specific year with just the last two digits, it's usually preceded by an apostrophe, e.g. '44.

Finally, the internment of Japanese Americans began in 1942, not 1944. While the internment was still enforced then, there wasn't the sort of "rounding up" type of action that you describe, since they were all in camps already. I'd suggest switching that to '42.

Bruised, beaten, and placed into camps and we did the only things we could: we stole, we we hid, we hoarded food, we cried, and we died. But the one thing we didn’t do was fight back. We were known as too dangerous for the world, and so we were locked up.

More grammar points: I'd remove the second "and" in the first sentence and replace it with a comma and delete the repeated "we" in "we we hid." Stylistically, I like the "But the one thing we didn't do was fight back" part, but the transition between that sentence and the next is a little rough. I get what you're trying to do here, but it isn't as smooth as it could be.

Strewn all about the park in which we were herded were reminders of our lives past. Clothes and books, mostly, but there was the occasional piece of art or music laying around.

You might well disagree with this, but I think that this sort of description needs to be a little more detailed if standing alone, or woven into a narrative or conversation. As it is, it's a little too general for me.

The Black guys handled it best: they played sports.

Maybe I'm just PC to the point of insanity, but this didn't go down well. If this were my story, I'd change that to a different group, e.g. "the younger kids handled it best..."

The other young men of the country, all young and under the age of 25, cowered in fear, and behind each other as someone was taken away, disappeared.

"Young" usually means the same thing as "under the age of 25"; having both statements seems redundant. Also, you don't talk about people being taken away before here; it seems like a major part of their lives, so I'd elaborate on it.

They came in long columns, tear gas flying before they marched in. Guns trained on us, random shots ringing out, but this wasn’t just a riot squad. They came for blood, and they got it, from those who refused to go quietly. It was Edmund who went down first from our group. Shot in the back making a break from the camp. He wanted to see his elderly father.

This entire passage feels a little incoherent, since it feels like you're starting up several ideas and then leaving them all unfinished. At first, you're talking about the narrator wanting to escape, then you switch to why the police come, and then you mention that Edmund dies, etc. These ideas don't seem logically related to me.

The other three of us stole away to a quiet corner, and then made our break. Through a hole, and armed with packs of food for the journey ahead. We went to my grandmothers. She was old, and quiet, and it seemed like the best place to collect our thoughts.

Again, you're passing over important parts of this story without much description or narration. I assume this will change if you decide to make a more in-depth piece...

We saw my aunt there, she said all this was the best. She said the little children of the world would grow up safe for once, instead of in a world containing young men. She saw the bruises and the blood on me and my companions, and she smiled. She said it was for the best.

This seems a little late in the story to explain why they were incarcerated...you might want to touch on this earlier.

They were coming for us, I could hear it down the street. I looked at my shoes one more time, and I went to the door. We decided it would be best to split, because it’s so much easier to run as one. And we said goodbye.

The comma linking the clauses of the first sentence should be replaced by a semicolon or a period, since both clauses could be complete sentences on their own. Also, the change from the second sentence to the third is a little abrupt; I'd suggest spending a bit more time on this farewell in the final version.

In summary: this is indeed rough, but it's got a good idea behind it. My advice is to keep at it, 'cause it'll get better. Best of luck!

[Snowglare]

I agree with RevenantsKnight that you have some good ideas here, an interesting premise, and that there are some grammatical problems. However, I have to disagree on a few points.
Some comments on your beginnings:

It started the only way it could have: they came for us. Disguised as police, wearing garments called "greater good" and "safety of the country." We were all rounded up, then young men of the country, and shown what it was like to be Japanese back in 44.
A grammatical note: the second sentence in this passage isn't one; there's no subject. You could combine the whole of it with the first sentence in something like "they came for us, disguised as..." or, if you want to keep the first sentence as is (it was rather effective at getting my attention), you could add "They were" or something like that to the start.I more or less agree with this assessment. The second sentence is a fragment, but I think it flows well enough to count as a stylistic choice rather than a mistake. If you do change it, do so in a way that keeps the flow up. Grammatical perfection can be deathly dull. The third sentence strikes me as awkward. The second clause, "then young men of the country," feels off. Did you mean the young men? I advise a rewrite in either case.

Bruised, beaten, and placed into camps and we did the only things we could: we stole, we we hid, we hoarded food, we cried, and we died. But the one thing we didn't do was fight back. We were known as too dangerous for the world, and so we were locked up.

Stylistically, I like the "But the one thing we didn't do was fight back" part, but the transition between that sentence and the next is a little rough. I get what you're trying to do here, but it isn't as smooth as it could be.Again, I generally agree, though I think the second sentence in the quoted passage would be better off without "But", or shortened to "But we didn't fight back". The problem with the last sentence is that it isn't good, and wouldn't fit where it is regardless. Might want to put it after the sentence refering to WWII internment camps.
The Black guys handled it best: they played sports.
Maybe I'm just PC to the point of insanityGot it in one. The sentence is fine as it is, even better when looked at in context. Like so:

"The Black guys handled it best: they played sports. It kept them in shape, kept them competitive, kept them the way we were supposed to be. The other young men of the country, all young and under the age of 25, cowered in fear, and behind each other as someone was taken away, disappeared."

