posted
Here are the first thirteen lines of a work in progress. Please let me know if you'd like to read the rest of this beast. Thanks!
The Fountains of Probability
"Mr. um...Kyyt?"
Kyyt's name could only be pronounced correctly underwater, but he didn't want to offend this human woman who destroyed his name so delightfully, so he nodded. I should show her a smile, he thought. How do I make a smile? Ah, I remember.
Smiling, Kyyt said, "Yes, Major?"
"We will be landing soon. I've arranged for your transportation and security. The other members of our cell are waiting--” She stopped.
The unhealed burns on her face made her expression hard for Kyyt to read, but he thought she had suddenly become very sad, perhaps nervous, too. The scar tissue confused him.
Abruptly, she leaned close to him and asked very quietly, very awkwardly, "Would you mind if I...touched you?"
"Not at all," Kyyt replied.
She nodded slightly, not really listening. She was looking very intently at him, as if recognizing someone she had known long ago.
"Feel free to touch me, but what you feel will be very different from what you see. So, perhaps it would be better if you did not touch me...Major?"
That brought her back to reality. Clearing her throat, she took a step backwards and resumed an appropriate distance. By now, Kyyt had grown accustomed to the impaired geometry of her face, and he watched her grow businesslike and cold. This marine major had become angry with him. He had exposed one of her soft parts, an unhealed wound somewhere.
posted
I might be interested. How long is what you've got? See my note on your other post about the length of what you've posted.
Posts: 932 | Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted
It's about 5100 words. I'll take whatever you're willing to give me. If you'd like to read the whole darn thing, I'd be very grateful.
Posts: 104 | Registered: Dec 2004
|
posted
Another very interesting beginning. One personal pet peeve I have is with close repetitions of a word used for different meanings, "had had" for 'had possessed/gotten' or 'had needed [to]', to [a place] to [an action]. In this case you do it with "so", first meaning 'quite' and then meaning 'thus'.
The major doesn't quite seem solidly constructed, but it might just be my perception that her behavior was markedly unmilitary for Marine Corps officer.
Do remember that posting more than the first manuscript format page of a text could compromise your ability to sell first rights to that work to a publisher. Naturally, the closer you are to the final form of the text, the more of a problem that will be, and the converse. There is also the issue of etiquette, I suppose.
posted
As far as I know, pronunciation underwater is only hampered. In other words, you can pronounce more in air than underwater. I don't know if you have some sort of genetic mutation lined up for that one, but it's really just kind of cheesey...
Posts: 341 | Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted
It's still cheesey. If Kyyt can speak to humans, I doubt the pronunciation would change from underwater to air. Rather, it would change from species to species. And the whole different scientient species mispronouncing another species' names is overdone and is really a joke now.
Posts: 341 | Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted
I think it makes sense. Some basic phonemes might be the same in human and in Kyrt's language, but some of them might not be reproductible. Kyrt could manage to make himself understood by humans, but not perfectly well. I know, for instance, that many French people cannot pronounce a Spanish "v" or "j" correctly, because it's a sound that doesn't exist in French. So it makes sense that it would be worse inter-species.
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Sep 2004
|
posted
It tells us something important about Kyyt's species to know that his name can only be properly pronounced underwater. And it tells us something important about Kyyt's character that he doesn't bother to correct her in a situation where he couldn't pronounce his name correctly either.
Overdone...probably. But that just means that most writers do it badly, rather than properly. In this case, it is done properly.
Anyway, if you still need a reader, I probably can look at it.
posted
I disagree. It just sounds cheesey. And the whole French/Spanish thing doesn't matter. That's just a difference between languages, not mediums. If she's a human, she wouldn't be able to pronounce it any better underwater. It doesn't matter what Kyyt can do, humans can't pronounce anything worth a crap underwater.
Posts: 341 | Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted
Um, that's not quite true. Humans can produce a variety of vocalizations underwater that they cannot produce in air.
Still, you've asserted that it's "cheesy" three times, and so far as I'm concerned that probably means there is no point in discussing it further with you. You think it's cheesy, and that's that.
posted
Has anyone here tried to speak Gaelic? Talk about unfamiliar phonemes! And there don't seem to be ANY hard and fast rules for attaching phonemes to the letters. AAGH!
Anyway, I found this detail very believable. It didn't bother me nearly so much as having the Major make a move on the alien without knowing why she would do such a thing. Or not knowing why the Major had burns on her face. I assume I'm going to find these things out later, but if the story started back when those burn occurred, shouldn't that be where you start telling it?
