Hatrack River Writers Workshop: New to the Forum, Looking for help

This is topic New to the Forum, Looking for help 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=000706

Posted by in_defiance22 (Member # 2344) on :

Here is the first part of a book I've been writing for goin on Three years now, Never had feedback before, would love a good critiquing. I think thats about thirteen lines or so.

A figure moved through the autumn twilight, beneath a moon partially hidden by clouds. It made no sound, and where it passed a deathly calm permeated the night. It was as though the world found the figures’ presence repugnant, for it seemed to hold its breath as the figure passed. The shadows of night grew darker, the air colder.
The figure wasn’t furtive in its movements; it didn’t slink its way from shadow to shadow. It was bold and brazen, for shadow followed after, clinging to it, and the darkness that encircled it had a palpable thickness so that only a vaguely human shape was visible.

Posted by in_defiance22 (Member # 2344) on :

Or I guesse it was only six, Darn, who can tell with these things anyway

Posted by HSO (Member # 2056) on :

It's really 13 lines of manuscript format that you post. This looks to be just under, but it's enough.

Right. "Figure". It works great in the first sentence, and then doesn't work at all throughout the rest. Whatever reason your hiding what it is from us, don't. Keep the first sentence and consider rewriting the rest.

Sorry, don't mean to be cruel about it.

The other trouble is pronoun confusion with too many "its"... you need to sort that out.

But, just so we're clear, I really like the first sentence a lot. The rest wouldn't be bad if you told us what the thing was -- whatever it thinks it is... and so on.

[This message has been edited by HSO (edited January 28, 2005).]

Posted by djvdakota (Member # 2002) on :

Yeah. What HSO said. It's really a POV thing. This segment is fairly well into (or at least leading into being from) the 'figure's POV. Which means that your narrator is unreliable in withholding the nature of the creature.

This can be corrected by writing it from the POV of a second character--an observer.

I really very much like the dark imagery here--shadow following and clinging to it/ darkness circling it with palpable thickness/ a deathly calm permeating the night as it passes. Nice.

Posted by in_defiance22 (Member # 2344) on :

Thanks I really do appreciate the feedback, I realize now some of my own unease with this part of my story.

Question; If it is imperitive to the rest of the story to keep the exact nature and Identity (even of gender) of the Creature hidden, By reason of an integral portion of my plot, How do I fix the scene so that I still keep the 'creature' as the POV. This is of course assuming that all these things are possible to do in the same scene.

I fully agree with the assessments given so far I just don't fully understand how to fix these problems within the context of the rest of the story and the plot?

Any sugguestions would greatly be appreciated

Posted by HSO (Member # 2056) on :

I don't know if you can fix it by keeping everything hidden and using the creature's POV. Perhaps the only solution is to do what Dakota says and have the creature be viewed by someone else, a different POV character.

Because this creature isn't likely to be the hero or protagonist, perhaps it doesn't belong at all. If you only show us what the protagonist or some other observer knows, then you can hide it easily. But this will require cutting this scene. Often, this is necessary... we hate to do it, but we must.

Posted by djvdakota (Member # 2002) on :

Actually, I wonder if you could fix it by penetrating VERY DEEPLY into the creature's POV. Just on the edge of first person, following the creature and its inner thoughts and very immediate surroundings as it moves through the landscape.

In such a case there would be no need to describe the creature physically at all. You would be describing its movements and its motives and intents from well within the creature's mind. This would, unfortunately, require a loss of all that great description of the landscape.

But then, what would you call it? 'It?' 'The figure?' You might, to make this work successfully, have to give it a name or title of some sort. IE:

"The Krog snuffed the air, taking in a thousand scents as it forged through the shadows. It avoided the moonlight, passing along the edge of the silver pools of light, dragging darkness and silence and cold along behind it. Somewhere ahead was the Krog's prey..."

<Shrug> Something like that. That may not be where you're going with the 'figure' but maybe it helps give you an idea of how you would do it. If it's going to turn out to be a main character in some magical disguise then this might not work.

Posted by in_defiance22 (Member # 2344) on :

Again Thanx,
I agree that it might not be possible, But I think I might not give up on the idea that you can start a murder myster with the murder and the murderer as the POV without giving up the identity of the murderer. THis is in essence what Im trying to accomplish, even though the murder mystery part holds only a sub-plot status.

I really like the idea of intensely deep penetration, I think that I may try my hand at that.

If anyone would like to read the rest of this clip Its only about three pages and I think that it actually gets quite exciting despite the lack of proper pronouns.

My thanx again

Posted by HSO (Member # 2056) on :

Hmm... if I recall correctly, the beginning of Robert Ludlum's "The Bourne Identity" starts off by using "figures" and such, witholding identities using more or less an omniscient narrator/viewpoint... might want to check that out -- should be easy enough, any bookstore will carry those books due to the movies (which are nothing like the books, but you know, big deal).

