posted
I haven't really done too much on this yet. It centers around a couple who were torn apart when the wife slowly over time adopted the religious beliefs of a man which she regarded with great repsect -- the man eventually forming his own cult which got more and more outlandish as time went by.
Crits on my first thirteen would be great.
***
Beth pulled the white hood over her head and stooped down at the threshold of the door to take off her shoes. As she did so, she whispered, “Draw not nigh hither: put of thy shoes from thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.” The sanctuary was holy, and it was apostasy to come through its doors without making the proper preparations. The white robe which covered her entire body shielded the Priest from the sins of her earthly flesh, which Beth prayed every day to be rid of. Her spirit was hemmed in constantly by the walls her body made between herself and God. How she longed for the day when she would finally be free of its chains, free to be united with God and receive the promised inheritance she knew was waiting for her!
***
I'm not sure how to go about portraying the way the people in the cult live. I know I want them living together in their own little "community" for lack of a better word, but I'm not sure how I'm going to portray their way of life and how they relate to eachother and to the outside world.
Thanks for any help that you can give.
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited September 22, 2005).]
In the first part, when Beth goes though her little ritual of entry into the sanctuary, you can either weave her thoughts about the ritual into the action or you can dispense with them for the time being. Having one then the other sort of made me feel that there was something lacking from both. Also, the line that she whispers...the effect was a little comical.
The way you use "erected" is a little odd. Typically buildings or other things that will stay upright once erected are "erected", things that will cease to remain standing are not said to be "erected".
A few notes on "cultyness". It would be typical for the various members to shed their previous names. And it would be typical for the leader to have a more distinctive apellation than "The Priest". It also would read a bit better and seem like a more natural progression.
posted
The main thing, I think, is make Beth comprehensible. This is a challenge, but I'm sure it can be done! It's a challenge, because she thinks it would be cool and exciting to die -- an unusual attitude. Still, it may be that you can't make this comprehensible unless you start earlier and show how she got there. That may not be the story you want to tell. But as it is, I can't relate to Beth at all.
Nits: apostacy is having once believed, and believing no longer. I think the word you're looking for is "sacrilege."
>The white robe which covered her entire body shielded the Priest from the sins of her earthly flesh, which Beth prayed every day to be rid of.
I thought: ok, so it shields Beth's body; but who's this Priest person? Find another way to tell us she's a priestess, that won't make me wonder if there are 2 people present.
If she prays every day to be rid of her body, well, suicide would fix that problem really quick. You might find a way to phrase it to stop the reader thinking this, like, "Every day Beth prayed that God would allow her to cast off this mortal flesh" -- so it sounds like God might not allow suicide.
[This message has been edited by wbriggs (edited September 22, 2005).]
posted
Sacrilege! Yes, that's the word I was looking for! I was having the hardest time finding the right word for that part. I looked through the thesaurus a couple of times until I finally decided that I'd just put apostasy, and I would think of a better word to use later on.
posted
Any help I would've offered has already been said, so I'll just try to give suggestions on the cult bit.
I'd suggest just doing some light research on how cults typically work. There's usually a pattern for how the community relates and whatnot. There's also different types. I'd find a type that appeals to you and then create your own from there, making adjustments as you wish.
I read on it once, but unfortunately, the most I can remember that'd be very useful is that cults that believe in free love (i.e., sex), almost always fail. Males commonly have a harder time getting a woman into bed, and the men are likely to flock around the woman, so even with 'free love,' there ends up being people commonly left out, not to mention matters of jealousy which can often spring up regardless of the cult's idealology. Cults which enforce celibacy or simply monogamy, or who just don't care about what you're doing in that department (the last being a very rare standpoint for a cult) are much, much more likely to succeed.
Also, cults almost always grow by word of mouth. A person tells a friend that trusts them, and so on. So, there will usually be at least one person within the cult that another person already knows pretty well.
posted
By the end of the story I want to bring the reader to the point where Beth is hated. Delving into her character and making the reader sympathize with her too much would make that impossible. My main POV is really her ex-husband, and the story shifts back and forth between him and what is happening inside the cult community. I'm wondering now, if instead of using Beth as my POV whenever I switch to the cult, I should use OMNI, which I haven't even thought of using 'til now.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted
So it's the husband's story? In that case, we don't need to know what's going on inside the cult.
I think the first question is what kind of story you've got. Milieu, Idea, Character, or Event? Character, I suspect? Whose -- Beth's, or husband's? OSC's Characters & Viewpoint discusses where to start the story, based on this.
If Beth is unsympathetic because she's an idiot, I won't want to be in her viewpoint, at all. I'd be more interested if she were sympathetic (and not as a victim); or, if she had some motive for joining the cult (or some other action) that I wouldn't have guessed to begin with.
posted
Well, I don't think people named Beth should be idiots, but that's just me.
