posted
Here's the beginning of a short story I'm writing. Let me know if you want to read more and I'll e-mail it to you as I complete substantial parts of it.
I first learned how men die when I was 13. I was at home helping mother pull up flowers that didn’t look like the kind you could eat. Most of them you couldn’t, but flowers were easier to find than gourds and berries so it was flowers we tried to keep in our plot. Sometimes it worked, but sometimes it didn’t and we’d have to find a new plot to call our own and tend as before. Mother was good at this but I still had a hard time telling which were good and which were bad. She was in the midst of telling me about a bright orange flower she’d just pulled by the roots when I heard the dogs start to bark. They never barked except for two reasons: either there was an animal about in which case they were our only protection since the men were out hunting, or the men had returned. The second option turned out to be the truer and I quickly forgot all about my mother and tending our plot. Father was home and I wanted to see what sort of animal he had killed this time.
posted
3 things going on here: a promise we'll find out how men die (also in the title); flower weeding; and Daddy's home.
I think the story may have started too early. Except the title, nothing hooks me. What's the cool thing that will happen in this story? Start there.
If you do decide to start here, how about:
* skip the "I first learned..." (it's in the title too)
I didn't follow the garden stuff * didn't look like the kind you could eat ... it sounds like he's judging the edibility by appearance. I doubt this is possible. Maybe he could say "that weren't the right kind," suggesting he recognizes particular species * flowers were easier to find than gourds or berries: it shouldn't be hard to find gourds or berries in a garden. Why are flowers easier to find, anyway? * What wouldn't work? Does this mean, the flowers didn't come up? Why pick a new plot -- why not just plant again? * Why would Mother talk about the bright orange one? WHen I was learning to weed, it was just, "This is a weed."
I suggest skipping this explanation:
They never barked except for two reasons: either there was an animal about in which case they were our only protection since the men were out hunting, or the men had returned. The second option turned out to be the truer and I quickly forgot all about my mother and tending our plot.
posted
Yeah, I'm confused by the garden bits, and started to think the POV character is not human. Like maybe they are some sort of grazing animal. They seem to act unhuman.
(Pay no attention to me, I haven't had my coffee yet.)
posted
Yeah, skip the exposition about gardening. Why would the narrator go on and on with (surprisingly vague) explanation of how what kind of flowers were edible when that's not the point of the story?
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
The Garden Scene is supposed to give some setting without outright telling you it, because the narrator himself doesn't see it that way. It's set in Pre-History, right when the first division between sedentary and non-sedentary peoples is taking place. Obviously, we're looking at a group of sedentary humans, but they still don't have all the expertise we do now. For instance, they don't know how to deliberately plant something, so they try to tend their plots as best as possible to keep the good plants in and the bad plants out. Flowers are easier to see for them than the more fine tuned plants such as berries, or nuts, or even grains. The difference between the sedentary and the non-sedentary groups will become more apparent and important later on the story. Part of what I'm trying to do with the narrator is describe the tension he feels doing stuff with his mother in the garden when he wants to be doing stuff with his father like hunting. That becomes important later on too. He sees his first death later further down the first page. The main purpose of the gardening scene is really to start describing setting and relationships, that with his mom, and later that with his dad as he quickly leaves when his father comes home.
It's sort of hard to describe the setting because the narrator doesn't see it like we do from an advanced ethnocentric (Not exactly the right word to use, but we tend to think our time period is so much better than others... temporal-centric? Chronocentric?) time period like ours. I can't just say, they live in a primitive stone age village because it's not a primitive stone age village to the narrator. In fact, to the narrator, they live in the most advanced village he knows of. So, how can I overcome this problem and still hook the reader?
[This message has been edited by mythopoetic (edited August 19, 2005).]
posted
I suggest this: instead of having them tend a plot, let them just go to an area where something edible grows, and gather. (If this is Earth, it probably won't be flowers. Some flowers are edible, but for real food value, fruits and vegetables beat them, cold.)
