March 5th, 2018 - Seeing Ershadi

Dear TNY,

I just finished up “Seeing Ershadi” and figured I’d drop you some thoughts.  

While this story is well-written from a grammatical standpoint, and it may accomplish what the author desired, I believe that what the author desired is shortsighted.  I’m going to unpack the previous statement in chunks to elaborate.

Grammatical standpoint:  I did not question what happened and the sentences were clear and not disorienting.  Props.  I do have major concern with the vast majority of this story being in summary, though.  There doesn’t seem to be any break from the monotony of rote narration, which considering how boring this is (more on that later), it seems like, TNY, that you have endless patience, which I’m guessing is brought about by this author’s previous publications and notoriety and not the work itself.  It’s more of a, “Fuck it, we need to put something in this week and we know [insert anyone that has a name that will sell copy].”

Accomplishment:  I’m semi-sure this author is attempting to generate the same feeling, or explore a new facet of said feeling, that Taste of Cherry provided him or her upon watching.  That feeling, as one who has not watched this film (and absolutely does not plan on it after reading this story) is one of slow-build, arthouse imagery that creates yards of room for assuming there is meaning behind subtlety and/or blank space (see: all movie references; see:  Japanese imagery; see: ballet; see: sexual violence; etc).  I'll summarize a version of this story below:

Look now!  A crow flyeth east!

(...................................................................................................................silence………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….)

Mortality!  (and bow)

I believe this accomplishment was possible for three reasons.  1) This story leans heavily on the film to build itself thematically, including by using the very same imagery that another artist used, that being the director of the film.  2)  This story was published in The New Yorker, leveraging its reputation for printing “art” that can be mistaken for art.  3)  The movie selected as a crutch for this story is a fucking arthouse wonder itself which brings it's heft to this story, see reason number one if in doubt.

Shortsighted:  I’m reminded by the phrase that if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s probably a duck.  “Probably” is key here.  Just because this leans on someone else’s art and is published where art is (sometimes) published and itself has the same look and feel of the art it leans on, that does not make it art.  And that’s what is shortsighted about this.  It feels like the author had bookends for this piece before he or she set out, and in that way it could never reach full potential.  It’s more of a movie critique than a short story.  Or fanfic inspired by a movie.  And I would have thought you, as a publisher, would see that.  It’s not doing anything new and neither are you by publishing it.  In the words of Roger Ebert (in his review of Taste of Cherry):  

“A case can be made for the movie, but it would involve transforming the experience of viewing the film (which is excruciatingly boring) into something more interesting, a fable about life and death.”

The one difference here is that this excruciatingly boring story cannot even create the fable of life and death that is needed because it's already stolen from the movie the story is so heavily tied to, leaving this reader feeling robbed of creative discovery, dejected by said robbery, and sad.  And that sadness is not about life and death, but about the state of your fiction.

In closing, I submit to you, TNY, your own fucking article.  Pay heavy attention to the drooping herein, as “Seeing Ershadi” has also drooped.

Yours in the noble effort,

Nick