Feedback på formelle sprog og topic sentences

Analysis of Corey Campbell, “Pool”, a short story, 2009

Reality is scary! Darla agrees. (topic sentence)

Darla is a a very humble woman. There are various scenarios to prove this. (line 73) ”Sorry(...)I did not mean to disturb you”, (line 123) ”Its OK, I can sit out”. There are many more.
 

The night before, the condom split. The next morning they go out to get a morning-after pill (line 16, ”Their condom split the night before, so they'd spend the morning going to two different Rite Aids to get the morning-after pill”.) This shows that Darla does not wish to have a child. Later through the story, when Darla is offered a sip from Jon's beer, she refuses. The pill says that she is not allowed to drink alcohol. The package states the success rate was 99%, yet Darla does not take any risks. She tries to make fun of herself as a mother (line 80, ”I'd be horrible at it. I'd probably start drinking. I know I would(...)Just kidding”) because the idea of her becoming a mother is, maybe, not something she wants to consider. She seems to fear having a child.

Having a child means that one must open up to the real world. One must evolve develop as a human being. One must no longer be narrow-minded. (line 158) ”It all changes with a kid”. Darla is not portrayed as a person ready to face the real world. She does not see the bigger picture (line 160,”I know” she said but she really didn't (...)Darla knew the basic pattern of sleepless nights, of loving something more than anything else. It always sounded impossible to her.”). This shows her narrow-mindedness.

Observing her fear of having a child and her narrow-mindedness, it is possible to draw the/this conclusion: Darla fears reality!

Darla is a humble woman that who fears reality. She is also in a relationship with a man named Jon.

Darla and Jon's relationship will not last! (topic sentence)

Darla and Jon have been in a relationship for just under a year (line 10, ”Darla and Jon had been together just under a year”). The relationship is very immature. They were swimming naked and having sex on a couch covered in dog hair, while house-sitting (denne sætning ville jeg også holde i nutid som alle de andre) (line 66, ”...swimming naked and then having sex on a couch covered in dog hair”). They do not respect the homeowner's (eller homeowners', alt efter om der er 1 eller flere) properties.

Jon is very immature compared to Darla. When the pill is bought, Jon decides to go to an expensive restaurant with Darla which he can barely can afford. He casually begins eating while Darla swallows the first pill (line 18, ”For lunch Jon had taken Darla to a Belgian restaurant (…) much too expensive for him. She let him eat his mussels while she swallow the first pill at the bathroom sink”). He fails to realize that he might potentially become a father. That will require a lot of money.
Another incident where Jon's immaturity is highlighted, is when Jon is drinking his 3rd or 4th beer, leaving Darla with the responsibility to get them home (line 99, ”Jon was on his next beer, which was either number three or four. Darla never counted but just knew that later she would be the one driving”).

Darla is unhappy. (line 138) ”She thought of quicksand – if she were being dragged under, Jon would probably just stay there and give the same shrug”. In other words, she states (that) he would do nothing if she were about to die (a clear sign of unhappiness). This way she also generalizes about Jon.

Darla also states (that) their relationship will not last (line 13, ”Darla had realized earlier in the car that it was not going to last”).

The relationship is very toxic. The nature of the relationship is very immature. Darla is unhappy and does not believe in the relationship.

Generelt synes jeg, det ser ganske fint ud. Det er kun nogle småting jeg har rettet. Det ene 'that' som jeg har rettet til 'who' er rent stilistisk, da jeg mener, at det i en skreven tekst er mere 'korrekt' at bruge 'who' ved personer. 
Det eneste generelle, jeg har at sige, er, at du skal være opmærksom på ikke at skifte i tid. Der er et par steder, hvor du blander nutid og datid sammen i på hinanden følgende sætninger - det er ikke så hensigtsmæssigt.

Ang. 'that' og stilistik: Det er ikke forkert at bruge 'that' i en bisætning, hvis denne står på den almindelige objektplads (= lige efter verbet, som i: He said that it would be too late). Derfor har jeg skrevet et valgfrit 'that' i parentes i et par af sætningerne. Igen, det er valgfrit om det skal med eller ej (ligesom det danske 'at'), men du skal bare vide, at du ikke behøver at udelade det af frygt for at lyde for talesprogsagtig. 

Mange tak for hjælpen. Godt at jeg er blevet gjort opmærksom på "that" ikke nødvendigvis er en hovedfaktor i talesprog, men for det engelske sprog generelt, i forhold til ord som "like" (f.eks når man bruger "like" til at indlede en sætning. Det gør det meget talesporgs-agtigt).

Jeg er faktisk meget glad for at du nævner at jeg ikke skal blande nutid og datid. Jeg får også kommentar på dette fra min dansk lærer i dansk afleveringer. Jeg troede dog, da jeg læste det igennem, at jeg havde elimineret alle datids-fejl (jeg prøver at forholde mig til nutid). Kunne jeg lige se et par områder hvor jeg glemmer det? 

Du skriver:
"The relationship is very immature. They were swimming naked and having sex on a couch covered in dog hair, while house-sitting." og forsætter igen med nutid (They do not respect...). 
Hvis deres svømmen osv. er fortid, kan du godt have det i datid, men jeg synes ikke det fremgår i dette tilfælde. Derfor ville jeg enten omformulere, så det fremgår, eller skrive sætningen i nutid. 

Desuden skrev du: When the pill was bought, Jon decides to go to an expensive restaurant. Her har jeg rettet det til 'is', så det holdes i nutid.

Første del er faktisk datid. Det er en beretning om hvad de havde gjort for et par måneder siden. Men det også helt iorden at du mente noget andet. Jeg ville også umiddelbart havde troet det samme, hvis jeg ikke havde læst historien.

Jeg tror at jeg har glemt at "were" også er førnutid/førdatid. Derfor har min indskydelse været at "was" var nutid. Men jeg kigger på det efter jeg har skrevet min fysik færdig. Regner dog ikke med at jeg har flere spørgsmål, så tusind tak for hjælpen.