posted
Okay, here is take number two. I tried to incorporate much of the advice I was given, while staying true to the story . . . what do you think now?
***
The wagon wheels rumbled and crunched over the horrid mounds in the sand. Each time Ann and Edward felt one of the shells cracking under them, they shuddered, half afraid the scupps would begin to hatch early.
Ann clutched her swollen belly protectively, though she was powerless to save the babe within if the scupps hatched before the wagon reached the shelter of the cliff caves.
Inwardly, she cursed the slowness of the placid undru, pulling the wagon much as oxen once had back on Earth. Their scales were a protection for them. Humans had no such armor. At least the undru moved faster than her waddling gait, and by riding on the wagon she didn’t have to step on the purple scupp shells scattered all over the beach dunes.
posted
I so hate to say this....but I liked the first version better. Let me try to be more specific in-line:
********************
The wagon wheels rumbled and crunched over the horrid mounds in the sand. I STILL DON'T LIKE HORRID MOUNDS, BUT APPARENTLY I WAS OUTVOTED. I GUESS I DIDN'T FEEL THAT IT WAS VERY DESCRIPTIVE FOR A FIRST SENTENCE AND IT ONLY MAKES SENSE AFTER I'VE READ THIS A FEW TIMES. BESIDES, HORRID TO ME IS A LIGHT WORD, A SORT OF SNOBBY WORD, LIKE "OH, DARLING, WHAT A HORRID OUTFIT!" Each time Ann and Edward felt one of the shells cracking under them***,*** DELETE they shuddered, half afraid the scupps would begin to hatch early. I DO THINK THAT ADDITION OF THE NAMES HERE HELPS. ALTHOUGH SOMEHOW THIS PARAGRAPH STILL DOESN'T DO AS MUCH FOR ME AS THE SECOND. I GUESS IT WASN'T UNTIL THE SECOND PARAGRAPH THAT I REALLY UNDERSTOOD THE DANGER, BUT ONCE AGAIN I WAS APPARENTLY OUTVOTED HERE.
Ann clutched her swollen belly protectively, though she was powerless to save the babe within if the scupps hatched before the wagon reached the shelter of the cliff caves.
NOW WE GET TO THE REASON THIS ISN'T AS GOOD, IMO. THIS SUMS UP WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT IT TAKES AWAY SOME OF THE DESCRIPTION OF THE LANDSCAPE AND SOME OF THE SETTING...HOLD ON, LET ME OPEN ANOTHER WINDOW AND LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL AGAIN...YEAH, BASICALLY I LIKED THE FIRST SENTENCE IF YOU SIMPLY REMOVED THE WORDS "QUAKER-STYLE." IT WAS JUST MORE. THIS IS JUST LESS.
Inwardly, she cursed the slowness of the placid undru, pulling the wagon much as oxen once had back on Earth. Their scales were a protection for them. Humans had no such armor. At least the undru moved faster than her waddling gait, and by riding on the wagon she didn’t have to step on the purple scupp shells scattered all over the beach dunes.
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS PARAGRAPH PER SE, I THINK I JUST MISS THE THE ORIGINAL THIRD PARAGRAPH WHICH SEEMED TO ADD TENSION...THEY DIDN'T LEAVE QUICKLY ENOUGH, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN? NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT URDURU OR WHATEVER THEY ARE. I'M SURE THAT'S FASCINATING, BUT I'M SURE THERE'S TIME FOR IT LATER. (LIKE IN PARAGRAPH 4 )
**********************
All right, now I'm going to sit back and let people disagree with me. I guess I just liked the first version so much that this kind of fell flat for me.
posted
I like paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 had a contrast I didn't like, with "though." (If Ann were aware it was a contradiction, clutching her belly & being helpless, I don't think she'd do it.) Paragraph 3 felt slow, like an info dump, so I didn't like it.
I guess I was getting from paragraph 3 that Ann was reflective and resentful (she cursed; and she thought about armor). I'd rather she be terrified -- like I'd be walking in the woods if at any moment the trees might eat me.
I look forward to seeing something hatch... Recommended reading: "Flare Time," Larry Niven. Someone's essentially being chased over a horrible landscape like this.
posted
I actually agree with Christine for the most part: I liked the first version better. Except for the horrid mounds thing. I still think those are all right.
quote:Inwardly, she cursed the slowness of the placid undru, pulling the wagon much as oxen once had back on Earth.
This drove me nuts. It yanks me out of the environment you've created and gives me a comparison that seems out of place for the POV you're using. Maybe you could do something with the fact that they left late, and have them urging the undru on so as to make up for lost time?
And the rest of the paragraph is the same way in that it jerks me out of the present danger and gives me an info dump.
posted
No having read the previous version, I'll dive in with this one.
