Prof. Jessica Penner | OL02 | Spring 2021

Christopher Toxqui, Coates’ Critique

The reading was different from the other readings so far. At first I was struggling to understand what was going on because there wasn’t much context. But after reading it a couple of more times I started to understand. For example in the story it states ” Maynard who held my chain. Maynard, my brother who was made my master”. When I read this I understood that he was a slave and that his brother was his master. Something I liked would be how descriptive the story got later on. For example, when his brother Maynard fell from the bridge it was descriptive and I was able to imagine what was going on. One question I would have, would be why didn’t he help his brother out?

4 Comments

  1. Jeffrey

    The description definitely adds to the story in some situations, such as when the main character totally goes off track. If they adjusted the story beforehand a bit, it’d probably flow together better for the reader, and it’d be less confusing.

  2. DeAndre Badresingh

    I agree due to the lack of context in the earlier portions of the story it was a bit difficult getting the full understanding at first.

  3. JoharM

    I agree with how descriptive the story was especially during the drowning itself.

  4. Joselin

    I agree, towards the last pages the author began to describe in detail since the beginning was mostly the confusing part of the story.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *