Hatrack River Writers Workshop: "Calling the unicorn", 1st 13

This is topic "Calling the unicorn", 1st 13 in forum Fragments and Feedback for Short Works at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000570

Posted by Silver3 (Member # 2174) on :

Fantasy, short story, about 1,800 words. Any comments on those lines welcome; I'm also looking for readers of the whole thing. Thanks in advance.
***

When Emily entered the rooms of Lady Agnes, there was a fire burning in the hearth, although it was the height of summer. The heat struck her like a physical blow; she gasped aloud.

Lady Agnes had been sitting in a chair by the chimney; at the sound, she rose, and turned to scrutinise Emily. Her face still held the beauty Lord Henry had married her for: lips as red as a lover's rose, pale, translucent skin stretched over high cheekbones, and brown hair streaked through with highlights of red, like reflections of the fire in her hearth. The only thing that marred her beauty was a coin-shaped birthmark on her forehead, half-hidden by a few errant strands.

"Well, well," she said. "So you are the girl. The king's niece."

Emily curtseyed, nervously, eyeing the other. "Yes, m'lady."

[This message has been edited by Silver3 (edited November 22, 2004).]

Posted by dpatridge (Member # 2208) on :

i'm going to first say that everything i'm about to say is for your own good, although i may be just a tad blunt

the thing that i notice straitaway is that you use "m'lady," which is pronounced "meh" lady for a noble girl, who would have been taught to say it "milady," pronounced "me" lady or "my lady" which is exactly as it appears...

basically i'm just saying that the character isn't something i could believe

the next thing i'm curious about, what the heck is the POV? i'm not in anyones head, i'm just wandering around in empty space, and i see the writer of the piece far too clearly, it takes me out of the story instead of putting me in it... if you are planning on using omniscient, it is very hard to do (i'm trying to use it myself), the best thing to do for omniscient is to create a storyteller, whether you actually point him out to the reader or not is optional, and then stay very forcefully in his subjective outlook on the stories events, sure, he already knows everything, but he only reveals things to his listeners as they need to know it, whilst making the listener realize that there's more hidden inside... something written like that pulls me in extremely well, even better than some first-person narrative

basically i feel that you are just jotting down your ideas here, not actually developing a story

Posted by Tess (Member # 2199) on :

I can handle 1,800 words, if you want to send it my way.

My only concern is that I may get bogged down in nitpicking. I agree wholeheartedly with dpatridge's assesment of your POV hopping. It's distracting. I'm also afraid of melodrama. "The heat struck her like a physical blow; she gasped aloud." Ouch - this is only your second sentence! I guess it's up to you to decide if you want to risk sending it to me.

Posted by ChrisOwens (Member # 1955) on :

Sounds like an interesting piece. To me it was clear Emily was the POV character.

My only suggestions revolve around wording choices. Here are my opinions:

Two 'to be' verbs in one sentence. If it was flipped around a little, at least one could be buried. I almost think it could do without the 'there was' and the sentence would read much better.

Instead of 'had been', trim, and say 'sat in a chair'.

Yuck! Unless this is a non-human culture or a people with a unique sence of beauty, the thought of semi-see-through skin makes my stomach turn.

<"Well, well," she said. "So you are the girl. The king's niece.">

This does not seem like nataral dialog. It might be better as: So you are the king's niece.

Posted by Magic Beans (Member # 2183) on :

I'm not sure if I agree with dpartridge's assessment of the narrator, but it is a little loose as 3rd-person-limited or 3rd-person-omnicient, either way. Dpartridge's advice on the storyteller for 3rd-person-omnicient is excellent (Jonathon Strange & Mr Norrell is the best example of this I've ever seen, if you need to read something inspirational).

The conventions your characters use to address each other are up to you, of course; you're not bound to history or common practice. I've read stories where these language forms were completely made up (The Dark Tower, for one).

Standards of beauty change over time. Extremely pale translucent skin was once thought very beautiful, and most people are aware of this. You'll have to decide for your world what the standards of beauty are, but I for one do not find the idea of streched skin to be even remotely beautiful. Joan Rivers has stretched skin, if you know what I mean.

There is another important concern not yet mentioned: We do not know where we are. Obviously, you do as the author, but all we know about the setting is that, wherever it is, it is summer. Fireplaces, lords & ladies, and unicorns in the title give us a sense of time, but we need to know where we are.

[This message has been edited by Magic Beans (edited November 22, 2004).]

Posted by Keeley (Member # 2088) on :

I can't say anything that hasn't already been said, so I'll just say I'd like to read the whole thing.

Posted by Matera the Mad (Member # 2242) on :

The heat struck Emily a physical blow as she entered the rooms of Lady Agnes. She gasped aloud, feeling as if she had walked into a wall. A fire burning in the hearth at the height of summer?

Lady Agnes rose from her seat by the chimney at the sound of Emily's entrance. Standing under her scrutiny, Emily noted the still unfaded beauty for which Lord Henry had married the lady: lips as red as a lover's rose; pale, translucent skin stretched over high cheekbones, and brown hair streaked with highlights like reflections of the fire in her hearth. The only mar was a coin-shaped birthmark on her forehead, half-hidden by a few errant strands.

Posted by Silver3 (Member # 2174) on :

erm...I didn't get the point of that? A rewrite of my beginning? I thought I was the one who did the rewriting :-)

Posted by Matera the Mad (Member # 2242) on :

I felt like playing with words. You can learn a lot by playing with someone else's words; it is a great aid to objectivity.

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

Ah, it's a etiquette thing. When you rewrite someone's words, you should sort of apologize/explain in advance and avoid rewriting the entire text they've posted. Simply rewriting someone's text is essentially saying "I can say what you meant so much better than you did that it will be obvious to you and everyone else that my text is superior in every way."

Which may sometimes be the case, but it isn't exactly the friendliest way to critique a text

Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :

Besides, a critique is not supposed to be "how I would do it" from the critiquer. It's not the critiquer's story.

Feel free to play with other people's words if you must in order to learn; but if you post what you've done in your playing without the original author's permission, you are flirting with copyright infringement.