Hatrack River Writers Workshop   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Writers Workshop » Forums » Fragments and Feedback for Short Works » Somniloquy; Based on a true story. (Sci-fi/fantasy)

   
Author Topic: Somniloquy; Based on a true story. (Sci-fi/fantasy)
Donelle
Member
Member # 4677

 - posted      Profile for Donelle   Email Donelle         Edit/Delete Post 

quote:

I asked the prick for the time and he just scoffed, “You’re a figment of my imagination.” I beg your pardon? “You’re a character in my dream.” He said matter-of-factly, “Why would you need to know the time?” What? What!? What’s worse is, I knew he was right. I’ve seen him around here before, flying like a bloody canary, seducing strangers -- one of whom happened to be my wife. But for that I forgave him. Only because I thought he was God at the time. It was almost an honor. But this...Why would you do that? Tell someone that they’re just a dream? “You’ve been given a gift...from God so to speak. The fruit of knowledge.” He said beginning to vanish, “Now I ask, what are you going to do with it?” What am I gonna do with it!? I’m gonna shove it down his godd*mn throat!

Hmm...can I say "Based on a true story" if the story is actually based on a dream?

This is actually a redux of The Sleep of Gods and Men that's a lot more true to my original dream. I actually like this MC more than the protagonist from Sleep. He's funnier and angrier and he has a lot more room for growth/change.

Well, i guess that's for you all to decide. So, what do you think?

P.S.
And for anyone who was wondering what the Fruit of Persistence was in The Sleep of Gods and Men it was a meme in the form of a fruit that held the knowlege that the MC was a character in a dream. It gave him Persistence, constancy; the one thing that all other dream characters lack. It also imbued him a form of magic called Will. I may work it into Somniloquy somehow.

[This message has been edited by Donelle (edited January 20, 2007).]


Posts: 44 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Survivor
Member
Member # 213

 - posted      Profile for Survivor   Email Survivor         Edit/Delete Post 
Hmmm...the other opening was better.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wbriggs
Member
Member # 2267

 - posted      Profile for wbriggs   Email wbriggs         Edit/Delete Post 
Each time you switch speakers in dialog, you get a new paragraph. Also if you switch from dialog from one person to *internal* dialog of another.
quote:
I asked the prick for the time and he just scoffed, “You’re a figment of my imagination.”

I beg your pardon?

“You’re a character in my dream.” He said matter-of-factly, “Why would you need to know the time?”

What? What!? What’s worse is, I knew he was right.



This new paragraph 3's also a little confusing. This would be better:
quote:
“You’re a character in my dream,” he said matter-of-factly. “Why would you need to know the time?”

MC's reaction and thoughts confuse me. If someone said that to me I'd either think he was crazy or joking. But MC has seen him flying like a canary, and thought he was God at one time. I don't understand at all.

Posts: 2830 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Donelle
Member
Member # 4677

 - posted      Profile for Donelle   Email Donelle         Edit/Delete Post 
Survivor – a little disappointed. I like this opening and the direction it leads much more. Any specific reason why this one doesn’t cut it?

LMAO Briggs! Of course I know the conventional way punctuate dialogue, the deviation was intentional. I’ll not go into the specifics of my intent because that would be pointless, but I will ask if it is really a source of confusion or are you just being a stickler? I’ve read similar structures in professional publications without even the slightest confusion. Furthermore, I structure it so that it is not a true dialogue, but rather a recantation of an event with the MC telling his emotional reactions directly to the fictional audience – Not as internal monologue – which mirror his probable responses in the conversation. It’s a very subtle difference, but perhaps too subtle. If more people are confused by it, I’ll change it.

In any case, I’ll try to clean it up a bit for clarity while still keeping this structure. I explain everything in the next paragraph but I’ll try my best to rationalize his motivation for reacting this way within the thirteen lines.

quote:

I tried to strike up a conversation with the pretense of asking for the time but the prick just scoffed. “You’re a figment of my imagination.” Excuse me? “You’re just a character in my dream,” he said matter-of-factly. “Why would you need the time?” What? What!? What’s worse is, I knew he was right. That’s how he could fly around like a bloody canary, bend the universe to his will, seduce perfect strangers –- one of whom happened to be my wife! He got away with it only because I thought he was God. It was sort of an honor. But this... This changes everything! To top it off he says, “You’ve been given a gift.” Are you kidding me!? “The fruit of knowledge.” He began to vanish into a fine mist. “Now I ask, what are you going to do with it?” What am I gonna do with it? I’m gonna shove it down his godd*mn throat!

Does this make things any clearer?

By the way Briggs, and anyone else who read The Sleep of Gods and Men, which story opening do you prefer? Note: the two are different stories with the same basis.


