posted
Trying to gauge interest on my opening. Not ready to send out whole thing, yet.
Thanks.
--
Diego went out for more wood and left me alone in the house with Arienne and her new baby. The cottage smelled of burning oak and balsam, cooked mutton from supper, blood and afterbirth. A phantom of screaming, only recently faded, hung in the air.
She'd put out the candles, couldn’t afford to have them lit anymore than necessary. It’d been a hard winter on everyone. So we wondered when Diego would return and huddled around the dying hearth, Arienne with a child suckling at a breast.
I tried to ignore the writhing of the snakes in my veins, but couldn't suppress a twitch, feeling them slither up around my spine, my skull, like crimson ivy.
My sister noticed this, but probably blamed the cold. I pulled my cloak tighter for effect.
posted
oh, yeah, I'm interested. sounds like it's going to be a weird and creepy story. I like this beginning a lot.
Posts: 1750 | Registered: Oct 2004
|
posted
It's interesting... certainly intriguing and engaging enough to carry on reading. So on that front, yes, there is something here.
Can't say I'm happy with the punctuation, even if it is the character's voice. Maybe I'm a traditionalist or utterly biased, but... with the exception of dialogue, I would prefer to read stories that don't have words deliberately omitted for effect or subbed with a comma. But that's the risk you take, I guess -- you can't please everyone.
Still, take note: As I said, the premise is interesting, and I'd probably get used to the voice quickly enough with only a few grumbles of complaint while I read it.
posted
I was with you until the snakes started writhing. It's hard to say sometimes when we're supposed to believe the snakes are real or metaphorical. Nor do I have any idea why the snakes are writhing. I think I ought to know that before I'm told what the cause isn't.
Posts: 1672 | Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted
I'm on the fence too. There are just too many "Hah! try and guess what this is supposed to mean you stupid reader!" phrases scattered around in the text. It takes no great skill to make it completely unclear what is supposed to be going on in a story, the challenge is to be as clear as possible without breaking the mood of the story. You've broken the mood by not being clear enough.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
Yes babes can and will feed almost immediately after birth.
quote:Diego went out for more wood and left me alone in the house with Arienne and her new baby. The cottage smelled of burning oak and balsam, cooked mutton from supper, blood and afterbirth. A phantom of screaming, only recently faded, hung in the air.
I like the image that "A phantom of screaming" generates as well. But you could definately punch this pasage up a bit.
quote:She'd put out the candles, couldn’t afford to have them lit anymore than necessary. It’d been a hard winter on everyone. So we wondered when Diego would return and huddled around the dying hearth, Arienne with a child suckling at a breast.
Conserving candles makes sense, but candle making is a pretty simple process, you could pick something better to illustrate the hardship of the winter.
Also dropping things like "with a" can give statements more impact. ex. "We wondered, huddled around the dying hearth, when Diego would return. Arienne lay quietly beside me, her babe suckling greedily at her breast."
Punch it up a bit and really paint the picture. I like the setting and the feeling of desperation you generate, but you can enhance it.
quote:I tried to ignore the writhing of the snakes in my veins, but couldn't suppress a twitch, feeling them slither up around my spine, my skull, like crimson ivy.
I love this passage but have absolutely no idea what it means...it sounds like someone going through drug withdrawl.
posted
Ok, great. I think I've got just about all the feedback I'll need.
Survivor, do you think the passage you pointed out is unclear by itself, or do you think that right now the reader doesn't know enough? Because I can assure you the issue gets cleared up in a hurry from this point onward.
HuntGod, I appreciate your comments about punching it up. I kind of question your suggested revision, though, due to the infusion of two adverbs in one sentence. The underlying point remains, however, and I'll think on it.
posted
I would put the "phantom" line first. The wood thing is too confusing. I don't know yet that the child had just been born. The screaming gives me this hint.
Are the snakes really in her veins. It sounds like they are at the line where she pulls her cloak tighter. What is she hiding is what I'm asking, but then I'm almost too confused to care.
You do give the sence of creepy. I'm just not sure why I'm worried yet.
I agree with HSO. The word omition makes the reading more difficult. I'm ignorant of what a "speculative market" is though.
I just can't decide. I would read the whole thing though. You have me intriged.
quote:Survivor, do you think the passage you pointed out is unclear by itself, or do you think that right now the reader doesn't know enough? Because I can assure you the issue gets cleared up in a hurry from this point onward.
We need a little definition of the term "unclear by itself" here. A passage can be "clear by itself" by being self contained. No string of information, even if it was generated completely at random, can ever be "unlcear by itself" if you allow later information to clarify it.
When the reader encounters this text, it will be in the context of information already provided. Information that hasn't been provided prior to this point in the text is not part of the context of this passage.
