Right Place, Wrong Time

This story starts as most do. There will be a brief introduction of sorts of either the character, setting or both. The character is Joe and the setting is a backyard. What normally follows (in most examples of literature) is some description of the either or both aforementioned components of the story. Joe is a man anywhere between the ages of 20 and 30. It may seems like a rather large range (and it is) but that is neither here nor there. Or for that many anywhere. Factual information does not occupy space, it is an abstraction. And once again, that is neither here nor there or anywhere. But I digress. The setting is a backyard, (in midday in June, in a rather plain suburban neighborhood, in a rather plain part of middle America). In which is a pole and a rope, the latter being attached (tightly) to both Joe and the former, the pole. In more pretentious forms of fiction (I.e. poems or anything written by Mr. F. Scott Fitzgerald), there would often be a long, flowing description of the two, possibly even a metaphor or simile to illustrate the "intrinsic" beauty of it all. However, there is no beauty and this story is far too short, especially considering the amounts of tangents that will no doubt be stuffed into this piece of metafiction.

After the set up of a scenario, event usually takes place, which leads the reader in the direction of a general plot. This can be accomplished in a number of ways. The easiest being the introduction of another character for Joe to interact with. Event is driven by the presence of action, and action is driven (often) by interaction. Simple. Sometimes before action takes place, however, there is a certain amount of expository. In the effort of artistic license, this expository will be shamelessly withheld for the compelling effect of anachronistic plot lines. In any case, Joe is alone. Event will not be spurred by interaction with another character in this particular plot line and story. The reason being a simple decision made arbitrarily by the author. So, with a lack of companionship, Joe begins milling around, trying to undo the knots, which are binding him. He draws closer and closer to finally releasing himself from his prison, he's been there quite a while. (finally some relevant text). When he finishes, he looks into the house. He hesitates. The house is actually fairly pleasant looking. To most, it would seem to be an inviting house. Nevertheless, he turns, jumps over the fence at the boundary of the backyard, sprints off, beyond the constructed setting, and thus, out of the scene and focus. An appropriate interval for expository.

How much expository can be a point of contention for an author. How much does the reader need to know exactly? For most stories, readers only need a tiny fraction of what authors give them. To understand the progression from beginning, middle, and end, readers need very little. Unnecessary "stuff" like character development is just a means of complicating and convoluting storylines. What's important isn't that Joe's wife recently had an affair (that Joe recently found out about) which, quite possibly, may have caused a conflict utterly irreconcilable through any amounts of therapy. Or that because of this, Joe has spent many nights at local gay bar contemplating his own sexuality, no. What's important is to know A.) how he got to the backyard with the pole and the rope, B.) how he wound up tied to the aforementioned (a word that has been aforementioned) pole and aforementioned rope, and C.) how these particular set of circumstances affect the entire plot, which has yet to be even slightly presented to be remotely understandable.

Let's simply go down the list:

A.) Joe managed to find himself in the backyard, not of his own doing. As I'm sure the intuitive readers have managed to deduce, it is not likely that Joe tied himself to a pole in a backyard that is likely not his own. As this seems to be true, it is probable that he was placed there against his will. Against his will because once he managed to free himself, he ran away. All of this is simply stating the obvious. Readers want more; readers need more.

Joe's day started as they tend to, he woke up. How, what time, who he was with, where, is pointless, so don't even think about it. (too late huh?). He woke up and decided that he wanted coffee. Upon discovering that his usual supplies have been depleted, he exits his assumed place of residence and starts in what appears to be the direction of a nearby coffeehouse in what seems like an effort to procure his biochemical caffeine needs. The coffeehouse "appears to be" his destination rather than "is" because he never arrives. One can only assume. (a greater psychic distance has been taken for the purpose of making the plot more compelling, recall before the omniscient information regarding Joe's wife, suddenly that same ability to provide information is lost). Recall after that long-winded statement the sentence before the sentence before the parenthetical phrase. (physically go back if necessary) this is where the semblance of a plot not only rears itself but also begins to "thicken".

Authors across the world like use that term as a means of foreshadowing compelling events later on in the plot. In this story, it's closer to a last resort to force whatever brave, bold reader to continue down this path of literary insanity. But I digress. Continuing his stroll of sorts, Joe rounds a corner, crosses a street, and pauses at a stoplight, pondering the previous nights events and antics, all of which, while fascinating and very risqué completely irrelevant. It stems from the earlier comment made about his wife about the earlier comment made about his wife. This a nice literary device that allows readers to make the necessary connections to understand stories whose storylines are a bit convoluted. But none of that is necessary for this piece; the storyline is actually rather simple and immensely easy to read.

As time elapses and red turns to green and the red hand turns to a white figure in motion, Joe begins to cross the street when a plot-altering event takes place. (more unnecessary foreshadowing). A man dressed rather heavily for a day as nice as it was (and it was, though I've failed to mention) bumps into Joe. "Bumps" isn't a very good word to describe exactly how hard the contact between the two men actually was. This is an ongoing struggle for most authors: finding the exact word to convey the exact idea. The word "bump" connotes several things that just aren't true. The contact was very much intended and the ensuing event is quite a bit more serious than the word "bump" could really ever express. Their running into one another was more along the lines of "bumped with a hint of forceful ramming". That works far better. As time elapses and red turns to green and all that script which I won't repeat, a man dressed rather heavily for a day as nice as it was (and I'm telling you, it was a very pleasant day) bumped with a hint of forceful ramming into Joe. Both the man and Joe continued on their respective ways until Joe decided to check his back pocket. Joe turns around and yells for the man, who then proceeds to run down the street, but not very quickly considering all the clothing he has on his person. (for those lagging in the story progression processes of the brain, Joe was pick pocketed by the "suspicious" man. I say "suspicious" only because that's the conclusion you should've arrived at when I introduced the character).