[This message has been edited by Donelle (edited January 21, 2007).]


Posts: 44 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wbriggs
Member
Member # 2267

 - posted      Profile for wbriggs   Email wbriggs         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, it's a source of confusion, or rather, I have to work harder to read it than if it used standard paragraph formatting.

I find the second version just as confusing.


Posts: 2830 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Slartibartfast
Member
Member # 4673

 - posted      Profile for Slartibartfast   Email Slartibartfast         Edit/Delete Post 
I agree it's confusing. It might help to use two spaces after each sentence. As it is, " Excuse me? " almost looks like it's in quotes and even the 'two spaces' style wouldn't solve that.

I liked both fragments. The narrator comes off differently in each one, so it depends what feel you want or which you would enjoy more.


Posts: 36 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omakase
Member
Member # 2915

 - posted      Profile for Omakase   Email Omakase         Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry, but this didn't work for me. Mainly because I didn't care for the narrator's voice right up front. If I'm already annoyed by the end of the first paragraph I can't imagine reading a whole story like this.
Attitude is great when done well, but this is too strong.
The comments are all the same vein:
I beg your pardon?
What? What?
Why would you do that?
Are you kidding me?
and finally the rhetorical What am I gonna do with it?

This might possibly come off better deeper into the story, but as the beginning it put me off.


Posts: 179 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Donelle
Member
Member # 4677

 - posted      Profile for Donelle   Email Donelle         Edit/Delete Post 
Here's another revision which conforms to standard dialogue structure. sigh... You know, I'm starting to get the feeling that this story is going to be one of those jokes that only I will find amusing.

quote:

I needed to talk to God. I walked over to the park where he usually hangs out and I saw him sitting on a park bench swigging a Yoo-Hoo between bites of an impossibly large hoagie. We weren’t on such good terms, God and I, but I sat down next to him anyway. I tried to strike up a conversation with the pretense of asking for the time but he just scoffed, “You’re a figment of my imagination.” His mouth was full so when he scoffed he spit visible chunks of sandwich.

“What does that even mean?” I asked wiping pieces of lettuce and provolone from my face.

He swigged from his Yoo-Hoo, took another big bite of hoagie and spoke with his mouth full, “You’re just a character in my dream,” he said matter-of-factly. “Why would you need the time?”


[This message has been edited by Donelle (edited January 21, 2007).]


Posts: 44 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elan
Member
Member # 2442

 - posted      Profile for Elan           Edit/Delete Post 
Donelle, that last revision worked really well. Putting the dialog into separate paragraphs not only made it really clear, it allowed the humor in the situation to come out... something you were missing before. Before it was murky and your ignoring the rules of grammar looked, frankly, like ignorance not intention... it came across like the bad writing of a beginner.

Now it is snappy and makes me curious to read more. Good revison.

Keep in mind that there is a price to pay for every choice you make when you write. Anytime you ignore the rules, you need a compelling reason to do so, and the skill to pull it off. The price you pay for failure is a whole lotta nuthin... no readers, no book sales, no agents clamoring at your door.

[This message has been edited by Elan (edited January 22, 2007).]


Posts: 2026 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Green_Writer
Member
Member # 3302

 - posted      Profile for Green_Writer   Email Green_Writer         Edit/Delete Post 
Donelle, the writing is clear in your latest revision, but one thing bothers me. How often do you find yourself in a dream in which you know you're dreaming, and start bullying everyone?

I'm not sure if this story is a metaphor for the human/God relationship, but if so then I'd say its excellent beginning.


Posts: 67 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chaldea
Member
Member # 4707

 - posted      Profile for Chaldea   Email Chaldea         Edit/Delete Post 
I liked it, Donelle, but just the last version. It reminds me of the TV series "Joan of Arcadia" who talks to God at the end of every show. He might be a school janitor, the mailman, a kid on a bike, etc. Good stuff. Will you continue with this? If so, in what format?
Posts: 75 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Slartibartfast
Member
Member # 4673

 - posted      Profile for Slartibartfast   Email Slartibartfast         Edit/Delete Post 
The latest version is dull in comparison with the others, and doesn't display the novel ideas you have.
Posts: 36 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Donelle
Member
Member # 4677

 - posted      Profile for Donelle   Email Donelle         Edit/Delete Post 
Elan – Thanks! I guess intent means bupkis if readability is lost. One of the reasons I wanted to tell the story from that ‘distance’ is so I could effortlessly stay true to the abstract/disjointed nature of dreams. Now that I’m so ‘close’ into the story, abstraction and continuity will be a major problem as I have to paint the scenes more vividly. I’m wondering now what level of abstraction I will need to achieve. If I tell it straight, that would be cheating. No one has ever had a dream that mirrors the real world exactly. But if I make it too abstract it will descend back into incoherence. Any suggestions in that regard will be extremely helpful.