Something like:
Mother and I found a great plot of burdocks: some in the second year with the burrs forming on the tall stalks, others just big, flat green leaves.
... so we get concrete detail. If they live in this environment, they'll know it very well, so it won't just be "flowers," it'll be "goldenseal" or "squash blossoms" or something.
I don't imagine that the concept of weeding would predate the concept of seeding. I may be wrong -- but I don't think so. People are bound to notice early on that things tend to grow where they drop their garbage, even if they don't know that it's the seed that does it.
BTW, I think this is a boy. Shouldn't he be learning to hunt, rather than to gather? Maybe it depends on the tribe -- but I'll want some recognition that you noticed the issue.
posted
Good point about the plot tending, but the point is that they call it their own. If they have to go looking for it then they aren't really sedentary like I want them, they're just like the other groups I will mention later in the story. The hunters and scavengers. I think trying to be more specific about the plants is a good idea, but this is still supposed to be pretty early on. They aren't a well established sedentary group so they don't know too much yet about things. About the weeding issue, I can see it both ways. If you don't know how to purposely plant something yet, you are more likely to first figure out how to keep the stuff you do have alive. You don't want stuff you know will hurt you in your plot. On the other hand, from a planting point of view, it is feasible that weeding makes more since if you know what bad plants will do for your good ones. I'll have to do some research. At the moment though I'm going to keep it the same for the story's sake.
About the hunting, part of the story is about the boy's transition from childhood, being connected to his mother and helping with her roles in the village, to manhood. Thus, later on in the story he begins learning how to hunt and such.
posted
ok, so here's a revised version of the first bit. It's two lines longer than 13, sorry, but I didn't want to break up the idea. I didn't change too much just yet, but I hope this helps with things.
I first learned how men die when I was thirteen. I was in the village helping mother pull up flowers that didn’t look like the kind you could eat. Most of them you couldn’t, but flowers were easier to find than gourds and berries so it was flowers we tried to keep in our plot. Sometimes it worked, but sometimes it didn’t and we’d have to find a new plot to call our own and tend as before. Mother was good at this but I still had a hard time telling which were good and which were bad. Frankly I didn’t mind not knowing. I didn’t expect to do this all my life like mother. I was thirteen and soon I’d be a man, like father. Mother was in the midst of telling me about a bright orange flower she’d just pulled by the roots that would make you sick and vomit if you ate it when I heard the dogs start to bark. They never barked except for two reasons: either there was an animal about in which case they were our only protection since the men were out hunting, or the men had returned. The second option turned out to be correct and I quickly forgot all about my mother and tending our plot. Father was home and I wanted to see what sort of animal he had killed this time.
posted
I'm...I'm afraid I'm wincing. Even though this is set in the Stone-Age, research is required. True, most readers won't know if you make things up...but some will. Where, exactly, in the Stone Age do you want this to be? Some things I noticed:
-- Farming Berries: berries are something that's gathered. Like nuts. They aren't a domesticate. Which is why you have lovely stories about maidens going berry-pickings in the woods. In other words, they wouldn't farm berries.
-- Gourds: I only recall one group who domesticated the gourd. They were Native Americans, living in Southern US/North Mexico, and it was the bottle gourd. They used this not so much for food, but for a container. If I'm not gravely mistaken, this group of people was not sedentary.
-- Dogs: Some groups did have dogs, yes. Again, where is this? The Native Americans who grew gourds didn't have dogs.
As for Hunter and Gatherers vs. Farmers: The "Agricultural Revolution," as it's called, happened for different reasons in different places. Seeing as the conflict between groups is important, it's probably a good idea to know why these people have started farming. Contrary to popular belief, farming is not a better way of life. Hunters and Gatherers have more leisure time, greater yields for less time invested, fewer diseases, longer lives, better diets, and are overall better in almost every way but one: farmers have more children. There's no reason for a hunter and gatherer who's doing decently to take up farming. There has to be a reason.
