Hatrack River Writers Workshop: Whence the Threat to Peace (Sci Fi, 7,500 words)

This is topic Whence the Threat to Peace (Sci Fi, 7,500 words) 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=001319

Posted by RobertM on :

Below is a whole new beginning to this story. The first two replies (which were very good, by the way) refer to an old beginning.

I hope this new one is an improvement.

“I have bad news. The Commission has determined that a human scientist should be sent to study the satellite.”
“We have failed then.”
“I fear that is so.”
There was a pause, then, “Has the Commission selected the scientist yet?”
“It has. Anderson Valdes of New York University.”
“A good choice.”
“Indeed.”
Another pause. “And the research vessel? Has the Commission selected which nation shall transport the scientist to the satellite?”
“It has not, no.”
“Good. Then all may not be lost.”

[This message has been edited by RobertM (edited September 03, 2005).]

Posted by BuffySquirrel (Member # 2780) on :

I like the visuals here--the smirking tech and Valdes with his eyes closed and his tight grip on his valise--but I can't help feeling that this opening is over-explained. It might work better if you dropped in any technical details from Valdes' point of view, rather than as insertions from a narrator. Try to have him regard the teleportation device as an everyday inconvenience with which he's familiar--rather like someone getting into an elevator and tensing themselves for the stomach-drop as it starts upward.

[This message has been edited by BuffySquirrel (edited September 02, 2005).]

Posted by maria102182 (Member # 2829) on :

I have to agree with this. It does seem way over analyzed. Also, this beginning is not much of a hook. I wouldn't want to keep reading the story. I would start with the part about this being the opportunity of a lifetime, and have him desracted by the technition and the anticipation of the unpleasentness to come.

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

If you're going for a dialogue vignette, then cut everything that isn't dialogue. If not, then you're going to be subject to all the ordinary rules.

There are also some bits of the dialogue that I think you could cut profitably.

“I have bad news.”
“We have failed then.”
“I fear that is so.”
“A good choice.”
“Indeed.”

If the sentiments represented by those lines are important to the plot (and some of them probably are), you need more than any of those lines delivers. As it stands, they seem like..."hmmm...um" dialogue, people talking to fill dead space (the pauses may be the cause of that impression, though).

With my suggested edits, you're probably down to about six lines. Maybe they all pull their weight, but altogether they don't pull quite enough weight for an opening. Still, the essential concept is being set up, so it does develop a bit of interest.

Posted by Warbric (Member # 2178) on :

This seems too flat and mostly uninteresting to me. I'm not hooked, but I might read further to see whether it got better, depending on my attention span at the moment I picked up the book.

I'd almost prefer the person reporting the Commission's decision to come into the room and show how he feels about it, perhaps even bearing a stack of briefing materials under his arm used in an unsuccessful bid to delay their action.

The second person is in accord with the first down the line. Why not have the second person admit the failure, but agree with the Commission's decision? Ditto the choice of Anderson Valdes to go on the mission. Why not have the second person object to the choice?

This is just one person's opinion, of course, but I think you can amp up the stakes a bit by creating conflict and tension from the very beginning. Of course, if this doesn't serve your story as you see it, then I'm out in left-field and to be ignored.

Posted by wbriggs (Member # 2267) on :

I strongly suggest you go more conventional, specifically:

* let us know up front who's talking
* ...and who's the POV character
* ...and why he cares about what's happening (so we will too).

Posted by RobertM on :

Man, you guys are tough! The leader of my writer's group (a professional writer and editor), who has a reputation for mercilessness, said this about this story:

"I am hooked, and it is the addition of the added beginning that made me so. The story has my interest peaked, and I await the rest. ...Oh, yes, and, if it holds like this all the way through, you will have a [story] to submit when finished and the crumbs brushed off, though there aren't many crumbs."

I think James Frey said the best critics are the ones who are hardest on you, but gee, you guys are the Sith Lords of critiquing.

Anyway, stay tuned....

Posted by RobertM on :

Survivor: I don't understand your suggestion. Do you mean to cut those quoted lines or cut until those are all that's left?

Warbric: That you have these questions about what's going on is indeed the purpose. I want the reader to be asking himself these questions just so he'll read on to find out the answers. Doesn't work for you?

wbriggs: I don't want the reader to know who's talking, but rather wonder about who it might be. I don't want a POV character here (indeed, it would be most difficult for there to be one under these cirumcstances). I can't be too specific about why the speakers care about what's going on. I want the reader just to know that the speakers *do* care and therefore to want to read more about why that may be.

