The boy who cried wolf, 2015

[Aperta Verbum]

Don't be crass Martin

I wasn't

It most certainly sounded like you were, now apologise to Mr Bennett!

Sir, I'm sorry I said you were more fruity than a pastille

Yes, well..

More colourful than a rainbow, more gay than the 1920s and more effeminate than Valentines day.

Now that is enough Martin, I’m dreadfully sorry Mr Bennett, he's just too full of himself to know whats best. I do hope you won't think any less of me, we didn't raise him to be homophobic

Madam, I'm not gay.

Oh, but of course not sir, I had never implied that you were, I was just merely pointing out hes not one of them sorts of people.

And you Martin, do you think I'm gay?

It depends sir, you may be straight if you were born a woman inside a man's body.

Martin! For God's sake aren't you in trouble enough.

Don't worry madam, boys will intolerably be boys. Though I’ll have to keep him in detention after school otherwise everybody will think it is permissible behaviour.

Oh, but of course, and I really can't apologise enough. Martin, you stay here with Mr Bennett, I will be back to pick you up after your detention, and that is when the real punishments start, you mark my words.

So then Martin, you seem to have a bit of a fascination with being gay don't you?

No sir

Seems as though you can't get those thoughts out of your head eh? Little pervs like you have the devil in them. A wickedness that needs to be taken away, but fortunately for you Martin I can take the wickedness away.

Of course sir

What

Yes, Sir

Now, you're going to listen and you're going to listen good boy. Whatever you may think you know about me, it doesn't even scratch the surface. Though don't worry, I'm going to instruct you very well, very well indeed. I dare say that once I'm done with you, you really will be homophobic.

Mr Bennett locked the door to his office.


Notes;

The intention behind there being no distinct narrative or descriptive elements was to highlight the idea of storytelling, the use of "speech marks" would've implied direct signification of the words and the characters. In essence there is nothing but the narrative, the story is merely an experiment with presence and absence, by which I mean the definitive ending gives presence to the evil, whereas the truth of the boy is ignored hence absent. Basically I wanted to have some fun writing something more akin to my understanding of Derrida's concepts on dualism and logocentricism.

I don't expect you to have enjoyed it as a story. I'm sorry about that.

[DATo]

I am guessing that the logocentrism you imply is displayed in the fact that the teacher is automatically assumed to be right because of his position of authority relative to the student. But I think it is going over-the-top a bit to associate Derrida's theory of deconstruction to a plot twist. Why not just call it a plot twist? Embellished defenses such as this are a bit like putting nylon stockings on a rooster.

***** SPOILERS *****
I can excuse the lack of punctuation: it's been done before - e e cummings & Cormac McCarthy, and the lack of "descriptive elements", for description would not necessarily add anything of importance to the overall style or setting of the story. What I find harder to excuse is the absence of logic. If the boy is forced to do what the teacher wants in the end we are led to conclude by the student's attitude toward the teacher that physical violence would be required to exact it. If the act is consummated, the boy could easily report to the police rather than to his parents. Evidence of physical abuse and other medical evidence would condemn the teacher. The teacher, we must assume, would already know this and would not violate the boy for fear of discovery, arrest, and, even if vindicated for lack of unassailable evidence, probable loss of position with the school.

EDIT:

All of this having been said, I actually DID enjoy the story. I think a few tweaks might suffice to correct the ending logic.

[Aperta Verbum]

Makes a sexy rooster though,

I appreciate what you are saying, and am glad you took the time to give some feedback.

i think you misunderstood the logocentricism, given this was appropriated from the boy who cried wolf, and even the title emphasises the advancement & importance of speech, the logocentric element was merely a reason not to use speech marks rather than have any discernible influence on the plot (The key motif is that the narration is silent as are many abused people). I'm still playing with concepts because I want to find a method of narratology i enjoy, I'm moving through them, this was a combination of a fairy tale focused on speech and a narrative without actual speech, I'm sure Joyce is rolling in his grave, but each great work comes on the back of many failures.

As for the ending logic, maybe you're a little sheltered? This stuff does happen, in light of the on going investigations into sexual abuse from celebrities its not hard too imagine the boy not coming forwards, and teachers do go on the run a fair amount after abducting or abusing their students. The issue is that you're looking at it logically, the sort of person who engages in this sort of behaviour lets logic go under some delusional desire.

[hounddog905]

To start with, here's a funny coincidence: Back in my school days, I had a classmate who exhibited the same disrespectful, brazen behavior in the way he spoke to teachers. His name was also Martin (we called him Marty). Everyone feared him, including the teachers. I found out years later he did time for assault and battery. I like the story, it's an easy read and the flow is fast paced the way Flash Fiction should be. The dialogue between the three characters is realistic. As for the ending? It leaves us guessing as we don't know exactly what Martin's punishment will be and I can say, unequivocally, I don't want to know.