Green Writer - Most people I know do whatever the heck they want when they realize that they are dreaming (present company included). I fly around the world, doing as I wish, distorting the world around me to suit my whim -- and the ladies love me. This story is based on a dream where I tell a group of people that they are just characters in my dream. Some cried, others were quietly stunned, and one guy was extremely upset. First he told me I was a moron for revealing it to them… kinda destroys their whole reality. He then blamed me for everything that ever happened to him and anyone else (in his world). This is the story of that guy.

Since then I’ve been casually wondering if dream characters are actually sentient. At first the notion seemed ridiculous, but the more I thought about it, the more compelling the question became. Think; Have you ever been someone else in a dream, in mind and or body? Doing things that you would never even imagine doing in ‘the real world’… Yet in the dream you think you are in reality! While in the dream it may seem perfectly reasonable to kill and maim but that’s not you at all! It brings to mind all sorts of questions about free will & determinism, the nature of the conscious the ‘self’. I want to explore all of this through the lens of the relationship between God and man, using my dream as the tableau…. I’m starting to ramble now. I guess I should save it for the story.


Ouch Chaldea! That Joan of Arcadia reference kinda stung. Not a bad show mind you, just not what I’m going for at all. The God in my story is an avaricious hedonistic creature. He uses the universe for his personal pleasure and he’s jealous, vain and just a little wrathful; shades of God as he’s portrayed in the Old-Testament (especially from the Gnostic perspective). Nothing like the touchy-feely New-Testament god portrayed in Joan . I’m going more for dark comedy, not wholesome didacticism. That's another thing I wanted to come across in the intro, but I guess I have to let it come out gradually.

As the ruler of dreams, God represents the Id. Harold, the protagonist is something of a Christ figure. He represents the super-ego. I’m really really tempted to reveal some of the plot but I won’t. If I do that I won’t be as compelled to write it. I’ll just say I think it’ll be a fun story to write and if I’m lucky more fun to read. That’s where you guys come in!

Slartibartast I'm inclined to agree, but I think it's best to take my time. When I rush, people sense it.

Thanks for all of your critiques! Any other questions/comments/criticisms are welcome.

[This message has been edited by Donelle (edited January 22, 2007).]


Posts: 44 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
oliverhouse
Member
Member # 3432

 - posted      Profile for oliverhouse   Email oliverhouse         Edit/Delete Post 
Donelle, interesting ideas.

On your "dream characters as sentient beings" thoughts: you're essentially discussing a special case of solipsism. One of my favorite (i.e., relevant and productive) discussions of solipsism is here.

By the way, I like the last version quite a bit, and would definitely keep reading. Much better than the first attempt.

[This message has been edited by oliverhouse (edited January 22, 2007).]


Posts: 671 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Slartibartfast
Member
Member # 4673

 - posted      Profile for Slartibartfast   Email Slartibartfast         Edit/Delete Post 
You just reminded me to reread Invisible Cities by Italo Calvino. It's a light read with content on the nature of dreams and some solipsistic thinking.

In my idea in progress, worlds can be created and populated by a process equivalent to dreaming. I havn't yet considered the implications of "parenthood" in such a system but I do plan on a God character who created the first world and whose subconcious acts as a kind of fate/destiny.

Anyone up for some philosophical brainstorming?


Posts: 36 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
oliverhouse
Member
Member # 3432

 - posted      Profile for oliverhouse   Email oliverhouse         Edit/Delete Post 
I love Invisible Cities, but almost as poetry rather than anything else. I don't try to understand it very much.

I'd be happy to brainstorm philosophy of an alternative world a little bit. I might nitpick too much, but I also take a solid "shut up" reasonably well. Just don't be too subtle...

If you want to do it offlist, use oliverhouse at gmail dot com.


Posts: 671 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elan
Member
Member # 2442

 - posted      Profile for Elan           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
intent means bupkis if readability is lost.

Immortal words we should all post on the wall and review daily.


Posts: 2026 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Donelle
Member
Member # 4677

 - posted      Profile for Donelle   Email Donelle         Edit/Delete Post 
Just read the link, House. Thanks!

I must say I’ve called myself a solipsist once or twice or thrice. Though I knew solipsism to be an unpopular philosophical standpoint, embarrassingly, I had never read a compelling argument against it myself.

I find it fascinating that the latter part of his argument against solipsism is almost identical to the argument against Creationism. That even the most rigorous form of Natural Theology would simply amount to a superfluous renaming scheme. Deutsch did not make the connection in his discussion, though I think it was implied. Ironically I have made this very argument against God & Creationism while failing to make the connection to solipsism. This is all relevant to my story as it involves both God and solipsism.

