@James Jay MadisonJames,
I've followed this thread since it posted and thought I'd read your work and try and do what you've asked – offer an honest review. I don't do this often, but in the early part of this century (around 2000-2008) I was a member of Desdmona's Fishtank, which was a site where members would post early drafts of their work (usually just short stories) to get feedback from other writers, so "constructive criticism" is something I have experience of – both giving and receiving.
Further, as a British citizen, I'd like to think I can offer an "outside" view. Yes, I have my views of the political situation in the USA (and over here, but let's not go there) but it's really "none of my business" and I certainly do get as emotional and riled up about it as US citizens would obviously do. Nor do I have any great understanding of the US constitution or legal system beyond TV series and Hollywood movies – so, not much at all really. So I offer no comment on the politics of this piece (or I will try not to) nor on any of the legal aspects.
All that being said, let's get to it. I hope you take my comments in the spirit they are intended.
I finished reading the story on Wednesday, but I've been thinking about how to respond to your request for a few days.
Let's start with your, well, "plea" for want of a better word, to put the setting aside and concentrate on the plot and characters. On the "craft" of the story, if you like. The problem with this is that the setting *is* the story – you can't separate out the plot and characters from the setting because, given where Anderson and el-Azizi are at the start of the story, I don't believe they would ever have even *met*, let alone fallen in love, were not they forced together in this way.
So let's discuss that setting. I'm afraid it strikes me as a deliberate attempt to rub people up the wrong way. That may not be your intent, but it's how it comes across to me. As I said, as an outsider I'm trying to put any political opinions I have on the state of your country out of my mind and approach it as if it were a completely "fictional" time and place. But that's incredibly difficult – hell, it's near impossible. You say in your original post here that you didn't mention any "current" politicians, but you didn't need to. When a character speaks about "President Senility" it's quite clear who they mean. Also, very interesting that you say "current" because the characters here sure don't hold back from naming former politicians – one female one in particular – or hold back their disdain for them. You also say that you don't mention any political parties but, again, you don't need to name them directly, it quite clear who you meant.
And that's why I think the whole thing is just an attempt to rile people up for shits and giggles. I might be wrong, but that's how it appears to me. I also think your reactions to the comments people have made don't help, but I'll discuss that at the end of this post and explain why.
In my honest opinion, the problem is that it's set "too close" into the near future. It would have been better, I would suggest, to set this after, say, the 2044 or even 2064 elections. This "separation" of time works much better for these dystopian tales. "The Handmaid's Tale" for example, was written in 1985, but set around 2005 (it's believed – it's never actually stated), so that's twenty years into "the future". The best example, of course, is 1984, which was written in '49 – a thirty-six year "leap" into the future.
For an example from Stories Online, Irish Writer's "Classy Conversions" was written in 2011 but set in a *very* dystopian 2100+ (again, I don't think the actual year is specified but we do get a potted history at the start that mentions 2060, 2070 & 2100).
If you haven't read "Classy Conversions" by the way, then give it a go. Very good example of how to do thought provoking dystopian fiction.
Okay, enough on the setting, let's move on.
You ask if this is a believable love story. I find that a difficult question to answer. El Azizi does mention "Stockholm Syndrome", I believe, but only to deny that's what is happening. But, of course, she would deny it. To me, it's clear that's what's going on. So, from that point of view, yes, it's believable. But…
But, I simply cannot buy the speed with which el-Azizi's views not just change but flip completely one-eighty. She changes her entire, life-long held, political outlook after what? Watching a few war movies? Or is that flip in her view also part of the Stockholm Syndrome? I suppose it could be. I don't know.
What I do find believable is her zeal after her "re-education". There's none so zealous as the convert, after all.
But for me, where this story falls short as a love story is that we don't get to see enough intimacy between Anderson & El Azizi. You say they are both flawed and suffer from loss via a shared event, but this is hardly mentioned at all. It's briefly discussed, but not nearly enough to give me, as a reader, any sense at all that this has bought them together. Instead, I think far too much time is spent discussing the re-education experiment. If this is genuinely supposed to be a love story, I'd have wanted to see far more of the time they sent alone discussing their lives and their past, and far less of what was going on in the camp. If this is a love story, then what is happening in the camp is secondary, by some distance, to what is happening between our protagonists. That's my personal preference.
I'll give you an example. Chapter 20 opens with this line…
"That night, el-Azizi held Anderson tightly as he finally let some of his emotions loose that he'd kept buried, comforting him as he cried because he was again feeling the mental effects of his memories from service in Iraq. The final words before they both fell asleep between them were to tell each other they loved the other."
…and that's all we get. The next sentence, it's next morning and we're in the training ground again. There's another quick conversation where Anderson says that el-Azizi is joining his deceased wife in his heart not replacing her but… That little paragraph above – that's a whole chapter. Or should be. That's your chance, as an author, to *show* us how she realises he's more emotional than she's ever seen him. To *show* us his emotion. To *show* us her comforting him, the whispered reassurances and tender expressions of love. It's scenes like this that the story should have focused on.
You asked if you should have supplied a picture of the camp. No, I don't care about the *exact* layout of the camp. It's irrelevant. In my next release, I 've spent a few hundred words describing a particular building. But the picture I paint will be different in someone else's mind after reading it than it is in mine as I write it, and that's fine. It doesn't matter. It's no more important to the *story* than the layout of this camp is. The bulk of that chapter where I describe the building is about the way two characters flirt and get closer until something snaps. Then the whole of the next chapter is a sit-down discussion between them where they talk about their feelings and their fears. That's what's really missing from your story – the long, emotional discussions between two characters where something between them changes and brings them closer together. There are snatches of it, brief glimpses. The time they spend in the shower together, for example, could be expanded on greatly and give a real insight into their feelings and how they change, but they don't really do that. All too often these brief character and relationship moments are rushed or glossed over in favour of more discussion of the experiment and camp life.
I finished "Against All Enemies" feeling like I didn't really know any of the characters I'd read about and, probably worse, didn't care about them at all. I didn't like them. I didn't dislike them. I just didn't care. And that's because, for me, far too much time was spent on the setting and the situation, and not enough time on the characters and their feelings and relationships.
Now, that's just my opinion. I didn't take away from this story what I want to take away from a story. Others may well have enjoyed this and felt satisfied by the end.
Finally, I said above that I thought that some of your reactions to the comments both here and on the story, fed into my belief that the story was written and posted to rile people up. Let me try and explain why I get that impression. Your reactions come across, to me, as quite angry and aggressive. Now, there's always danger in trying to fit emotions to postings in a forum like this, but we are all human and all apply a "tone" to what we read. The "tone" of some of your replies is that of someone who has asked for criticism, but doesn't like it when they get it. The tone of someone who knows they are "right" and doesn't want to be challenged. That's just my impression. I have no idea how you felt when you wrote those replies, but I know how it made me feel when I read them. They are the kind of antagonistic replies we see so often on various social media platforms. I won't give specific examples, although there are many, but I urge you to reread some of your replies and think about how you'd feel had they been replies to *you*.
As writers we have to develop *very* thick skins. Not everyone is going to like what you write. Lots of people will find fault in your characters, your plots, your style and your craft. But you have to take that on the chin and not overreact. You have to keep a civil tongue in your head and not "feed the troll" by reacting they way they want. It's part of being a writer, I afraid. You take the rough with the smooth, the good with the bad. Thank you for writing this story and sharing it with us. M