I know Stone-Age isn't Science Fiction, and research isn't the first thing that jumps to mind...but it really is a good idea. There was a ton of stuff going on in the Stone Age, and generalizing it makes me squirm. I wouldn't be able to read this story without screaming at it, because the facts aren't right, and people all around me generalize Stone Age people into one category anyway. I don't need that from fiction, too.
If you'll tell me where this is supposed to be set, I can tell you what things they'd be growing, what tools they'd have, why they started argiculture, and give you some links. Even if you never tell the audiance where it is, knowing and drawing on the facts will give the story consistency and make it believable. I hope this post has been helpful. The Stone Age is fascinating: I think it's a wonderful place to set a story.
[This message has been edited by Miriel (edited August 20, 2005).]
posted
Yeah, your explanation does tend to make me agree with Miriel's assessment that you need to do a lot of research. I would never have pegged your opening as depicting a pre-historic setting, because it doesn't.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
A lot of the questions you raise are answered later in the story. I can't very well put them all in the first 13 lines because then I wouldn't have a story. For instance, the reason why they are sedentary instead of hunter/gatherer is very central to the story.
About where this is set: That's not as important as it seems. Setting really doesn't have much influence on the story other than the time period because it's not about the land, but about the people and their culture. That is... It's not a Gulliver's Island story designed to wow the reader by describing exotic locations and such. Regardless, I was thinking more of a Near Eastern location, which wouldn't go well with the gourds and berries idea, but then again, I did say in the story that they aren't very common. That also explains the non-domestication issue. Also, in this story, the sendentary lifestyle is still fairly new, therefore they are still learning about what works and what doesn't. Also, dogs were fairly common everywhere. It was one of the few animals that both old world and new world peoples possessed. Now, if I had said they had horses or something, then where in the world it was located would be a big issue. And yes, I will do more research, but a lot of it is speculative. We don't know how exactly the agricultural revolution developed, just how it ended up looking from our perspective. Who knows? Maybe they really did start out trying to eat flowers and other plants, gradually learning that grains worked better, etc.
posted
The Near East is one of the best-researched centers of agricultural revolution. It was the first place in the world to have agriculture; there's been a lot of research. I know a lot of people shrug off prehistory as that grey, fuzzy time that makes good cartoons...but we do know a lot about what was going on, and ignoring the facts isn't going to win points with anyone.
I'm not here to argue; I was merely trying to help. Other people know about physics and geology: archaeology happens to be what I'm good at. If you'd like some information, I'd be more than willing to pass some along. If not, I have better things to do than argue, and I'll bow out now.
posted
You're quite right--you can't have the narrator describe the village as primitive, because to him it isn't. You can, however, have him describe the village in such a way that the informed reader comes to appreciate that it's primitive.
Setting is important. If it isn't contemporary, it becomes even more important that the reader learn what it is, or they'll flounder, wondering why, for example, the protagonist doesn't just go get his gun... There's lots of opportunity even in those first thirteen lines to drop hints to the reader that this is the Stone Age. That does, as Miriel says, involve doing some research.
You should know where in the world these people are, even if they don't, because that knowledge will inform your story and make it more convincing. Small details like how they get their water, and how rank is established and enforced, can give a story a 'true' feel. At the moment, your protagonist exists in a small bubble. Make the bubble larger--maybe the size of the village.
You probably don't need 100 books to achieve this *looks around* .
posted
So what's the story about because I am looking at it the MICE way, and I'm not seeing anything.
Mileau- You said this wouldn't be a Guilliver's Travels world story, so scratch this.
Idea- You don't seem interested in professing ideas, other than the eating of flowers, that will revolutionize our way of thinking.
Character- There is something for this, but until you said something outside the story, I thought the narrator was a girl, so I don't really know or care about the main character yet.
Event- I guess it could be about "How Men Die", but there is no development towards that other than the first sentence.
To extent, most of the stuff in your story is superfluous. The garden scene could be deleted by just saying one sentence that states this is Prehistory, only a little more eloquent and subtle than a blunt statement. The part about the dogs also seemed unnecessary because you are just telling us what dogs do anyway.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
.
