posted
I suspect it may run into some of the same criticisms as the prologue, but at least it has the virtue of not being a prologue, which I sense are somewhat out of favor!
Hobson Miller was quite your ordinary peasant. In fact, he'd even tell you so. His mundanity, of course, was no strike against his character or initiative, but merely a reflection of the fact that, from a certain point of view (to wit, the most common one), all peasants are more or less ordinary. It is true that as an actual miller rather than merely a nominal one Hobson had a vocation that set him apart from most of his fellow occupants of the fourth social stratum from the bottom (only beggars, actors, and, by dint of a peculiar piece of the Common Law of Arn, left-handed law clerks, were lower than peasants). Nevertheless, in most ...
Posts: 13 | Registered: Apr 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
On reading this, without any over blown or highfalutin analysis, I have to say: I like it. The style reminds me - but is different - from Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett, a book I loved. It does make me want to read more; I'm curious.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Apr 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
A narrator describes an individual's back story.
Fantasy readers anymore generally prefer stronger scene mode emphasis to narrator mode emphasis, the former harder to compose and more reading appeal. Maybe a tenth or less fantasy narratives open from a narrator back story introduction of late. The road less taken, here. Yet a novel composed entirely of narrator mode emphasis soon wears thin
However, the narrator's tone stands proud and expresses commentary, an apt instead-of substitution for scene mode, somewhat shy of a best strong and clear expression mark, though. Satire, in simple terms, portrays human vice and folly. A satiric narrator oscillates between reports of received impudent and imprudent sensory stimuli and ironic, sarcastic, satiric commentary about the stimuli, expressly human vice and folly stimuli, that is, especially moral wisdom lacks.
Naturalism's pessimistic nihilism, on the other hand, notes and comments negatively about virtue and moral prudence; ironically, though, oppositely exposes human vice and folly through courtly irony: condemns with faint praise, or praises with faint condemnation, or both. Courtly irony saw its finest, fullest expressions in the Renaissance palace corteges of European royalty, roots of which had been set forth in the Middle Ages from court jester and court bard performances and in the estates system. Present-day "nobility" corteges are amateurish irony and satire pikers by comparison.
The three estates' hierarchy: clergy, nobles -- royalty and land-owner aristocrats -- and commoner, a social strata. European estate lords and abbey abbots owned and licensed the gristmills where millers plied the flour trade. Millers received a "toll" for their labors, about a sixteenth share of all grain milled, or a dry quart per bushel of threshed grain: Old World grains, wheat, rye, oats, barley. Prestige and toll revenue set millers higher on the commoner strata than fourth from the bottom, near the top, actually.
Low fantasy defined is narratives that contain fantastical motifs set in a contemporary milieu. Historical authenticity, therefore, matters for low fantasy. Some small artistic license notwithstood. The Middle Ages is a milieu contemporary to its time, place, situation, and culture.
Language, then, also matters, as well as satire, suited to the era's courtly practices and present-day readers. Many otherwise low fantasy writers do away with any such fodder-all strictures, rather, slip loose the surly bounds of authenticity and surge abandoned into alternate history territory: present-day drama, language, and irony contexts set in re-imagined, romanticized, nostalgic medieval milieus.
"left-handed", for example, cack-handed instead, or sinister.
"mundanity" is a recent coin. Mundane, itself, is a fifteenth century coin and of a specific denotation sans appended connotations: the earthly realms, by no means dull, as opposed to and contrasted with metaphysical realms, spiritual or paranormal. Mundane to mean worldliness and dreary dull are of yet more recent coin. If the latter diluted connotations are meant for a low fantasy, then "mundane" and "mundanity" best practice compass comparative contrast of metaphysical context as well.
"It is true" syntax expletive "It" pronoun, widely considered a grammatical error, back when and now, though of common use. A common to the era's language and present-day understandable syntax would be more of this nature instead: //Is truth//
Parentheses brackets of the fragment therein for the asides do not add emphasis, rather, detract emphasis. Prose parentheses signal the greatest quantity and quality of discourse disruption for the sake of strongest emphasis. For a thirteen-lines start, overwrought emphasis doth protest overmuch and forceth much, mayhaps overdone for a start, in which readers could be put off by jumpy bumpiness. If comma separation is too low of an emphasis for the intent, the go-to is the dash. Re:
//His mundanity, of course, was no strike against his character or initiative, merely reflection of the fact that, from a certain point of view -- to wit, the most common one -- all peasants are more or less ordinary.//
The second parentheses set ought should instead be a standalone sentence; terminal punctuation placed at the terminus of the former clause.