I thought the horrid mounds in the sand were just the result of a lumpy road. The second sentance made me think that Ann and Edward were smuggling scupps' (whatever that is) eggs and were afraid they were destroying their cargo. I thought they were sitting on them.
By the second paragraph I understood that the scupps were something carnivorous, but since I was still laboring under the confused impression that Ann and Edward were sitting on them I couldn't understand why the wagon reaching the shelter of the cliffs was a good thing. Light did dawn on me at the last sentance of paragraph three.
May I suggest moving paragraph three, with some minor changes, to paragraph one?
Edited to add: Since we're all posting at the same time, I'll go ahead and respond to the concerns about info-dumping. I don't think it would feel like such an info-dump if the ox comparison were earlier.
[This message has been edited by MaryRobinette (edited March 09, 2005).]
posted
I think I preferred the last paragraph in your first version. The undru description (I know I brought it up in the first place) was Okay, but the third paragraph, first version had more punch.
The 'lumps in the road' illusion could be beat by saying: Each time the passengers felt one of the shells cracking under THE WHEELS, they shuddered, half afraid the scupps would begin to Hatch early.
I pointed that out in the last one, the eggs are under the wagon, not under THEM. Otherwise it is ambiguous.
I prefer the first two paragraphs how they are now but do miss the colours.
NB: Just pointing out preference.
Take this ol' hoptoad with a grain-o'salt, ya'hear?
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited March 10, 2005).]
posted
Autumn – I know that you put effort and emotion into rewriting this so it kills me to say it, but I also liked the first version much better. There was a creepy tension that was lost in this rewrite.
I personally like the first paragraph where it is. I do like having their names first thing so that’s a definite improvement. I’m not opposed to the “horrid mounds” since it is explained in the very next sentence but I did like Hoptoad’s idea of just calling them shells.
I really liked your original second paragraph. That gave such a vivid sense of place, for me. By giving me such a clear picture of them, the subtle build of tension was stronger than in the revised version.
I also liked the original third paragraph because it built the tension you had begun in the lines above it. The only thing I would have changed in that original third paragraph was Ann’s reaction to Ed’s statement that they were too late. To me, that was the crucial moment of tension and she should have reacted. Everything in the preceding two paragraphs built up to whether or not they were going to make it in time. When Ed says, “we’re too late,” my heart stopped. What is going to happen now? But then her reaction kind of killed that for me.
posted
Aaargh! That always seems to happen to me. When I revise my work, somehow it goes dead. I don't know why. But it happens every time. <sigh>
Anyways, here's the third try. Maybe it's a charm?
***
The wagon crunched over the scupp shells in the sand. Each time Ann and Edward felt one of them crack under the wheels they shuddered. The hatching could begin at any time.
The two of them sat silent and tense on the hard wagon bench, their simple black and white clothing a sharp contrast to the dun of the beach dunes and the purple shells thrusting up through the sand all around them. Ann clutched her swollen belly reflexively, though she would not be able to save the babe within if the scupps hatched before the wagon reached the shelter of the cliff caves.
“We left too late,” Edward said again. It had become a litany of sorts.
“We’ll make it,” Ann replied, because they had to try.
Edward whipped the scaled backs of the placid undru pulling the wagon, but Ann could have told him it would do no good; the beasts were doing the best they could already.
posted
By george I think she's got it! That's very clear. For me it creates an immediate picture and a sense of imminent danger.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted
I like the information in the first paragraph better but I felt as if it was a little choppy.
The rest of this is improved from both drafts. I'm not sure why you changed "protectively" to "reflexively"...I liked it better the first way, it told me more about the actoin.
Now I'm going to go to open discussion to comment on your frustration with new drafts.
posted
The wagon crunched over the scupp shells in the sand. Each time Ann and Edward felt one of them crack under the wheels they shuddered. The hatching could begin at any time. I STILL LIKE THE FIRST VERSION BEST FOR THIS ONE.
The two of them sat silent and tense on the hard wagon bench, their simple black and white clothing a sharp contrast to the dun of the beach dunes and the purple shells thrusting up through the sand all around them. Ann clutched her swollen belly reflexively, though she would not be able to save the babe within if the scupps hatched before the wagon reached the shelter of the cliff caves. I'D STRIKE "THEIR SIMPLE BLACK ... AROUND THEM" SINCE I DON'T THINK THEY'D BE NOTICING THEIR CLOTHES. I'D CHANGE THE LAST TO "ANN ... REFLEXIVELY. SHE WOULD NOT ..." STILL, I LIKE THIS. IT'S TENSE!
“We left too late,” Edward said again. It had become a litany of sorts. I'D STRIKE THE "LITANY" SENTENCE.