An opening passage must be clear in and of itself. Sure, you could have given us some up-front information that would be known to any reader, like genre and story length. I doubt that would have made this a lot clearer.
It is important to remember that readers (people in general) have a lot of difficultly remembering something if it doesn't seem very meaningful at the time. If you are hoping that people will get to a later passage in the text and will instantly remember this part because now it makes sense, you will be cruelly disappointed. It is also important to remember that people stop reading if they can't make sense of things. So not only will they not remember this passage long enough to find the explanation of what it means, they will never find the explanation anyway because they will have stopped reading.
Sorry to belabor this point, but it is important. Very, very important. Most readers won't reread your novel all the way through or your short story several times to try and find a reason to enjoy it. They will read a few pages, decide it's no good, and not keep reading. Editors know this, so they do the same thing.
posted
Yeah, I understand the importance of clarity I was just wondering if you thought it was the wording and/or phrasing that was unclear or if you thought they were very clear, but just didn't know what I was talking about. One is forgiveable, one isn't. In this case, I think I'm willing to pay the price, as long as the words themselves aren't unclear--just the message they convey.
[edited for Clarity]
[This message has been edited by Rahl22 (edited January 28, 2005).]
posted
Uh, re-edit that, because it isn't clear to me.
I mean, when you say "the words themselves aren't unclear--just the message they convey", what exactly is that supposed to mean? Were you thinking that the complaints about clarity were because our monitors were all fuzzy at the time? How could anyone possibly think that your wording and phrasing were very clear, but just didn't know what you were talking about?
The entire point of being clear is that people understand what the heck you're saying. Don't mess with my head, punk, I just got it back on spec.
You've never read anything and, while the prose was very clear, you didn't know what was going on? I think there's a difference between being confused, and knowing exactly what you're confused about. One implies the author doesn't know what he's doing, the other that he does.
Or maybe I'm just flat out wrong (which has happened before).
Are we just messing around, or are you actually trying to say something?
quote:You've never read anything and, while the prose was very clear, you didn't know what was going on?
If you're suggesting that I said anything that could be so construed, then please show me where and when. I've read a lot of things, including the prose being discussed in this topic, and I don't think it was very clear.
quote:I think there's a difference between being confused, and knowing exactly what you're confused about.
Yes, just as there is a big difference between having a broken leg, and knowing exactly which leg is broken.
quote:One implies the author doesn't know what he's doing, the other that he does.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean, but if it refers to being confused and knowing you're confused, I will extend my broken leg analogy here. Knowing that you have a broken leg implies that you really have a broken leg (unless you are confused). Having a broken leg implies that you know you have a broken leg (unless you are very confused, or unconscious).
Now, if we're just messing with my head, I'd rather not play. I prefer to keep this thing in working order.
posted
Not so much that you know your leg is broken, but you know what broke your leg!
haha, ok, that last bit might have just been messing with you.
But consider a mystery novel. All the pieces might not be in place, and many things could be happening that don't immediately make sense, but the prose should clear enough that you know exactly what you don't know.
Regarding word omission, these are the lines I specifically had trouble with:
quote:I tried to ignore the writhing of the snakes in my veins, but WORD OMITTED couldn't suppress a twitch,SEVERAL WORDS OMITTED and possibly a full stop (or period) feeling them slither up around my spine,WORD(S) OMITTED my skull,WORD OMITTED like crimson ivy.
My sister noticed this, but WORD OMITTEDprobably blamed the cold.
While one's story can be poetic in its prose, if you go this route, you risk losing readers. If I wanted to read a poem, I would. I'd much prefer to read a story without filling in the blanks.
Still, I'm interested... so it ain't all that bad... definite potential is evident.
posted
All right. I'll fill in the blanks since you asked. This is preference only. Slight rewording used to make more impact on the feeling bit, thus leaving your intent intact... I think.
I tried to ignore the writhing of the snakes in my veins, but I couldn't suppress a twitch. I felt them slither up around my spine, my skull, like crimson ivy.
My sister noticed this, but she probably blamed the cold.
[This message has been edited by HSO (edited January 31, 2005).]
posted
OK, guess I'm going to be the first person to break the new rules :-)
HSO, with the exception of the "I felt" addition I would think the other "I" and "she" were redundant.
I know I generally try to preen out redundant identifiers in my stories and would have thought these fell into that category. The "I felt" though is definately needed to clarify the object of that sentence.
posted
Maybe you don't need them. I feel it is easier to read this way, but it may be too much as pointed out. I think it's a style choice. Like I said earlier, I would get used to it as I read with only mild grumbles here and there.
My writing style would include the pronouns so as to avoid any possible confusion. I don't want people guessing at what I'm trying to say. I want them to know exactly what I'm saying.
And I may be erring on the side of caution. But that's my plan, and for the moment, I'm sticking with it.