//It is true that[,] as an actual miller[,] rather than merely a nominal one[,] Hobson had a vocation that set him apart from most _of_ his fellow occupants _of_ the fourth social stratum from the bottom. Only beggars, actors, and, by dint _of_ a peculiar piece _of_ the Common Law _of_ Arn, left-handed law clerks, were lower than peasants.//
Missed nondiscretionary commas above, too. Adverbial phrases, and conjunctive adverbs, take comma separation. An excess of superfluous prepositions, also, "of" in particular. Punctuated per standard principles, though, the sentence is now punctuation cluttered and bumpy. Diction, syntax, and punctuation acrobatics put readers off. Streamlined and simplified diction, yada, works more effective reader-effect mischief.
//A genuine miller rather than mere meddler, is truth Hobson's vocation set him apart from his fellow partakers at the fourth social stratum above the low. Only beggars, play actors, and, by dint from a peculiar act of Arn common law, cack-handed scribes rated lower than peasants.//
"actual" to mean genuine is vague anymore, in all too common, everyday, present-day use as an empty intensifier. "nominal" means by name. Law clerks are lawyers in training and capable litigators themselves, only not yet passed the Bar or disqualified from the Bar, plus, a later colonial era practice; cack-handed scribes, now there's a cursed vocational stratum and a period and milieu descriptor. Static voice verbs done away, too: to be, to have, and similar that describe a stasis, or static, state of being.
Altogether, the sentence's main idea, Hobson's social status, clearer, stronger, and more dynamic and comprehensible.
"Nevertheless, in most ..." AP journalism style ellipsis points format, used to set the punctuation apart for optimum legibility of Standard Typescript Format: teletype. Prose's Standard Publication Format, indicated due to Hatrack's post display typeface is proportional, and this is prose, not journalism, is //Nevertheless, in most . . . //
If the satiric observation and commentary more so than as is intimated now moment and to come portrayal of human vice and folly, I'd be a hopelessly engaged reader from this novel's first thirteen lines. Social stratification is a topic on point as it is. An increment clearer and stronger satiric observation and commentary of such or other topic would carry this reader and, by extension, other interested readers, to a bull's-eye mark. Plus, of course, language and grammar adjustments for reading and comprehensibility ease and appeal enhancements.
As is, I am more inclined to read further than for the first fragment, though not yet as fully engaged as I would want.
posted
Thank you both for the feedback. Extrinsic, if I might ask for clarification on one point you mentioned? You struck the word 'nominal' from your retooling of the sentence talking about Hobson's vocation, as nominal means 'by name'. That, however, was hopefully part of the joke, as Hobson's last name is mentioned as being 'Miller', thus he is both a 'Miller' and a 'miller'. (True enough, the last name 'Miller' comes from the vocation, so a person of a prior era would not see the joke, but I was endeavoring to play off a modern reader's perspective that not every Miller is a miller, but in Hobson's case, both are true). Anyway, it seems the joke (calling Hobson both a nominal and actual 'miller' didn't quite come across. Maybe I should mention his name closer to his profession? Or just drop it in its entirety?
Posts: 13 | Registered: Apr 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
Old English Hobson means son of Robert, which, in turn, is Old Germanic for bright fame, a metonymy-type nickname. British surname Miller and Germanic Milne surname, alternatively, derive from synecdoche (nickname, too) name conventions related to standout attributes part of a whole, like vocations, those of the miller, that eased persons' identifications in an age when surnames were uncommon.
Smith, for blacksmith, is one common example; Wright for any of an assortment of skilled woodworkers, wood wright, house wright, shipwright, millwright, wainwright; and cobbler, cooper, steward, butler, mason, ad infinitum.
The wordplay of an actual and nominal medieval miller surnamed Miller is not lost though is wasted on me. An authentic medieval British era practice would nominatively label Hobson as Hob's son the miller. Near the end of the medieval era and afterward, when census roll burdens and management ease required name distinctions, then simply Hobson T. Miller.
The aspects that present-day Millers are not all millers and whether readers are aware of the surname convention behind that doesn't rise very high for the amusement occasion, likely know their own surnames' origins anyway. Plus, as Ms. Dalton Woodbury noted about the prior fragment, readers ought never be the butt of a joke; nor, for that matter, readers the pupils of a narrative history lecture like this herein.
Consider leaving the name as is and whether word count economy and aesthetics favor a satirical observation or comment instead of a high-brow and clever-cute wordplay between terms like actual and nominal that might want for explanation. Puns, jokes, wordplay, satire, irony explained fall flatter than their initial overlooked occasions. Readers thrill to and feel smarter than a narrative when they discover and figure out on their own such and other rhetorical devices and schemes.
