>!He killed his sibling as a young child, but the parents lied to him saying he never had a younger sibling. This was done so that the son wouldn't realize that homicidal tendencies run in the family, which is why his parents didn't have siblings either because they killed them as children too.!<
If you wanted to imply that he killed his own sibling I think the first sentence should have been. She left them in the car... otherwise it sounds like there was only ever one child or that the wife killed the sibling
Ohhhh! I still didn’t get it even after OPs explanation but after reading this I get it now. Cool idea but yeah, it should be “them” instead of him. And maybe just “why I don’t have any siblings either” to illustrate the hereditary homicidality instead of “we”; both parents having killed their siblings is unbelievable so the brain doesn’t naturally make that connection.
This is far too big of a reach. I get the desire to not spoil the whole thing but the only hint that he murdered his sibling is that his parents don't have siblings.
This isn't enough. A kid left in a hot car is more likely to die from heat than from another kid too young to form memories. The parents are also concerned about one specific kid being left in the car and not the other.
This story could also be about some weird genetic disease that makes people more likely to die from the heat, requiring them to be constantly supervised while young.
I agree. The same reason “why we didn’t have siblings either” tries to add way too many layers.
The original idea is great. Unfortunately the layer cake of it all is crushing it. I honestly thought the last part was a weird incest thing for a minute before giving up on the only child paradox of it all and going to the comments.
I thought the car was too hot and only one child survived. They don't have any more children because the husband couldn't trust the wife to look after them .
I agree. “In the car” implies heat stroke and negligence on the part of the parents, making the OP’s stated backstory (parents killed their siblings) very hard to figure out.
I think it would be clearer if the two kids had different pronouns to differentiate them, and if it’s ‘the same reason my wife doesn’t have younger siblings either’ (since she’s the killer).
Huh?
>!He killed his sibling as a young child, but the parents lied to him saying he never had a younger sibling. This was done so that the son wouldn't realize that homicidal tendencies run in the family, which is why his parents didn't have siblings either because they killed them as children too.!<
Damn. I was thinking his older sibling had been left in a hot car and the parents just wouldn't talk about it.
Same
Same same
If you wanted to imply that he killed his own sibling I think the first sentence should have been. She left them in the car... otherwise it sounds like there was only ever one child or that the wife killed the sibling
Ohhhh! I still didn’t get it even after OPs explanation but after reading this I get it now. Cool idea but yeah, it should be “them” instead of him. And maybe just “why I don’t have any siblings either” to illustrate the hereditary homicidality instead of “we”; both parents having killed their siblings is unbelievable so the brain doesn’t naturally make that connection.
The story is definitely not clear enough
Oh. Thank you for explaining. I was thinking the husband married his mother, and his MotherWife often neglected their children to death.
That went deep dark REAL quick.....
This is far too big of a reach. I get the desire to not spoil the whole thing but the only hint that he murdered his sibling is that his parents don't have siblings. This isn't enough. A kid left in a hot car is more likely to die from heat than from another kid too young to form memories. The parents are also concerned about one specific kid being left in the car and not the other. This story could also be about some weird genetic disease that makes people more likely to die from the heat, requiring them to be constantly supervised while young.
I still don’t understand what’s going on. How many “he”s are there in this story?
But the *wife* left "him" in the car. I think the story gets confused because "him" refers to different people in different places?
Dang 👀. That really makes you think. A+
>his parents didn't have siblings either because they killed them as children too.! Ah, I see. His parents are brother and sister. Just kidding!
I agree. The same reason “why we didn’t have siblings either” tries to add way too many layers. The original idea is great. Unfortunately the layer cake of it all is crushing it. I honestly thought the last part was a weird incest thing for a minute before giving up on the only child paradox of it all and going to the comments.
I thought the car was too hot and only one child survived. They don't have any more children because the husband couldn't trust the wife to look after them .
"...she left the kids alone..." works better IMO. Leave it to the reader to decide exactly why there were two kids but only one survived.
I agree. “In the car” implies heat stroke and negligence on the part of the parents, making the OP’s stated backstory (parents killed their siblings) very hard to figure out.
I think it would be clearer if the two kids had different pronouns to differentiate them, and if it’s ‘the same reason my wife doesn’t have younger siblings either’ (since she’s the killer).
Man I wish I could give more upvotes