When they began breaking the bones of my feet with an iron bar, I finally wept. All the tortures before that, the terrors, the stink and the screams and the mindless irrefutable evil of it all – those things had not broken me. Ah, but when they took away my power to dance – they took my soul.
The Inquisitors were worse than just ruthless, worse than just fanatic. Behind their lurking insanity, there was a joy to their cruelty. They did not kill me for being a witch, because they knew all along I was no such thing. They did not kill me for being Rroma, even though many pious Catholics in Barcelona think the Romany are worse than the Jews.
Instead, they took away the one thing, the one gift that no one had ever been able to touch before. And then, they

quote:

---

When they began breaking the bones of my feet with an iron bar, I finally wept. All the tortures before that, the terrors, the stink and the screams and the mindless irrefutable evil of it all – those things had not broken me. Ah, but when they took away my power to dance – they took my soul.

---

That last line feels poetic, dreamy. It's a sharp contrast to the brutality before it.

Immediately, we know a person is being tortured and tormented, but we don't know why. I wanted to know why (that doesn't need to be answer in the 1-13, but soon.)

quote:

---

The Inquisitors were worse than just ruthless, worse than just fanatic. Behind their lurking insanity, there was a joy to their cruelty. They did not kill me for being a witch, because they knew all along I was no such thing. They did not kill me for being Rroma, even though many pious Catholics in Barcelona think the Romany are worse than the Jews.

---

Sounds like evil for the sake of evil--I generally have a hard time believing in someone as being evil without strong motivation. The idea of doing such things for joy is hard for me to comprehend, so I feel alienated. (Unless they're some kind of alien/demon non-human thing when introduced.)

I think this might work if you play up the fanatic bit first. Perhaps if you show them doing this through faith, that they really believe this is God's will--and they ENJOY it with a maddened lust in their eyes.

quote:

---

Instead, they took away the one thing, the one gift that no one had ever been able to touch before. And then, they let me crawl away, dragging myself down the long, stinking corridors by...

---

Again, I'm left with an ache to know why. I hope that question is answered soon.

Setting seems implied, though not described. I saw a cruel torture chamber as I read it. I heard screams in the background and clanging iron. None of that was in the story, so I think this is a case where you don't need to give us much setting right off.

There is character. We know she dances, and its the one thing she really loves in life. We know she is Rroma. (Gypsy right?) The PoV is clear, too.

However: she tells us that they (in her opinion) enjoy hurting her and taking what she loves. Showing us that through her eyes would be stronger. (It's your decision if that is appropriate for the story, though.)

I visualized a woman of inner strength, attractive one hopes.

There's just one thing (aside from she's Roma not Rroma, right?):

They did not kill me for ... They did not kill me for ...
Instead, ..."

I thought at this point we would learn what they were killing her for, but instead we learned how they killed her.

So while I understand and sympathise with her predicament, I don't understand what the underlying threat is, and for me that weakens the hook.

I'm not sure what date this is set. Under Ferdinand, Inquisitors were not allowed to break bones, so it may be best to set this a little later, maybe under Philip II.

Also, I do not see a prisoner of the Inquisition being allowed to drag herself back to her cell. She would be picked up under either arm by two guards and, if cruelty was the order of the day, thrown into her cell.

About one percent of human beings are totally immoral. They delight in inflicting suffering, and commit, or so I've read, something like 80% of all serious crimes.

Experiments have shown that about half of all human beings, while they won't initiate torture, are happy to inflict it if offered the opportunity.

I see the inquisitors torturing the Gypsy (oops, not PC - Roma) as punishment, not to extract information or confession. That was the Spanish Inquisition's end product. They didn't need any other reason. They got to her and let her go.

And then ...

If I didn't know your stories, I'd think this one was finished.

It does seem like she's going on to 'further adventure' and your story is all about the aftermath of the torture. If so, you probably spent enough on it already.

Later on, things got worse.

And, Rick, I actually had visions of Monty Python's Spanish Inquistors bubbling away in my head at the most distracting moments. That was how I remembered the robes were red.