If a wordplay feature is nonetheless wanted and intended satirical, consider what congruent opposite vocation or also vice facet might stand up and demand due notice for the intent. Many farmer serfs and tenants milled their own household grain in turn and often damaged the millworks out of any and all sorts of vice and folly mischief, much to the Laird his self's displeasure, and the licensed miller's contempt, thus why I used meddler, and its somewhat consonance and close alliteration and assonance to and a congruent opposite echo of miller. If a reader gets it or other, obtains delight from a wordplay or such, to the good; if not, nothing lost or wasted, and not so much a stumble bump for any reader regardless, either.
quote:Hobson Miller was quite your ordinary peasant.
Ah well, no sense in reading on, given that he’s uninteresting.
My point, aside from the fact that you just told the reader that he’s not worthy of attention? We’re not with Mr. Miller, we’re reading the emotion free words of someone talking about him. That’s not story. It’s a lecture.
quote: In fact, he'd even tell you so.
Basically, you just repeated the first line. Why would I, as someone trying to decide if I want to pay money I had to work to earn, for this book, want to learn that the fictional character being talked about would agree with the author as to being mundane?
Why do I make such a big deal of this? Because you, someone neither on the scene nor in the story are talking to a reader who can neither hear your tone nor see your performance. In other words, you’re playing the role of verbal storyteller in a medium that does not support that art.
quote: His mundanity, of course, was no strike against his character or initiative, but merely a reflection of the fact that, from a certain point of view (to wit, the most common one), all peasants are more or less ordinary.
Stop lecturing the reader on your philosophy vis-à-vis this character. This is a new scene. At this point we don’t know what planet we’re on. We don’t know where we are in time and space. And we don’t know what’s going on in the scene. A voice we cannot hear, belonging to someone we don’t know, is lecturing us on the meaning of the word “mundane.” To quote James H. Schmitz, “Don’t inflict the reader with irrelevant background material—get on with the story.”
And to add to that, Sol Stein said it well, with, “In sum, if you want to improve your chances of publication, keep your story visible on stage and yourself mum.”
In person you are the storyteller. On the page you’re an intrusion. When you perform for an audience, they can hear the emotion in your voice. Speak the words, “You are a bastard, Chuck,” and by tone alone we know if it’s praise or insult. Let me read those words as subtitles while watching you perform and I know the emotion connected, too. In parallel with the emotion filled words I see your gesture, eye-movement, expression, and body language, all contributing to the emotional message that accompanies those few words. And I get that in the time it takes for you to say, “You are a bastard, Chuck.” In other words, with the words comes the storyteller’s performance.
On the page? We get only the words, so you would have to serially spell out both the line of dialog, and how you delivered those words. Aside from the fact that we cannot tell the reader how the narrator performs, no way in hell can line after line of exposition give the immediacy of five words presented as performance.
In short: you’re using the techniques of verbal storytelling in a medium that does not support it.
Can you tell a story on the page? Absolutely. Take a look at the Amazon excerpt to, The Last Unicorn, by Peter Beagle for a fine example of how to talk to the reader and make it seem as if they’re in conversation with the storyteller. But he starts with story, not history or philosophy. And he focuses on that Unicorn, and what matters to her, as she views it, giving the reader a feeling of knowing what matters to her. He raises a question in the reader’s mind and then addresses it, as if the reader asked, which is a variation on the Motivation/Response Unit technique often used for a deep viewpoint presentation.
You have the desire and the story. And I’m not talking about talent, or potential as a writer. My point is, as I often say, if we want to write like a pro you need to know what the pro knows. And the only shortcut I know is to not look for shortcuts.
The answer is simple but not easy. It’s simple because all you need to do is pick up the tricks of the trade, perfect them to the point where you can use them as easily and naturally as nonfiction skills we’re given in school. It’s not easy for the same reason: you have to pick up the tricks of the trade, perfect them to the point where you can use them as easily and naturally as nonfiction skills we’re given in school.
But becoming proficient in the tricks and knowledge unique to the field is true of any endeavor. It’s all in the becoming. Unfortunately, no one tells us that for all but a few students, we leave our school days exactly as well qualified to write a novel as to perform an appendectomy because we’re missing the necessary knowledge and experience. But that’s not only fixable, learning the craft is fun, and multiplies the possibilities as we write, making the job easier, and of more importance, will bring our characters to life.
If you’ve not had a character tell you, “Hell no. I won’t do that because I’m not that kind of person,” your characters aren’t real to you or the reader. We create the situation. We create our characters. They drive. And the situation—which is what motivats them to act—is usually easier to change than is the protagonist’s personality, experience, and background, because the situation is what’s happening in the moment. Character decision and actions is the summation of everything that has happened to them since birth. And as we demonstrate that character in scene-after-scene through their behavior, changing some aspect of it becomes harder because it may require changes in behavior everywhere else.
My suggestion, as it so often is, is to begin with Dwight Swain’s, Techniques of the Selling Writer, read slowly, with plenty of time for reflection and practice, to address the nuts and bolts issues.