I'll read the rest of your piece... send away.

Posted by wbriggs (Member # 2267) on :

I don't find this to be from "figure's" POV at all, because it doesn't give me any of "figure's" thoughts or perceptions, but rather, the perceptions I might have if I were watching it.

Since there's no witness, we're in omniscient narrator. It's not the usual thing, now, but it's not evil. I don't have a problem with it.

I would prefer to skip the sentence "It was as though the world..." (because personifying the world in this way stretches my suspension of disbelief too much) and "The figure wasn't furtive..." (because you're about to tell me what it WAS, which interests me more and makes what it wasn't redundant).

You've also piqued my interest, because there's clearly magic going on, in fuzzing up the figure's outline.

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

All right!

Someone spelled "piqued" correctly!

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

Sorry.

I get carried away sometimes.

Posted by HSO (Member # 2056) on :

Me too, Kathleen, but in apparent opposite. I cringe at misspellings -- doubly so when I make them (Yes, even I have my pet words that I consistently spell incorrectly) -- but I try very hard not to correct someone's post on a message board when it's an informal discussion.

Of course, I made that whinge topic on the Open Discussion board. Proof enough right there.

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

Well, maybe between the two of us--you with your whinging and me with my attempts at positive feedback--we'll see some results.

Posted by Kolona (Member # 1438) on :

Wbriggs is right. This isn't the POV of the figure, but omniscient. I had no problems with it. Once the dastardly deed is done, if that's what's going to happen, you can switch to third. (Or not.) I don't think this kind of beginning is unusual.

I agree the first sentence is a keeper. I'd suggest changing 'the figures' presence' to 'the presence of the figure' to stay with the tone, though reworking that sentence would probably be a good idea.

Welcome, BTW.

Posted by Rocklover (Member # 2339) on :

You have captured my interest.
Remove comma from first sentence.
Tighten "it was as though..." sentence. Maybe, "The world seemed to hold its breath in repugnance..."
The "bold and brazen" sentence is long and awkward. Tighten it.
I like the shadow following bit and the rest of the sentence. I would end the last sentence with "thickness" and start a new sentence with "The figure..."
Nice mood set. Creepy. I like it.
I have no trouble with POV but I agree with the other person that you should give a more intimate insight into the figure's feelings and thoughts. That will clarify and intensify what this thing is all about.

Posted by in_defiance22 (Member # 2344) on :

Thanx all for the input; Im definetly going to try to tighten some of the sloppy sentences and add more of the POV characters thoughts.

Posted by yanos (Member # 1831) on :

Myself, I would be tempted to keep it in omniscient, which means you can dip into the creatures thoughts where and when it relates.

My reason for this is the identity issue. By writing just this portion in omniscient you will can justify keeping the identity hidden.

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

No no no. No.

Do not try to hide important information when you're in Full Omniscient. The fundamental rule of Full Omniscient is that the reader knows everything the moment it is important. That's what "omniscient" means.

You could do this with a narrator, but then you have to deal with the fact that the reader will see the narrator being coy. That's okay, narrators are allowed to have personality defects. At least most people will see the narrator as the one being coy rather than the author. If the readers ever decide that you're being coy, they'll probably stop reading. As the author, you have to keep your promises when it comes to revealing information, or you (not your characters, or your narrator, or your monkey, you) will lose their trust.

Posted by NewsBys (Member # 1950) on :

Dakota's suggestion of deep penetration into the creature's POV sounds interesting.
It reminds me of what OSC did in Lost Boys. He withheld the identity of Boy, even though Boy is the POV character of the first chapter. You come to understand Boy and why he will do what he does later, but you still have no clue who he is.
If you decided to do this, then you will probably have to lose the imagery, because if you focus that deep, the character will not be able to describe what is going on externally.

Posted by in_defiance22 (Member # 2344) on :

Thanx for the feedback, Some thoughts;

I think that what we are calling "omniscient" is actually limited third person, cinematic perspective. Only what the eye can see and ear can hear(Discussed at lenght in OSC's Characters and Viewpoint) Which is what I was trying to accomplish. With this I can then dip into the the characters mind with L3P, light penetration(defined as the characters thoughts as they would be percieved as someone else viewing them) or deep penetration(where everything we interact with and talk about is as what the POV character's attitude towards it would be)

That was the POV that I was going for, but perhaps with such a short clip it's either not apparant or I've not done it correctly

My question is Would my idea for this segment(discussed in an earlier post) be possible with the three types of L3P, Cinematic, Light, Deep.

Or do I need to change it to a true Omniscient. Apparantly my over done use of the word "it" and other indirect pronouns, has gotten some people hung up. WHich I wish to avoid.