Discontinuance - A Fugue in Two Parts

[Removed for editing]

That was slightly confusing. I hope it gets easier to read in the next part.
Your imagery and description are beautiful in the piece. And, normally, i would go on about emotion, but the lack of emotion actually worked here, which is rare, but pretty awesome.
you must post the next part, and write on my wall when you do
~WickedWonder

Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment! However, I hate to break it to you, but "parts" means a different thing in music than it does usually. In parts means when one instrument plays a line of a piece and another instrument plays something different (but they are harmonious together). Sorry for the confusion!

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Part_(music)

If you like, I'll gladly send you a message explaining the events Ina straightforward manner.

Hello there
This is quite good. It's well written, crafty, intelligent, thought provoking and enlightening. Thanks to you I know what a "fugue" is. Anyways, I think that you have a great way with words because your descriptions were just quite immaculate, and the words flowed perfectly sentence after sentence. There were no bumps in between like spelling errors. I loved the story behind everything also, although I was quite confused the first time I read everything, I managed to understand your intentions after reading the spoiler.
Good job.

Hey sarg -

I'm sure I've seen you do this before, no? The tongue-in-cheek strict para-word-counts for the fun of it? Honestly, I don't know how bored you have to be to do this, but at least here it serves some purpose, motif-wise, so I'll give you that.

I think - I hope - that this piece can be well-understood, or, at least, appreciated without too much knowledge of a fugue (and you know I am hopeless at music theory and terms...)...for your sake. Since it would be nice to get the story, the guts of the story, the drive of it, without necessarily needing to comprehend your symbolic machinations so clearly. Yeah, I read the spoiler. Sorry I can't give you hypotheses. But keep doing this, if it helps you write - keep the underlying humour, since I know you love that too.

At twenty-one, I lost all my self-esteem. I thought I found it again by writing essays for applications to medical school, law school, the Peace Corps, Teach for America, and the like. Nineteen essays later, I was rejected by every single one—and I realized I never wanted them, anyway.

Didn't like the starkness of the first line - it captures the reader, but very matter-of-factly. I mean, fine, don't wallow in self-pity or anything, but I think you are intellectualising the emotion, somewhat. Imagine saying this in conversation in the same tone I read it - down-to-earth, almost neutral. He doesn't seem to care, particularly. He's got a story to tell behind it, and we can see that, and he just wants to get the crap out the way so he can get to the main material. The rest of the para is fine; leaning on the heartless side, but very driven.

You fidgeted in the passenger seat as he eased the car into the driveway. The headlights illuminated a welcome sign with cartoon frogs. You hoped he didn’t notice this, thinking it would remind him of the difference in your ages. Your stomach ached, like you’d been punched. The butterflies felt too large for your chest as if they would tumble from your mouth. You tugged on the seat belt like it was too tight, squeezing the hesitation out of you. You unbuckled it. He looked at you and turned off the engine, leaving behind the hum of the static radio.

It does amuse me that you've been so sharp-witted in the first para, and now you have - oh, 100 words, I see - devoted to drawing out the image of her 'fidgeting'. Everything in here is fidgety drama - 'hoped he didn't notice this,' 'stomach ached,' 'butterflies felt too large,' 'tugged on the seatbelt,' 'unbuckled it.' Was this on purpose? To make the man seem more to-the-point and to make the woman, who dwells on the single emotion, seem much more superfluous in the intellectual sense, but engaging emotionally? Because that's exactly what you've done.

On a personal note, I have no issues with a character switch as obvious as this, where 'you' signals it. So...is there another way to bring out her voice than resorting to italics? Asterisk breaks? (I don't like the childishness of italics...)

After that night, I fell in love with every woman I met. Just a little bit. I rehearsed smiles and gestures. I put on a show for waitresses, hairdressers, cashiers, and attendants. I believed they loved me. Just a little bit—I could never stand for either of us to love the other any more.

Beautiful. Good to see the MC soften.

Your body swelled with anticipation. Your feet felt so far away. You tried to find your hands in the darkness. You wondered if he was trying to find your hands in the darkness. Was the rushing blood in your ears audible? You wanted him to say he loved you. You didn’t want him to say he loved you. It would make you feel terrible. Unable to get out of bed in the morning. Unable to change your underwear. Unable to feed the cat. You turned your eyes to him and found him still watching you. He unbuckled his seat belt. You grabbed his hand. Touched his face. You kissed him.

The first part of this was predictable, and that bored me. It got amusing and interesting after 'Unable'. Everything else I felt like I'd seen before, heard before.

That night, I was face-down on the carpet, phone in hand, and devoid of pretty petty imagery. I called repeatedly. I left messages about the weather, my favorite words, and what I needed from the grocery store. Partly cloudy. Denouement. Cucumbers.

I want to yell at you to write something humorous all the way. Even in the blackest of moments in this, you've managed to throw in something hilarious - 'I left messages about the weather, my favorite words, and what I needed from the grocery store. Partly cloudy. Denouement. Cucumbers.' That didn't make me laugh as much as it might have in another, less serious story, though. But it eased up the tension wonderfully -- you're become quite good at this balancing act, clearly, of sharp seriousness interspersed with moments of comedy. Very Shakespearean.

And the crossed out word annoyed me. Too juvenile. I don't care for whatever tongue-in-cheek double meaning you were going for - it doesn't interest me. You can do better than that.

The butterflies spilled into his mouth as if you were sharing a wordless, fragile secret. Your clumsy hands cupped his jaw, trying to keep telltale tidbits from escaping. Tears welled in your eyes. His fingers tugged at the zipper of your dress, unveiling hesitation. You shuddered with tiny earthquakes each time the zipper caught at a fold. Your mind reeled. You thought about anything. The static song. Your dress. Me. But you didn’t think about him because you are him.

I think it's a sex scene issue. It's hard to do without being cliché; and you're being cliché. And you know as well as I do that that's sort of boring. Whatever excitement factor gets shrouded by that glaring fact. Where it got better was in the lines, 'The static song. Your dress. Me.' Where it was excellent was: 'But you didn't think about him because you are him.' That left me reeling - very You-Are-Jeffy.

The ending is fine. Not terribly exciting, but it does the job.

I'm impressed but not in love with this. It's not a story you can like easily, and that may partly be due to the emotion and intellect surfacing so clinically. Nothing to do with your draconian word counts at all - just a general cleanness to the writing style. I guess I want a bit more mess (of course, this throws your word counts out the window; can I suggest anything to you at all without ruining that?!), a bit more substance. More pizzazz. I want to see you go wild and glorious with your writing; it feels too much like there is something purposefully held back, stunted, pruned to the core.

Yeah. It's hard to like a skeleton; clean-boned, sharp-angled, refined beyond belief. I want meat. Exposition, rather than imagery, is where you could expand.

Regardless, thanks for the read. And I am still awaiting your humorous piece, so.


Navita

Navita: noted.
As way of explanation, I'll say a couple things. In the first draft, the italicized portions had no punctuation at all. It was a headlong trip further and further into holycrapwhatamidoingi'mdoingthis. And I liked the italics not simply as a device but because of the way it leans into the wind with each letter falling on the next like dominoes. However, I added punctuation for reading's sake.
As for the pretty petty, it wasn't so much the double meaning as it was the idea that it used to be pretty or at the time of that night it was pretty, but by now has become petty. So not so much a double meaning as a change of mind.
The rest, thanks for the perspective and thoughts! Of course changes can be suggested. I am the master of said rules