But no matter what you do, hang in there and keep on writing. The world needs more people who can be looking out the window at nothing, and when asked what rhey’re doing, can truthfully say, “Working.”
Posts: 263 | Registered: Dec 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mountaintop, thank you for your kind reply. I am still putting things together, but if you would like to read the prologue, the only part that's completely done at the moment, I would be happy to send it your way!
Posts: 13 | Registered: Apr 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd love to, but it looks like the option to send a private message is blocked for you (I don't see the little grey envelope at the top of your post). If you'd like to private message me an address I can send to, I shall forward it along. Thanks!
Posts: 13 | Registered: Apr 2018
| IP: Logged |
quote: learning the craft is fun, and multiplies the possibilities as we write, making the job easier,
I can only half agree with this Jay.
Though I love writing, I live in an area where pushing yourself to higher ground is frowned upon. I often get ridiculed for having a college education and wasting it on writing. I also get ridiculed because I tend to have a book in my hands. I have a gift for self-learning, but that constant push to do better, achieve higher, comes with a price, and I wouldn't always call it fun, especially in a room full of doubters. They can make your life miserable while you tackle each hurdle. There's nothing like being mocked by a bunch of factory workers for daring to have and continue your education.
There are great moments when you feel vindicated, but those are fewer and farther in between than the pressure others apply to fail.
Let alone the self-doubt that constantly plagues the mind.
Writing can be a battlefield, always thinking surrender might be best, the uncertainty of future, perhaps, retreat for a while, but always knowing the distance you havr to make up and still need to cover to finally bring it to a close and achieve victory.
There's nothing easy about writing: the technical issues, yes, become easier, but the blank page can even befuddle the most ardent professional. Fun, that's a tough word for writing: Always being in your head, in your imagination, endless hours of solitude that are impossible to explain to others for fear they will want to add an opinion. All the legwork to world build, create from scratch something others will believe in and like, even love. The constant criticism, it's definitely not for the thin-skinned.
Like I said at the start, I love writing, but fun? Only part of the time. But yes, far better than a fast-food clerk or lineman at a local factory, that I will give a hundred percent.
The power to create is a wonderful gift, but it does extract a price.
quote: learning the craft is fun, and multiplies the possibilities as we write, making the job easier,
I can only half agree with this E.
That cite is by Jay Greenstein.
Social acceptance and rejection for writers and of writing, intellectual activity overall, as the case might be, revolves around the virtue kindness and the vice envy's green-eyed monster jealousy. Cain slew Abel out of envy's jealousy.
I am far from believing writing and studies thereof are "fun." The fun parts for me are successful satire expression in the end, and acceptance, approval, and adoption of a given work. Trifling detractors otherwise can go hang a rump court.
quote:I am far from believing writing and studies thereof are "fun."
I can't speak for everyone, but if you don't enjoy learning the tricks of the trade you've chosen—be that writing, plumbing, or whatever; if being able to do something you'd not been able to accomplish before doesn't bring satisfaction; if the improved results don't please you, you may have chosen the wrong field.
Posts: 263 | Registered: Dec 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Much daylight between fun, enjoyment, satisfaction, curiosity requited, efforts rewarded, delight, awe, and wonder.
Suggestions or implied or direct imperatives a Hatrack member has chosen the wrong field impinges on the no-poster-psychoanalysis rule, "No psychoanalysis of the author" ("Please Read Here First" "If you registered, you agreed to this" thread, third post, fourth paragraph).
quote:Suggestions or implied or direct imperatives a Hatrack member has chosen the wrong field impinges on the no-poster-psychoanalysis rule,
Nonsense. I made a general comment on the subject of enjoying the act of learning. your enjoying, or don't disliking the act of learning is a personal decision—especially given that I didn't address the comment to you.
But aiming an insult like:"Trifling detractors otherwise can go hang a rump court," at my words is something that I wouldn't have expected from you.
In short: You express your opinions on the writing and the questions asked, and I'll express mine, and we'll let the one being addressed decide how to take it.
Posts: 263 | Registered: Dec 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because a comment comes right after someone else's comment does not mean the second commenter is commenting on what the first commenter said. (Does that make sense?)
Unless someone is responded to by name, or someone else's comment is actually quoted, please take comments as being general and not directed specifically at any one person?
Thank you.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry KDW, didn't mean to distract the post. Sorry to JohnB also, I just simply meant to say, there's a lot of hard work that goes into writing, so don't get discouraged and keep moving forward. "Fun", is a personal perspective, to each their own, as long as we all reach the end goal. The reason we come here.
But you're right, I should have placed this in writing discussion.
W.
End transmission.
Posts: 634 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