The whites, asians, latinos - everyone but the blacks - cowered in fear. They let themselves be beaten. The blacks persevered. It isn't stereotyping if it's true, and since this story is told in first person, we're dealing with a fallible narrator. Maybe several black guys are cowering like the rest. Maybe there's a multi-ethnic group that stays in shape. Maybe the narrator just notices a lot of black guys playing sports and thinks no further on it. Or maybe the black guys handled it best. Maybe the black guys played sports. The author has two choices here: general or specific. Younger isn't better than black. It's just as much a generalization, just as likely to be inaccurate.
We saw my aunt there, she said all this was the best. She said the little children of the world would grow up safe for once, instead of in a world containing young men. She saw the bruises and the blood on me and my companions, and she smiled. She said it was for the best.
This seems a little late in the story to explain why they were incarcerated...you might want to touch on this earlier.First I want to say that this was my favorite passage. The aunt is all creepy heartless insane, and likely duplicitous; I bet she called the cops when the boys weren't looking. Now, in response to RevenantsKnight's comments: the explanation for why they were interned was "We were known as too dangerous for the world, and so we were locked up," which appeared in the first paragraph. The opinions of the narrator's aunt tie in with that explanation, but don't tell us anything new. I think a full explanation of the situation would be best placed after everything that's been posted so far, unless the part where the narrator is interned is lengthened considerably. And you could always lengthen it in flashbacks if there are details you want to get out.

P.S. I saw a sign today that, looking back on it, makes me want to write a story in the same vein as jdawg's, only mine would be much happier, I think. The sign read "Grand Openning".

[RevenantsKnight]

Younger isn't better than black. It's just as much a generalization, just as likely to be inaccurate.

Of course it is; I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't a generalization. However, there are fewer people who would take "younger" the wrong way on a first read. Also, generalizations of race just happen not to sit well with me, because I've got some nasty memories of them. Thejdawg2 asked for comments; I gave mine. That doesn't mean that he should change it, necessarily.

the explanation for why they were interned was "We were known as too dangerous for the world, and so we were locked up," which appeared in the first paragraph.

That says nothing to me, because there are a thousand reasons why they could be too dangerous. They could all be suspected terrorists, they could all know things that the government does not want out, they could all be infected with some sort of virus with a hellishly long incubation period, etc. Of course, there are some implied reasons here, but I felt it was a little too vague at the start. Again, that might be something that changes in an expanded version.

The opinions of the narrator's aunt tie in with that explanation, but don't tell us anything new. I think a full explanation of the situation would be best placed after everything that's been posted so far, unless the part where the narrator is interned is lengthened considerably.

Hrm. I thought they did, since they explain more on why the internees are considered too dangerous (something to do with how they'll interact with children.) This kind of extra detail is what I was looking for earlier; a few hints would suffice. And I do agree that comprehensive explanations can wait, since that would just slow the story down at this point.

[thejdawg2]

A lot of the reasoning behind my sentence structure was because I was trying to capture atmosphere as opposed to linear story. The language is mimicking the scene: at times moving too fast and rushing over things, but at times moving too slow and too many periods.

However, if I do expand upon it, I realize that at least some of that is going to have to change. It's going to have to become more linear, and do less meandering.


Being PC and proper grammar are two of the last things I'm worried about. This is likely to end up a creative writing project next semester, and for that disjointed writing is almost expected. Though I am going to work on it a bit before that. I'll post again in a few days after it's had a good bit of work.

Thanks for the responses.

[Khalic]

A lot of the reasoning behind my sentence structure was because I was trying to capture atmosphere as opposed to linear story. The language is mimicking the scene: at times moving too fast and rushing over things, but at times moving too slow and too many periods.

It sounds like a nice description for something that you didn't do, Jdawg. The piece really needs to be much longer for such stylistic changes to be felt by the reader as anything substantial and intentional.

Of course it is; I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't a generalization. However, there are fewer people who would take "younger" the wrong way on a first read. Also, generalizations of race just happen not to sit well with me, because I've got some nasty memories of them. Thejdawg2 asked for comments; I gave mine. That doesn't mean that he should change it, necessarily.

I half-agree. For a different reason it can be read the wrong way. It sticks out as it is. I don't care to change it to some less risque designation, however, since that seems spineless to me. Just make it more than the lone detail that it is.


The first task I would tackle would be the scene with the aunt. If you're going for a disjointed piece, you could even start with the conversation with her and then flash back, forward, and tell the entire story over scrambled memories.

Like Glare I think that this scene was definitely your strongest. It was the only thing that made this piece particularly worth replying to. I'd use it for tone and atmosphere til you use it up.

[Relapse_]

It's a really good setting. The writing, though, could use some cleaning up. All you need to do is just sit with your story for long enough and the unclear and awkward parts will become clear. It takes time, then, to structure your story -perfectly-. What I like to do is do it in layers. Write a bunch... wait a day... come back to it. That way it isn't fresh in your mind, and it's as if you're reading someone elses writing.

Some dialogue might help. If you're going for the pure narritive, though, you'll have to spice it up with something. For example, the rare but colourfully stark metaphor here and there. To me, it seemed too dry.

And don't worry about adressing race in your stories. If the black guys in your story handled it best, then the black guys handled it best. "Behind every edit is a lie..."

[Raith]

pretty good start. we'll see where it leads to.