The Storm

Reaction paper for “The Storm”. Erm, no comment!

A Bug Called Question

Questioning yourself is the primary force that makes a reader go on reading a specific material. In the case of Malmar’s The Storm, I was motivated to read and finish it excitedly due to a lot of questions bugging me since Janet realized that Ben is not home yet. These questions that readers ask, I believe, are the basic foundations of a story being a suspenseful one. It is innate for humans to strive answering unanswered questions, most especially, when the story pushes the reader to investigate. Furthermore, these questions are integrated with the story’s plot development—the author forces the readers to ask questions and guide them through the story’s progression.

Basically, there are many conflicts presented in the story. But I felt that Janet is always present in all of these conflicts. We have Janet versus herself (her struggle to keep calm), Janet versus “the man” (her senses being bugged by a “silhouette” or a shadow of man and his sound of footsteps), Janet versus the storm itself (her senses bugged by storm’s “activities” that contributed to her feeling of fright), Janet versus the “mysterious” letters (her curiosity about the letters that Ben wouldn’t discuss with her), Janet versus Ben (her surprise of seeing the same ring on Ben’s finger found on the dead woman on the cellar) and Janet versus the “woman” (her struggle of finding out WHO is that woman). Although they may stand as different conflicts, I could see a main conflict, which I think is Janet versus the “woman” in the cellar. I said so because I felt that the conflicts presented before or after this main conflict were made to thrill Janet (and/or the reader too!) and maybe apparently, vis-à-vis other conflicts, provide Janet with a resolution. This conflict was presented when Janet saw a “curled-up” woman inside the cellar. It may be basically stated as three questions: “Who is that woman?”, “Why is the woman there?” and “Who killed the woman?” The resolution would answer to these three questions. But I felt that the story, strictly adhering to the standard of making assertions by looking for textual evidences, lack direct answers to these questions. Nevertheless, there was indeed an indirect resolution. This is when Janet saw the same ring found on the dead woman on Ben’s finger. She was surprised and ran away from him. It was not stated what she thought upon seeing the ring. But I think it is safe to assume that Janet already established the link between Ben and the dead woman i.e. Ben could be the one who did the crime.

The suspense in the story was created and built through the presentation of different mysterious “artifacts” or hints. These include the fact that Ben is not home (which is unusual), the presence of a mysterious man outside the house, the letters addressed to Ben unknown to Janet and the presence of the dead woman inside the cellar. On the other hand, the story employed surprised when Ben is worn the same ring found on the dead woman. I felt that it is a surprise element because there was no logic about it i.e. the connection between the dead woman and Ben was not established. Moreover, the story depended on coincidence from the start to finish since it established a suspenseful ending. The reader is already expecting something out of the artifacts that were presented in the story.

About the linear spectrum of being escape and being coincidence, I felt that the story leans more on the interpretive side. It leaned more on this side because it showed real human experiences, furthermore, there was logic behind the artifacts laid in the story although it was not stated i.e. no textual evidence. Lastly, because it is an interpretive fiction, it showed a suspenseful ending.

Honestly, I really liked the story especially the imagery that was used. I think that this is the most effective tool used in making the story because it added to the feeling of suspense and also fright to the reader. This is also related to the efficiency of the laying down the artifacts or hints in the story. This is due to the fact that the author was able to lay down these artifacts pretty naturally. I mean, those artifacts seem to be naturally existing rather than placed for granted. On the other hand, I felt that least effective tool used in the story is the use of logic. I know that the author may have done it on purpose but I think to provide a clear resolution, the logic between the hints or artifacts and the resolution should be presented. Moreover, the lack of proper closures on the end part is also not that effective for catering to the readers’ desire to answer their questions. With these weaknesses, I propose that the story could have a more cohesive development when there are proper logical explanations between the hints themselves and the hints and the resolution (although the resolution is also weak).

Despite these weaknesses, I still see the story as a good one. It lived up to the sense of being a story with a suspenseful ending. It presented the hints or the artifacts so that there would be some expectations built on the minds of the readers. I also liked the way that the author employed a surprise element too. But those elements, although different in nature, still contributed to the building of a suspenseful ending. Lastly, I also liked the way that the author left a feel of suspense to the readers even after reading the whole story—building their own logical explanations between the hints presented.

This work by Alfred Miguel M. Aguado is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.