[Matt Q]

Hi Glenn,

I enjoyed the story. I find the ambiguity interesting. Paul seems to have views on neighbourliness, and these cause him to help his elderly neighbour. But it’s not completely clear if he does this out of compassion, or out of a sense of duty – at first out of his sense of what he thinks neighbours should do, and then later in the light of a perceived debt. It’s interesting, I think, that Paul also believes in a final judgement, but not, perhaps, in a loving God.

Mr Chester, on the other hand, seems to have performed an act of great kindness and sacrifice for his friend, Paul’s father, and for his friend’s dying daughter, Paul’s sister. But not by performing an action that is expected by convention. Still, Chester seems to exemplify the friend-being-involved-and-helping-out that Paul seems to value and thinks lacking in the modern world. And yet Paul feels no gratitude for Chester’s sacrifice.

It’s also the case, of course, the actions of Chester and Paul’s father have consequences. The daughter still dies. And the father later kills himself. Perhaps this wouldn’t have happened if they’d not stolen the money. Chester would have still been around to support Paul’s family in the face of the bereavement. Paul’s father, dealing only with his daughter’s death and not the additional loss of his close friend, and presumably also possible guilt at the theft and at what has happened to his friend (disgrace, uprooting) as a consequence, might have survived.

There are complexities here, and I like that there’s no clear moral here either. Or at least, not on my reading.

Critique-wise, I think there’s sometimes scope for tightening sentences and paragraphs and avoiding stock phrasing.

Paul Mortenson tried again to concentrate on the student essay in front of him

Maybe "tried to concentrate on marking the student essay" (or do you say "grading"?). Just so it's clear Paul is not a student trying to concentrate on his own essay. Alternatively maybe just "student's essay" would show it's not his.

Paul wasn’t sure if Chester was his neighbor’s first or last name.

Does this means the little girl is the only person who Paul ever hears speak Mr Chester's name? That struck me as odd. At the barbeque, with all his other neighbours, is the man is never mentioned, does Paul not ask? If the other neighbours refer to him as “Mr Chester”, why does Paul doubt that his is correct? Or do the other neighbours just refer to him as "Chester", or say that they are also unclear as to whether this is a first or last name?

He was friendly enough, but not disposed to idle chatter.

Would giving your name come under the heading of "idle chatter"? Also “not disposed to idle chatter” comes across as something of stock phase. Was he disposed to chatter as long as it wasn’t idle? Maybe there’s a more accurate way to say what you want to say here?


Paul guessed that he was somewhere in his seventies, but would not have been surprised to learn that he was in his relatively fit eighties.

There's something that seems a bit clumsy to me about the wording of "in his relatively fit eighties". I also wonder why "relatively" -- relative to what? I wonder if you need the bit about him being possibly a fit octogenarian anyway. Are you saying that, from his fitness and how he moves, Paul thinks Chester is in his seventies, but from his appearance, he looks like he might be in his eighties?

Now, passing Mr. Chester’s house with his dog, Paul reflected that he had never seen a visitor at Mr. Chester’s house. Had he been married? Was he a widower? Did he have any adult children? Paul wondered about these things out of concern for Mr. Chester’s well-being, but his curiosity quickly dissipated in the daylight of his own problems and challenges. Paul waved half-heartedly, but the old man didn’t seem to see him and hobbled up to his front door, shutting it softly behind him.


I'm wondering if Chester being outside his house needs to be mentioned sooner in this paragraph. In the first sentence maybe. As this is currently structured I imagine Paul seeing only Chester's house. But it turns out he's not just passing Chester's house, he's passing Chester himself, who is in the front yard, or walking up his own pathway.

Additionally, how long does it take him to walk past Chester’s house? Because in that time he wonders about various things, then his curiosity dissipates, then he waves at Chester. That’s a lot happening in what might be 30 seconds at most.

You might reorder this paragraph:

Now, passing Mr. Chester’s house with his dog, he saw the old man in his front yard. Paul waved half-heartedly, but Mr Chester didn’t seem to see him and hobbled up to his front door, shutting it softly behind him. Paul reflected that he had never seen a visitor at Mr. Chester’s house. Had he been married? Was he a widower? Did he have any adult children? Paul wondered about these things out of concern for Mr. Chester’s well-being, but his curiosity quickly dissipated in the daylight of his own problems and challenges.

This way it's clear from the start where Chester is, and Paul he has as much time as he likes to wonder.

Paul spoke the poem aloud, pondering it, as English teachers are inclined to do. Who is my neighbor? None of us really knows his neighbors these days. Few of us live near our immediate families. Who goes to church these days? We aren’t forced to depend on our neighbors as we once were. Our children are born in hospitals; our old people go to assisted living facilities and finally to hospices to die. We hire strangers to perform all the duties that used to be the responsibility of family and friends. Neighbors are just people who accidentally live close to us. Paul thought about the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

While this purports to be about how little we know our neighbours these days, it's actually far more about the decline of the involvement of family and extended family, which seems a little odd.

I'd say it also goes on a bit too long and could be tightened. I don't think you need all these thoughts.

Also, I'd say that our neighbours don't accidentally live next to us. Or at least, to me that sounds strange. Maybe, "Neighbors are just people who just happen to live close to us"

Was the haiku supposed to show the dawning concern of one neighbor for another as winter approached? Was “deep autumn” supposed to be a metaphor for the advanced age of the neighbor? Or is the speaker concerned for himself? With the difficulty of surviving the coming winter, is the speaker curious to find out how the neighbor is planning to provide for himself? Is the neighbor the ant to the speaker, who is the grasshopper? Or is it the other way round? We live shoulder to shoulder, but light years apart. Do good fences make good neighbors? These thoughts, questions, and associations gathered in Paul’s mind as he walked.

Again I think this could be tighter. There are too many questions I think. And you could tighten the wording too. For example, "to show the dawning concern", and "Was “deep autumn” supposed to be a metaphor", “With the difficulty of surviving the coming winter is the speaker curious to find out how the neighbor is planning to provide for himself? “ (the coming winter has already been mentioned, so the context is clear here). I’d consider losing the “good fences” bit as it seems to go against the grain of his wonderings.

I'd also say the last sentence is unnecessary, we know that these are thoughts, questions and associations, and we know that they are in his mind. All that we really learn is that he's walking, which we’ve already been told previously. And listing "thoughts, questions, and associations" seems like overkill. Just "questions" would cover it.

He had never been suspected of ethical wrongdoing.

I’d lose “ethical”. What other sort of wrongdoing might he have been suspected of? If you need a modifier, maybe "financial" is more accurate?

We had deleted some key information that would have incriminated us

“key information” is somewhat of stock phrase. Plus “key” is entirely implied. Info that would have incriminated them is -- in terms of covering their tracks -- absolutely key. Plus, they didn’t delete “some” of it, presumably, but all of it, otherwise they’d have been caught. I’d just go with “deleted the information” or ("any information" or "all information").

best,

Matt