It's really tough to pull off a loathsome POV character, probably a little harder than pulling off a good omni. If your main POV is the husband, though, you should be on reasonably solid ground, and can use little bits from within the compound to show what's going on.
posted
If you aren't going to be trying to make Beth or the inner workings of the cult sympathetic, then she simply shouldn't be a POV character. Unless you are going to paint her as pretty much a pure villain, who's being evil just for the sake of being evil. But if she's just foolish and weak, then we'll pity her and feel that her ex et al should also feel pity for her.
If something happens inside the cult and your main POV character never finds out about it, then don't bother to tell us, we don't need to know. If he does find out about it, then let us find out at the same time and in the same way.
posted
I happen to disagree, actually.. while typically a POV brings you into a character's life and is supposed to make you like them, I think showing glimpses of what Beth is degenerating into would be interesting. I don't see it as much different that flashing to a scene to see what the villian is doing. I think it can nicely show what can happen to a person in her situation. And besides, is it wrong to pity the villian? Who says she's even a villian? It's just showing another path of life. Maybe it's to show the relationship between Beth and the ex.
If it's about the ex-husband, all you might want to avoid is making Beth's sections too lengthy, because you want the reader to be connecting to him a lot more.
In the end, I could just be an idiot. So, it's really up to you. Try it both ways, perhaps.
[This message has been edited by ThisProteanSoul (edited September 24, 2005).]
posted
ThisProteanSoul - You're thinking right along the same lines that I am. I feel like I'm only telling half of the story if I only focus on the ex-husband (who doesn't have a name yet, in case you're wondering.)
posted
If you want us to hate her, then don't use her POV. If we come to hate her, then we'll hate the fact that you used her POV. If we don't hate her POV segments, then you cannot bring us to hate her.
I'm all for showing both sides of it, but if you do that then you can't bring us to hate her. Pity her, yes, but not hate her.
Even if you only want us to sympathize with her ex's eventual hatred of her, the same thing applies.
On a more general note, in life we only ever get one side of the story.
posted
Ok, so I thought awhile and decided that I actually liked the idea of Beth being pitied. Now that I have somewhat of a complete idea of how the story is going to end up, having people pity her is a much better alternative, since that is how the Ex is going to be viewing everything himself.
So here's the new version. I took out the priest, who I realized was getting far to "priesty-ish" and needed to be toned down a little; renamed Beth to Ruth, which has a much more Biblical conotation; and then just reworded some parts so that they run smoother in relation to the whole scheme of things (and don't sound comical). I also added another character in the beginning who otherwise would have been introduced farther into the story, just because it makes more sense to introduce him in the beginning than later on.
* * *
Ruth followed Eli up the stairs and into the sanctuary. As she pulled the white hood over her head she stooped to take off her shoes, obeying the words that had been painted above the doorway: “Draw not nigh hither: but put of thy shoes from thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.” The sanctuary was holy, and it was sacrilege to come through its doors without making the proper preparations. The white robe which covered her entire body shielded the sins of her earthly flesh, which would blemish God’s perfect holiness if she walked into the sanctuary without covering them.
* * *
Thanks for the help. My brain is in full gear now.
posted
First thing: Please, please fix that awkward dialogue. I assume this story is taking place now and not in some obscure monetary in the middle ages. No one talks or writes like that, not even for ceremonial purposes. "No shoes allowed" or something in that context will convey the same message in half the time and be taken more seriously. As it stands now, it's just so unintentionally hilarious I can't take this piece seriously as being dark and brooding.
You have to understand the types of people who typically join cults are not really the smartest people in the world to begin with. Are we to assume they know their Old English?
Second, don't listen to the nonsense of it being a solid and unbreakable rule that your POV needs to be nice or have some redeeming quality. That is not a rule, that is just an opinion held by people who like to read stories about character who sing and dance merrily under a rainbow while eating cookies. I take it you want this to be a gritty, dark story, no? Don't cop out by forcing some redemption on a character that doesn't want any.
Don't believe this can work? Just go read American Psycho, a novel told through the first person POV of a cannibalistic serial killer who wreaks havoc in New York and at the end of the novel remains unremorseful, and gets away with all of his crimes.
Just because it's harder to do a dark POV doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done.
[This message has been edited by Swimming Bird (edited September 30, 2005).]
quote:“Draw not nigh hither: but put of thy shoes from thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.”
Man, please, ditch this, burn it! This has to be the most awkwardly awful line I've ever read. The rest is okay, I can see what it is you're trying to do and where it is you want to go with this story. But, if I was an editor, and I read that line I would pitch it right there and then into the return envelope.
And I totally agree with 'Bird: too many people on this forum bitch about so-and-so not being sympathetic. If you want to write cute and cuddly stories for a little old ladies tea group, then fine. Otherwise, ignore this erroneous advice.