Anyway, all this discussion (and my own questions) has intensified my interest in your post.
If you're still looking for readers, I could do about 3000 words.
posted
I too have no problem with the alien's name only able to be spoken properly in water. Sound travels differently in different mediums, and the resonance factor is something that has to be taken into account.
However, I do have a problem with non-constructive comments. People saying it is cheesy... what is the point? If you don't want to help then stay off the thread.
I liked the introduction to the chracters. I think the story starts here because Kyyrt is the main character (I hope so anyway) and so for him he is just learning about what is occurring.
Other than that it is hard to judge on 13 lines, but the Major's reaction to him did disturb me. I would not expect her to behave in such a way.
posted
You think I was just trying to insult him? Is a comment non-constructive when everyone disagrees with it? I thought that part of it was wrong, and unneeded. I described my disslike for it the best way I could. I'm not trying to put him down, I'm trying to help him.
Sci-fi doesn't have to be realistic, but it does have to be reasonable.
All that would need to be changed to satisfy me is this: "Kyyt's name could only be pronounced correctly underwater, but he didn't want to offend this human woman who destroyed his name so delightfully, so he nodded."
to this:
"Humans were never able to pronounce his name correctly. Their vocal chords never had to evolve to the ocean, and since there was no way to correct her, he nodded."
posted
"Cheesy" is an insult. "I don't think this worked because. . . and it would be more believable if . . " is not. IMO.
Posts: 1750 | Registered: Oct 2004
|
posted
Do you really think you'd find it constructive if someone said your work was cheesy? Or tacky? I find it insulting. Mileage varies, I guess.
Posts: 1750 | Registered: Oct 2004
|
posted
Criticism should always be constructive and helpful. Simply saying something is cheesy is nonconstructive because it fails to give any aid to the writer. Instead, tell the writer that you don't like it and why and what he might be able to do to improve it.
Sorry, Archer. But I have to agree that 'cheesy' is cutting. Find a more...hmmm...intelligent way, perhaps, to state your opinion.
Actually, I kind of happy that this post has stirred up some controversy. I've been keeping an eye on the replies to the initial post and, at the very least, it's helpful to know how people react to different things.
One of my biggest problems in writing is knowing whether people understand what the @$#&%! I'm talking about, or whether they have the same reaction I have when I come up with an idea.
There're a lot really wierd things that happen in this story, and I'm still trying to figure out what works and what doesn't.
quote:As far as I know, pronunciation underwater is only hampered. In other words, you can pronounce more in air than underwater. I don't know if you have some sort of genetic mutation lined up for that one, but it's really just kind of cheesey...
quote:If Kyyt can speak to humans, I doubt the pronunciation would change from underwater to air. Rather, it would change from species to species. And the whole different scientient species mispronouncing another species' names is overdone and is really a joke now.
Cheesy is just one word I used. If you think that's all I was saying, then you weren't paying attention. I just give what I have, and if I only know what I don't like, I won't hold back because I don't have any empty compliments to give. It's hard to do that with 13 lines anyway.
And if someone thought something I wrote was cheesy, I'd hate them NOT saying so. THAT'S what's unproductive.
I'll have you know my parents DIED in an unexplained cheese explosion, and to this day the slightest mention of anything related to cheese makes me very...VERY...
Er, ahem. I'm fine. (Twitch!) No, really, (clenched fists, gnashing of teeth) it's OKAY. I'm ALL RIGHT. No, I'm NOT YELLING! WHY DO YOU THINK I'M YELLING? THIS IS HOW I ALWAYS TALK! YOU GOTTA PROBLEM WITH IT?
Saying something is of poor quality is a statement of judgement only and does not provide any critique value. If that were all that were said, then it were poor judgement to judge and not critique. If it were NOT the only thing that was said, then it were at best poor judgement in word use.
If my critiquer were someone whose critiques I had learned to value, and that person simply said to me that my work was cheesy, I would 1) rush to ensure that I understood that definition of the word in its context, and then 2) if it were 'meant' as poor quality, chastise the critiquer for not living up to their usual critiquing standards.
I might not be so charitable to anyone else who provided a negative judgement with no accompanying value (as opposed to a judgement that my work had no value, accompanied by an explanation of why not).
I have read things that I thought were crap, and STILL tried to provide value in my response. Others here have critiqued pieces of mine that offended them. They STILL provided value. Now, that's critiquing.
quote:All that would need to be changed to satisfy me is this: "Kyyt's name could only be pronounced correctly underwater, but he didn't want to offend this human woman who destroyed his name so delightfully, so he nodded."
to this:
"Humans were never able to pronounce his name correctly. Their vocal chords never had to evolve to the ocean, and since there was no way to correct her, he nodded."
