Hunter

I did it like whatever.

these are just like filler things that you could tell the person just like, maybe just didn't care about as much.

And they're just like, get me to that part that I want to do, or you're building backwards.

You know, you set it up and you build backwards and then forward.

You're kind of just building the entire story around this thing, which is the fun point.

But you know, like you're saying that doesn't discredit the short stories.

Cause it's the same thing of like,

critiquing a short film the same way that you would critique a feature-length film they're just two different things you know like that's they're objectively different even though they're still telling stories they're just fundamentally doing a different thing they have a different purpose um

But I just think that's kind of just kind of interesting because it's just you really get nothing out of these characters.

There's really no kind of arc.

It's just a fun, spooky, like rip off the bandaid kind of thing.

And I feel like we get these a lot, but I don't know why it just kind of it kind of hit me where it's like.

I wonder, like, it's nice as a palate cleanser, but I do wonder if there's something where it's like, is there something more to the story?

How ambiguous can you be through these stories versus just focusing solely on character?

Like, you can't just go through a whole story and not...

give away the creature right am i wrong i guess that's kind of one more have you ever read a story where it's like the it's like a feat it's like a uh i want to say feature length because i'm thinking of film but i guess i mean like like a a full narrative book where you just don't even see the thing like it's just kind of ambiguous in the shadows the whistlers the whistlers

I guess that's true.

I guess that's true.

I don't know if you felt the same.

Whenever they said that it was large and wide, it made me think of the moth from that story where the guy has sex with like the giant moth mother.