Remember this: always be true to your story. Don't cheat your story, or the characters in, because otherwise everyone loses out - you, the reader and most of all the characters. If the story develops naturally in a certain direction, and said direction is dark, then go along with it. If that's the path down which your characters wish to go then you're obliged to go there with them. This is their story, after all, not yours. You're just a glorified secretary taking dictation.
posted
In my rewrite I changed the "Draw not nigh hither..." part from being said to being written on a sign over the entrance. Does it still sound way too cheesy? It's a Biblical reference to Moses and the burning bush, which is why I wanted it said in that fashion instead of simply something like "No shoes allowed." It conveys more of how the cult has twisted the scriptures to fit into their belief system. If it sounds that horrible though, I guess I better take it out and quick.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted
I think that the point being made with the "Draw not nigh hither:" bit is that these cultists don't really understand their biblical English all that well. It's a good step towards pity, actually, which is one reason I felt that it would be difficult to get us to really hate Beth/Ruth and them if we stayed in their POV.
And characters that inspire admiration, though they be psychos, are a type of sympathetic character. A character doesn't have to have any particular good quality in order to be sympathetic, you just have to get the reader solidly interested. It isn't even like it's harder to do a dark POV, from what I've seen it definitely harder to do a really "good" POV character. At least, I've almost never seen it done well.
The point is that there are things that make a story better and things that make it worse. The use of POV has a real impact on how you can make readers feel about your characters before they'll discard your text. Ranting about how oppresive it is to be told that the actual words you put on the page have definable and predictable effects on the reader will not get you anywhere...except perhaps to a place where your writing has no impact because no one reads it.
posted
Whoa, whoa! You guys are underestimating cults by far! Is everyone who runs or joins a cult so retarded that they can't have read the Bible or understand old english? That's ridiculous. Sure, some are just crazy and full of such charisma that they suck people in.. but not all. That's a very narrow-minded assumption. My own uncle ended up running a cult years ago, and the one time I met him, while he was a little strange, he was quite intelligent and well-read.
Besides, the very things that define a 'cult,' match that of many religions. Is your christian pastor unable to understand scripture?
A better way to look at cults is as simply a religion, usually like any other, where its patrons choose to live together. Is that so different from Buddhist monks?
I think the old english version sounds far better than "No shoes allowed." How does that sound respectful and pretty written onto a sacred place? I might suggest simply leaving the shoe bit out of it though.. It sounds good, and then that word jolts you out of it a bit. It's too modern and out of place. Say instead something about not bringing soil from unsanctified lands into the sacred temple. Then lead into Ruth taking off her shoes, maybe briefly explaining that this indicated the rule that all the followers quickly learned, that meant taking off their shoes, or any other horrendously dirtied garment. So perhaps a new initiate, not yet given the white robes, would have to enter the temple nude after a ritual bathing. And so on.
posted
Yes, most people that I have talked to that were a part of a cult were quite intelligent people, who simply held very strongly to their beliefs. From my own experiences, a lot of the people just shut down their brain to common sense when they are asked pointed questions against their faith, which leads to the impression that they're idiots. In reality, they are just extremely decieved. Posts: 40 | Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted
True, but some are even very intelligent about their faith as well. It always depends on the cult and the person. Some people that get brought into cults are simply lonely, never fitting in. It's not right to assume that only dumb people can get recruited into cults.
Keep in mind, serial killers are typically high level geniuses. Just because we don't agree with a person's path and think it's 'stupid' does not mean the person is actually stupid.
posted
No, Beth, not hostile at all. whoops! sorry - wrong emoticon: (Sometimes the mood in which we write these comments doesn't fully translate, even though we may think they have. Obviously the heavy-handed jocular mood I wrote my original post in didn't come across at all.)
I have Jinkx best interests at heart, really. Which is why I believe in being brutally honest. That's why we all joined this writers' workshop, so as we could have objective/editorial perspectives on our stories. The biblical line simply wouldn't make is past an editor's desk - which would be a real shame if the rest of the story turned out to be damn good. Do you see what I'm getting at? If we screw up on the very first page then we've killed the story. I can see the intention behind that biblical line, but it really would have to be severely reworked in order to removed the unintentional comical effect it currently has.
As to advising people to reconsider a character because their traits are off putting, I feel this - although well intentioned - can be a potentially distructive comment as the writer heeding this advice is in danger of having the characters and story completely losing their way, thus diluting the true effect they should have.
Hey, don't get me wrong: I've written sweet little love stories you could easily show your grandma without blushing. But, then, I've also written hard-hitting stories where the main character's a real piece of work. Do whatever the story asks of you - this is what I meant when I said that we should never cop out.
[This message has been edited by Paul-girtbooks (edited October 02, 2005).]
posted
OK. I've just never seen you be so contemptuously dismissive of a writer or other commenters before (or of anything besides UK slipstream) so I wondered if something else was wrong. Glad to hear you're ok.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
whoops! sorry - wrong emoticon: 