Okay, ArCH submitted his constructive bit on how to make it seem less "cheesy" to him. Now Corpsegrinder can decide for himself whether ArCH's suggested change is utterly souless prose that misses out on nearly everything about Kyyt's character that the original illustrated so clearly, and whether to use that in his next revision.
Yeah, I looked up cheesy too, and got exactly that. The problem is that that's not all cheesy means. I don't think the dictionary is quite right on that one. To me, cheesy is just something that is tacky. It just seems to be there just to be there, and it seems like a trait forced upon a character.
To me, there's just something not quite right about it.
My alternate phrase does seem a little soulless upon re-read, but the idea behind it is what I'm going for. It just seems more natural for the difference to be that of species and not of medium.
If Shakespeare can make up new words, and if slang can be invented, and if bitch can now mean an easily scared person with no integrity, I think the meaning of words can have context not put into their definitions.
posted
What the heck are you talking about anyway?
mm said that "cheesy" means "of very poor quality". You claim that it means "tacky".
But "tacky" also means "shabby" or "of poor quality".
Or did you mean that "cheesy" literally meant "tacky" as in "sticky"? Because that's not really true. Literally, "cheesy" means "cheese-like" or "made with cheese". While it is possible that something that was literally cheesy to also be literally tacky, the terms do not imply each other any more than "red" and "glowing" imply each other. Some things are both glowing and red, but most red things aren't glowing and most glowing things aren't red.
You said that it was "cheesy", meaning "of poor quality". You then clarified that you meant "tacky", also meaning "of poor quality". Are you not taking us seriously here? Divine Retribution!
P.S. If you meant "cheese-like/made with cheese" and then clarifed to mean "sticky/adhesive", then I really don't know what to say other than that we aren't taking you seriously anymore.
posted
Again, this futher proves my point. Tacky doesn't neccissarily mean of poor quality. A flannel shirt with dress pants is tacky, but both can be new and expensive.
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited December 16, 2004).]
quote:Tacky doesn't neccissarily [sic] mean of poor quality. A flannel shirt with dress pants is tacky, but both can be new and expensive.
Sorry. 1) There's no conflict between "new and expensive" and poor quality. 2) When the above is described as "tacky," it is the the wearer's taste that is being judged, not the clothes themselves. And the judgment being made is that his taste is of poor quality.
Posts: 932 | Registered: Jul 2001
|
quote:Definition:[adj] (informal) of very poor quality
quote:Yeah, I looked up cheesy too, and got exactly that. The problem is that that's not all cheesy means. I don't think the dictionary is quite right on that one.
I would like to point out that an otherwise reasonable sample of writing, full of typos and grammatical errors, would be of very poor quality. It would not be cheesy. The people writing the dictionary probably felt that this distinction was a connotation, and therefore not worth including, even though connotations are a very important part of the meanings of words.
That being said, the word "cheesy" does have the connotation of being an insult, and, as we're all supposed to be writers here, I think we should try to come up with words whose connotations match what we mean.
posted
I think that the reason you can't think of a word that fits the situation is because your opinion doesn't fit the situation.
I can think of plenty of words that are appropriate to describe the passage you called "cheesy". "Deft", "subtle", "intriguing"...and so on. But, because your opinion of the passage is such that you couldn't use those words, you are left with no options that actually fit the passage you described as "cheesy".
posted
That MUST be it! You're a GENIUS! THANK you for your WONDERFUL insight!
But seriously, that wasn't really any kind of response whatsoever. And here is poor ol' corpsegrinder (love the name, btw. It reminds me of Warcraft III) who can't get anymore opinions on his work because you guys are too busy talking about how wrong my opinion is.
posted
But several of us have offered to read the rest of what he has, which you haven't. And that is the main purpose of this forum, after all. It isn't as though CG specified that he wanted any feedback on the first 13 in isolation from the rest of the text either. He really only asked to be notified if anyone wanted to read the rest.
Not saying that you're in the wrong or anything like that. Or that CG didn't ask for what you've contributed to this discussion. Or that what we've done is more in line with the purpose of this forum.
posted
Are you just trying to be funny now? Because I honestly have a difficult time assessing whether or not you're really as obtuse as you sometimes seem.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
Corpsegrinder, I actually liked your post and would read the story. And I understand that it is in it's early draft form.
Posts: 451 | Registered: Dec 2004
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