“We’ll make it,” Ann replied, because they had to try. I'D CHANGE IT TO: ANN REPLIED. THEY HAD TO TRY. (I DON'T THINK ANN SAID THIS BECAUSE THEY HAD TO TRY, SO I DON'T BELIEVE "BECAUSE.")
Edward whipped the scaled backs of the placid undru pulling the wagon, but Ann could have told him it would do no good; the beasts were doing the best they could already. BE AWARE THAT YOU'RE EXPOSING EDWARD AS EITHER IGNORANT OF UNDRUS, OR CARELESS OF PUNISHING ANIMALS. THIS IS FINE IF IT FITS WITH HIS CHARACTER.
posted
I don't usually like to do this, but as we're on the third draft now, I'm going to go ahead and try to show autumn how it's time for her to just do what *she* wants to do. You're not going to get agreement on this opening. This is why we heckled that guy offering to have us rewrite his novel off the board. (Well, one of the reasons.) This is a reason why ten people trying to write anything, even a fragment of thirteen lines, doesn't end up working. We'd all write it different ways. The beauty is, autumn, that this is your fragment and you get to write it your way.
(sorry, wbriggs, I'm not trying to say your comments are perfectly valued opinions, I'm just trying to show that at this point concensus is impossible)
"I'D STRIKE "THEIR SIMPLE BLACK ... AROUND THEM" SINCE I DON'T THINK THEY'D BE NOTICING THEIR CLOTHES. I'D CHANGE THE LAST TO "ANN ... REFLEXIVELY. SHE WOULD NOT ..." STILL, I LIKE THIS. IT'S TENSE!"
I never assumed they were noticing their clothing. It was simply atmosphere and transition, which is why taking it out of the second version didn't work. THere was no trasnition to Ann clutching her swolen belly.
"I'D STRIKE THE "LITANY" SENTENCE."
Why? This is one of those times when a suggestion for change is being offered without the reason, without mentioning a problem. This doesn't help the author to understand whether she should follow the advice or not. What's wrong with the litany sentence? Personally, I thought it added background and more tension in a quick, non-intrusive way.
"I'D CHANGE IT TO: ANN REPLIED. THEY HAD TO TRY. (I DON'T THINK ANN SAID THIS BECAUSE THEY HAD TO TRY, SO I DON'T BELIEVE "BECAUSE.")"
Simple disagreement here. I do believe she said it because they had to try. I do believe because.
"BE AWARE THAT YOU'RE EXPOSING EDWARD AS EITHER IGNORANT OF UNDRUS, OR CARELESS OF PUNISHING ANIMALS. THIS IS FINE IF IT FITS WITH HIS CHARACTER."
I didn't get this at all. I got a man in desperate straights needing to do something but doesn't have anything he can do so doing something that, on any other occassion, might have seemed ignorant or cruel. The fear negates that completely, though.
posted
Oooo, way better... after reading the second draft, I was so frustrated with you that I was about to punch something... but after reading the third, by'god... it all comes together smoothly... I can't think of a thing that could be said about it now, except that I am now eager to read the full story...
Posts: 183 | Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted
Autumn - I also like the original first paragraph better, though I like having their names as in this version. I really like their shudder and the idea that the eggs would hatch out of petulent revenge for being disturbed. As for everything else, I love this newest version.
I have to agree with Christine's comments that you have to go with what you feels best conveys your story. There are all different kinds of people on this board and we're all going to see each story from our own particular view. You'll make yourself crazy trying to get everyone to agree.
posted
Autumnmuse, please listen to Christine and TaShaJaRo, and don't make yourself crazy trying to please everyone here.
The only comments you should consider incorporating into a rewrite of your work are those that fit what you're trying to accomplish, the ones that "resonate" with your image of the story. (Notice I said "consider incorporating" and not "should incorporate"?)
Everything else you can think about, but please remember that it's your story. You will be blamed for it, in the end, so you need to do what you think is best for and with it, not what anyone else thinks.
posted
I guess three is the charm... I guess I fit into a "new" group of critiquers since this is my first peek at it, but why go back to the original when this worked so well...I thought it was great, even!! Intriguing, clear and concise and yet nice to read all at the same time. I had no confusion about what was going on, and there were no moments when I felt the story had paused (as I did with the version on top of this thread). Now if I can take some cues from you.
Posts: 85 | Registered: Feb 2005
|
>Why? This is one of those times when a suggestion for change is being offered without the reason, without mentioning a problem.
Thing is, if autumnmuse looks over the paragraph with and without the "litany" sentence, she can decide for herself which is better -- so she doesn't need my reason!
(If you want it anyway, autumnmuse, here it is: we already know it's being repeated because you said "again," and I don't see that calling it a litany says anything except that he's repeating himself.)
I think I'll sign my name. I like being known by it:
Will
...and ditto Kathleen. One of the nicer things is when several critiquers disagree. It means I can do what I want. But then I always do anyway.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