Thanks again for the link!

Slartibartfast, I’d be more than willing to dust off the old armchair and shoot the philosophical breeze with you. Just send me an e-mail at the address listed under my user info.


Posts: 44 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Survivor
Member
Member # 213

 - posted      Profile for Survivor   Email Survivor         Edit/Delete Post 
I would say that solipsism defies rational analysis. That is, to the true solipsist, "rationality" and "consistency" are merely effects of the solipsist's own will, they are not extrinsic properties of something beyond the solipsist's control. This means that any attempt to appeal to reason or logic is inherently inconsistent with solipsism, if you are all that exists, then the "appeal" is merely citing a system of logic or reason that exists only because you created it. You're just appealing back to yourself. Then why not just begin and end with the simple assertion that you are all that exists? Only because of a private fancy for supporting the delusion that you are not the sum totality of existance.

On the other hand, the total irrationalism of solipsism makes it completely immune to rational attack. After all, no matter how clever the arguments my delusions invent, the entire system of logic that allows those arguments to exist and influence me only reflect my desire to believe that I am not all that exists, it is simply my will that there be a somewhat plausible architecture to my private delusion that there is something beyond myself.

Of course, whether or not solipsism is true doesn't matter. If it is true, then it is so hateful to me that I go to extraordinary lengths to hide the truth of my solicism from myself. That I can even concieve of an "I" distinct from the remainder of reality is proof enough that it is "objectively" better to believe that concept. Because if I am all that exists, my "objective" opinion of the matter is obviously that it would be better if something else, anything else, existed with me. And if the truth is that an extrinsic reality does exist, then it is clear that hiding from it is futile, it is better to accept and explore its existence.

True solipsism, being totally irrational, is only really available to the completely non-sentient. Of course, many humans, particularly academics, qualify


Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
oliverhouse
Member
Member # 3432

 - posted      Profile for oliverhouse   Email oliverhouse         Edit/Delete Post 
Donelle, I agree that solipsism and creationism are the same type of thing: interesting ideas that, if true, undermine any form of rationality that could be used to argue in their favor. In other words, if they're true, it really doesn't matter what I think anymore. They're both susceptible to parody by Last Thursdayism (link), which is why, despite Deutsch's attack, Survivor's right in saying that it's intellectually unassailable. (I'd put atheism, of the hard sort, in the same class.)

That said, there are some very interesting people who are creationists and atheists, and as in life, so in fiction. Creating a character who deeply believes in a philosophy that is compelling but (IMHO) wrong, and showing the ramifications of their belief, is really fascinating. If you can fully commit this character to his philosophy and pull off the idea that he's "real", then I think you've got a wonderful thing going.

quote:
Of course, many humans, particularly academics, qualify

LOL...

Posts: 671 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Survivor
Member
Member # 213

 - posted      Profile for Survivor   Email Survivor         Edit/Delete Post 
By the way, any Suzumiya fans or SOS-dan members here?
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Survivor
Member
Member # 213

 - posted      Profile for Survivor   Email Survivor         Edit/Delete Post 
Because...that's an awesome show, and it kinda explores this idea a little bit.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Donelle
Member
Member # 4677

 - posted      Profile for Donelle   Email Donelle         Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks for the references Survivor and Slartibartfast. I actually just read Invisible Cities and I thought it was the perfect inspiration for structure of my dream world. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but did anyone else notice allusions to David Lewis's On the Plurality of Worlds? Or even Quantum Electro Dynamics (particularly incertanty principle)?


I'll definitely check out Suzumiya. You mentioned Azumanga Diaoh once and it turned out to be quite delightful.

Cheers!
-Donelle

[This message has been edited by Donelle (edited January 27, 2007).]


Posts: 44 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wbriggs
Member
Member # 2267

 - posted      Profile for wbriggs   Email wbriggs         Edit/Delete Post 
I found this version much clearer. One thing remains: God asks MC why she would need the time. My thought was: where did that come from? (She didn't ask for the time.)

I read through again and she did! but it was sort of buried. You might write this off as, "Well, some readers don't read closely, nothing I can do about that" -- legitimate -- but I think this would work better:

quote:
...sat down next to him anyway.

"Do you have the time?" I didn't really care; it was just to strike up the conversation.

He scoffed, "You're a figment..."



I think this would be better anyway. More in the moment, less summary, and this conversation *is* our focus.

I *might* keep reading, but probably not long. I'm interested in God sitting on a park bench drinking a Yoo-Hoo, but the portrayal of Him seems needlessly mean -- spitting sub-sandwich mess when He talks. There's likely a market for portraying God as loathsome, but I'm not it.


Posts: 2830 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2