In his flight from a now rather angry Joe, the man rounds a corner, crosses a street, runs by Joe's assumed place of residence (the reader can only assume because the author hasn't told the reader that it is indeed where he lives. This has been done because it might be a point of focus or importance later on in the story or just a way for the author to trick the reader at the end of the story, or even just tempt the reader with both of these thoughts only for it to become lost layers of story. In any case, the reader doesn't know for sure) and into an alley with a dead end. A lack of planning and a poor knowledge of the local streets put this petty criminal in a position to have the tables turned on him. As one may notice, the psychic distance has been changed once more, but there is a purpose, it wasn't arbitrary. The point was to illustrate the foolishness of the criminal. In other words, he's not particularly intelligent (otherwise the scenario would not have turned out the way it has). But this fact is pointless to point out (yes, the repetition was put there on purpose, now move on) considering the very short amount of time the criminal still has to live. (One supposes that could also be considered a form of foreshadowing, albeit a very blunt form).

Just as Joe is bearing down upon the man, who at this point should really have a name. The reader has gotten to know something about this character and in most stories, conventional or unconventional, or conventional unconventional; this is where a name is paired with the character. Although in those stories, there's some amount of either expository or some clever dialogue that allows the reader to know a character's name. But all of that is pointless. The assigned name to the thief will be Thief. His real name will never be known (at least in the context of this story) because expository is unnecessary for a character with such a short timeline and because there has been (and will continue to be) a lack of clever dialogue. But I digress.

Before Joe can wrangle Thief, a large black van rolls up to the alley and a number of rather burley and muscular individuals wearing inconspicuously dark clothing (but on a day as nice as it was, the dark clothing was more conspicuous than anything) grabbed the two and threw them into the van. This is another plot-altering event, though not prefaced like its less substantial counterpart. Perhaps which makes it more dramatic and perhaps which makes its counterpart more less substantial. A bag is thrown over both Joe's and Thief's head. An interrogation of sorts ensues, but because of the difficulty and intricacy of dialogue grammar, the substance of the rather one-sided conversation can be illustrated in a much more efficient manner:

The conversation takes up the entire time it takes them to arrive at their destination. It may or may not have, but it's convenient for the author to dictate that it has. In the real world, it would be nearly impossible for such a synchronicity to take place, but this isn't the real world. It is a rendering of a string events all casually related, presented in a way that offers some believable value for those that exist in this "real world" many speak of. But I digress.

Still blinded by the bags, which are really more like sacks. Bags are usually considered rather flimsy and poorly made. What are on their heads are more long the lines of sacks. Dark sacks, which prevent you to see. With the sacks still on their heads, they step out of the van and back into the nice weather in an area that seems actually rather pleasant. Despite the lack of sight, Joe and Thief perceive this place (even through their terrified states) to be if anything, a nice suburban community. (It's impossible to tell really, but it was about time to get to how everything adds up).

The two are roughly separated from one another as they enter the door of the rather pleasant house in a suburban community on a rather pleasant midday in June, in a rather pleasant part of middle America. (the author's sentiment must have changed from the first page). Thief is taken into a room where he is shot in the head, his body dumped on a pile of other debtors waiting to be tossed in a local landfill, Joe's wallet to follow suit. Thief is finally dead as foreshadowed.

Joe, however, and as the reader already knows, is taken into the backyard where the sack is removed. There is a pole and a rope connected to it. This ends the entire part A.), explanation of how Joe got into the setting that was introduced in the first paragraph.

B.) The man (not the same one, but a different though equally as unimportant) who has ushered Joe through the house ties him to the rope, which effectively ties him to the pole. This ends the entire part B.), the explanation of Joe became tied to the pole in the backyard.

C.) This is the part where the author ends the story and the reader finally understands the whole plot line and may even open their mouths and utter an "OHHH" when they finish and refer back to the title. At this point in the story, Joe has escaped and hopped over the fence. It is finally time to change scene and follow Joe. After climbing the fence, Joe finds himself in another backyard wherein he's forced to climb through a number of backyards before he finds himself on a street. He walks along the street until he realizes that he knows exactly where he is. He rounds a corner, crosses a street, and finds himself exactly where he wants to be: the police station. (somewhere along the way, his priority had shifted from desiring caffeine, to desiring justice). Giddy and excited about taking down an organized crime syndicate, Joe runs across the street to the "right place". However, running into a spot of bad timing, Joe fails to realize that running across the street on a busy midday in June is not wise nor safe and is struck by an oncoming vehicle and killed nearly instantly.

This is normally where a story ends, the protagonist is dead and the plot has grinded to a halt. It is unlikely to see any more casually related events concerning the parties that were involved (the two important ones are now dead). But the section that explains "how these particular set of circumstances affect the entire plot which has yet to be even slightly presented to be remotely understandable." has not been finished. The scenario of the pole and rope in the backyard ultimately caused Joe's death and end of plot and story. Now this section is finished. With the end of the section brings the end of the story as there is nothing else that needs explaining or outlining.

In summation, Joe's death was a result of being (ending the story with the title is always a nice touch) at the right place, but at the wrong time.