ORDINARY WARRIORS 'holds promise' but fails the 'What of it?' Test

Bonjour, Monsieur/Mlle Denny:

Thank you for your recent submission to TQR, our e-zine of the blurry edges.

Your piece, Ordinary Warriors, holds promise within and it's obvious to me that you know your characters well.

Two troubles, Hennie Denny, that cause me now to tell you that I cannot recommend Ordinary Warriors for further shazexamination by my meat shredding colleagues in the Terminal at this time, despite its considerable attributes:

1. Telling the story seems important to everyone involved, yet I cannot see why the reader would also passionately agree that the story of how two warriors met is important enough to merit said story taking up the entire plot of the cap. The small ones...the grandchildren of the dying one...appear eager to hear of it, as though some rite of passage will occur through the telling. But what? Asks the reader. What?

2. Although the descriptions are crafted well enough so that I am with you in that cage, splattered with the blood and the slices of skin, and EVEN titillated by the subtleties of this monster love on public display, again, I ask at the end, as the reader: what of it?

Perhaps on re-reading Ordinary Warriors you will catch a whisper of what it is I refer to....or perhaps not. It may be that I've missed the metaphor, stumbled past the obvious message you intended. It may be also that your piece will find a welcome place at the hearth of some other kind of publication. For now, Ordinary Warriors does not touch the Monkey. You know by now that he is an elusive one.

Merci, and we will hear from you again, Hennie Penny. I have a feeling that you have plenty pages in your chest of words.

All the best,

Gabrielle DePlancher The Depthless Floor TQR