Thanks for the comments people. When the story goes through final reviews at my writers' group I'll put a fragement up again and see if there's any more traction.

Cheers,

Rob

Posted by wbriggs (Member # 2267) on :

>wbriggs: I don't want the reader to know who's talking, but rather wonder about who it might be.

This is an important point. I think you're trying to build mystery. But, really, the way to build mystery is not to confuse the reader, or withhold information the POV character knows, but to ground him in a POV and let that character be puzzled with him. I get *more* involved with a situation when I can see it clearly, not less.

You can do what you want, but you might consider if there are other readers like me. I'll bump a thread on this issue in Open Discussions.

Posted by RobertM on :

Thanks, wbriggs. I'll have a look over there.

Posted by BuffySquirrel (Member # 2780) on :

A professional writer and editor ought to know that their interest is piqued, not peaked

I definitely preferred the other opening. This has no context, and is almost all dialogue. Pauses are more convincing when there's a line of narrative to create a 'beat'.

[This message has been edited by BuffySquirrel (edited September 05, 2005).]

Posted by Kherezae (Member # 2855) on :

My first thought reading this was about the rigid, formal quality of the characters' speech. It makes me wonder if your characters are part of a group brought up to have such speech patterns, or if you're the type of author who might have trouble developing character voice with little quirks like dialect/vernacular. If the characters have a reason to speak formally, that's perfectly fine, of course -- and I suppose you can't really show why these characters would speak formal English as opposed to using more casual speech in a 13-line intro...

I have more patience than the first 13 lines, though, I think -- at least most of the time. So I would read further than this... but I'd want more information in short order, and I'd want to meet your viewpoint character. Hopefully he or she would contrast well with the first two we're shown by having a unique, distinctive voice and personality.

Posted by RobertM on :

Good catch re "piqued," Buffy. I almost edited it out, but thought that'd be cheating.

And about the lines, Kherezae, they're spoken by computers. Indeed, you'd have to consider this a translation of what the computers would be saying to one another as it's unlikely they'd communicate in English. When they're speaking to humans, however, they do tend to speak a bit more formally than conversational English.

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

If the speakers are supposed to be machines, then the lines I specified definitely need to be cut.

On the other hand, you can't do this as a dialogue vignette unless the lines actually get said somehow. That wouldn't seem to be the case here.

Posted by RobertM on :

I disagree that the lines need to be cut, Survivor, just because they're machines. Granted, machines wouldn't speak this way, but it's a translation, not literally what was said. I've translated from foreign languages before (Russian and Spanish), and the idea is to convey the speaker's meaning, not to give literally what was said.

I also disagree that this can't be dialogue. I mean, why not? I'm "quoting," as it were, spoken dialogue (albeit spoken in machine language -- ones and zeroes, I imagine). How would you show a conversation between two intelligent machines?

Posted by Beth (Member # 2192) on :

Arguing with crits is the very fastest way to make sure you don't get any more. FYI.

You're free to disregard anything you think isn't helpful to you, of course, but arguing is just going to convince people that commenting on your stories isn't a pleasant use of their time.

Posted by RobertM on :

You mean that this isn't a place for lively discussion about topics near and dear to all of us? Hmm. Perhaps this isn't the place for me, then.

Thank you all for the time and effort you put in to my fragment. I'm very grateful for your efforts.

Best regards,
Rob

Posted by Beth (Member # 2192) on :

Rob, maybe this is a good place for you and maybe it isn't; too soon to say. I'm just letting you know that the path you're on is not going to get you the results you want. Personally, I hope you stick around. Just don't expect more from the critiques than is being offered.

Posted by BuffySquirrel (Member # 2780) on :

Why not post your query about how artificial intelligences might communicate in Open Discussions? That way, ideas could be batted around without direct reference to your story.

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

Besides, some arguments are obvious. Of course you disagree that those lines need to be cut, that's why you put them in and haven't cut them.

But I can't see them as anything but "hmmm...um" dialogue. Such dialogue exists, but it saps a lot of the impact out of a conversation. Not all conversations need impact, but dialogue vignettes do.

And this isn't a translation. I won't go into technical details, but this isn't a human language we're talking about. It's an interpretation. That's very different. Putting quotes around an interpretation is...it has it's uses, but turning something that is not dialogue into a dialogue vignette isn't one of them.

Anyway, discussion is fine, so is questioning what a comment means. But don't bother to say you disagree with a suggested change. It serves no purpose.