No worries on breaking the rules. I smell a mutiny afoot, I do.
Okay, just for giggles, if I were going to rewrite these sentences for myself and not be redundant, I'd probably do it like this (not saying you should do it this way Rahl):
I tried to ignore the writhing snakes in my veins; felt them slither up and around my spine, crimson ivy probing into my skull, but the twitch couldn't be suppressed. My sister noticed it, but said nothing--maybe thinking it was the cold air.
quote:A phantom of screaming, only recently faded, hung in the air.
I can suppose that there was some screaming during the birth, but you'd be surprised. Anyway, why is there a phantom of recently faded screaming hanging in the air? What is a phantom of recently faded screaming? I have no idea.
quote:So we wondered when Diego would return and huddled around the dying hearth, Arienne with a child suckling at a breast.
Minor style point, try "So we huddled around the dying hearth and wondered when Diego would return, Arienne with a child suckling at her breast."
quote:I tried to ignore the writhing of the snakes in my veins, but couldn't suppress a twitch, feeling them slither up around my spine, my skull, like crimson ivy.
It doesn't matter how you rephrase this, I have no idea what you're talking about. Actual snakes writhing about in this person's veins seems a tad unlikely, but it's all I have to work with here. There isn't even a hint of explanation of this image, it simply makes no sense. Fooling about with the grammer won't help at all.
quote:My sister noticed this, but probably blamed the cold. I pulled my cloak tighter for effect.
What did her sister notice? Not the snakes, or she wouldn't have blamed the cold, right? Unless we're somewhere infested with snakes that crawl around your veins when it's cold. How did the POV character know this anyway? Did the sister say something about it? What effect is the character trying to achieve by pulling the cloak tighter? Squishing the snakes? Pretending to be cold rather than snake infested?
I just can't tell what you're trying to say here. These sentances don't have any meaning.
posted
At what point do you suggest an info dump within the first 13 lines so that I can assuage all your confusion? It seems to me perfectly acceptable to leave a few things slightly unclear, as long as they are unclear in a manner that inspires confidence in the reader that the author will, bit by bit as the world is revealed, explain all.
Really, this primarily comes from the Writer's of the Future anthologies I've been reading. Without fail, every single one of the stories employs a similar technique. They bring up things at the beginning that seems strange, but is perfectly expected for the POV character. Then, as we settle into that POV, pieces of information start clicking with others to make a whole picture.
posted
Maybe he is trying to say, "My sister notice I was twitching and thought it was from the cold. I pulled my coat tighter to feed her assumption."
posted
He is indeed. Now if that part isn't clear, then I certainly need to tighten that transition so that it becomes more obvious. That's the kind of polishing that will come with my third revision. (I've never revised a story so much in my life!)
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted
Rahl, are you rewriting because the suggestions and requests for explanation fit what you're trying to do with the story, or to please the suggesters and requesters?
I confess that I don't always read people's 13 lines--sometimes I just skim over them and count them.
Your post about WotF stories made me go read the original 13, and my answer to the basic question of whether I'd keep reading or not is "yes."
Don't rewrite this to death. I think you are at the point as a writer where you don't need to change things just because someone asks you to. Change things because the change improves the story for you, the writer.
posted
NilzarkK, your guess about what Rahl was trying to say is helpful. It's good to let the author know what you are guessing about the work you are critiquing, and I heartily recommend that.
If Rahl were to take your guess and put it into the story as you wrote it, however, he would run the risk of violating point of view unless the point-of-view character could read his sister's mind.
posted
I must admit, I've been skimming the F&F more than reading lately myself. (There are so many new stories.) But when I saw 31 responses here I had to know what was so special about it.
And to be honest, I can't understand. I mean, the intro is good and I'd keep reading. I don't know exactly what's going on but I don't feel like I should know more yet. I have a sense that details are coming rather than being witheld, and that is an important distinction and, I believe, the one Rahl was trying to point out when he said, " I think there's a difference between being confused, and knowing exactly what you're confused about."
Anyway, I've read more poingnant hooks, but the job of a hook is to keep the reader reading, not to always outdo another story in shock value. This has done its job.
posted
Fine, fine. For the record, my first post on this thread is pretty much all I have to say about the posted fragment itself.
quote:I'm on the fence too. There are just too many "Hah! try and guess what this is supposed to mean you stupid reader!" phrases scattered around in the text. It takes no great skill to make it completely unclear what is supposed to be going on in a story, the challenge is to be as clear as possible without breaking the mood of the story. You've broken the mood by not being clear enough.
Everything else is my attempt to answer Rahl22's numerous questions about what I mean when I say "unclear". Of course, for the past several days I've suspected that Rahl22 is just asking to be funny. So if Rahl22 doesn't ask me to define the term "unclear" anymore, I won't, since it seems to be bugging people.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