The forms of torture were also greatly exaggerated. I'm not saying that they did not torture, nor that the forms of torture they used were not very bad--but they were, indeed, exaggerated.

Another biggie, is that Rome and much of the Catholic Magisterium was continuously protesting the practices of the Inquisition of Spain.

I am not defending bad things done by bad men who were, in fact, members of the Church. Nor do I absolve them of their complicity in some of the worse things done by the secular government of Spain--but if you want your story to be true to history, there is a lot of history to be studied, and a lot of misinformation to wade through. And that won't be easy.

I am not trying to start an argument here. I have no desire to get into an argument regarding the true nature of the Inquisition. What I am doing is suggesting some extensive rigor in the matter. That's all.

quote:

---

I'm afraid that most of my interest in the Inquisition lies in how it can be used to further my plot.

---

Of course. And I think I personally could read it with your intention in mind. However, I find some of the exaggerations and errors of some writers regarding historic contexts to often make their plot become cartoonish. Hate for the Jews was not a driving force for the Inquisition at all, so I wouldn't suppose you would want your plot to be disruptive to the more educated reader, would you? Same with the implication that she is there for being a witch. The witch phenomenon was rejected outright by the Inquisition, so I would avoid using that as the reason for putting her in this situation (although that is ambiguous at the moment). An educated reader is going to be immediately disrupted by its lack of connection with accurate history.

If I were in your shoes--to avoid a cartoonish effect, I would avoid the language about hating Jews and I would place her in the position she is in because she is a Christian heretic. (Or at least perceived as one.)

Although I am Catholic, I am really being more sensitive to your writing than I am to defending my Church. However, you should probably know that it does have a hurtful effect to me. Saying that evil things about my mother Church are "within the realm of possibility" is like saying that my biological mother whoring herself off in her college days is "within the realm of possibility." The Church is like family to me and to most faithful Catholics. It isn't just a "place of worship." Highlighting my evil uncle's cruelties by overexaggerating them is hurtful to my family. (Even if my uncle deserves it.)

And, by the way, even if it is hurtful, I'm not upset with you.

I sincerely believe you damage your plot by making this kind of thing up, unless you specifically classify it as "alternative history." But even in "alternative history," I don't want to read about my mother's whoring.

Also, by the way, I don't believe that anyone's legs were ever broken in the process of the Inquisition. If your story relies upon your character undergoing this kind of cruelty, you might do better to find a different tormenting entity.

Another possibility might be to isolate and highlight a particularly evil guy who uses the Inquisition as his way to torture people without permission of the Office of the Inquisition. He might hate Jews even though the other officers of the Inquisition around him do not. Plus, he might have it out for this girl independent of the others who have no intention of hurting her. (All his actions would be unofficial.) I might find that to be less hurtful.

Even if you choose to proceed this way, I'm not going to be upset with you. I'm just giving you the chance to observe the context of your story a little more closely, and strengthen the credibility and non-disruptiveness of its plot. I would actually like to read what you did with this if you care to send it to me, and I will attempt to comment on it as story (suspending judgment on the actions of the Inquisition) and then separately give my impression of the effects of the inaccuracies.

ciao,
Mark

However, in Spain several thousand people were put to death during the Inquisition, many of them Conversos - Jews who had converted to Christianity and were suspected of being phony converts. The Romani, too are adamant about what happened to them in spain at the hands of the inquisitors.

http://www.rroma.org/the_rroma/

I do not think fiction has to be historically accurate. It can be as accurate, or as inaccurate, as its writer chooses.

Fiction may certainly exaggerate, and often does so for dramatic impact. Without exaggeration there would be no James Bond, no Goldfinger, no Honey Rider.

Historical accuracy or otherwise did not hurt Dan Brown. For every person who railed against DVC, a thousand bought it, enjoyed it, and saw it for the fiction it was. Educated readers are perfectly able to distinguish fact from fiction. If they want fact, they read history books. For a good read, they turn to fiction - and fiction is no place for preaching.

Oh, and I'll happily read it if you're still looking for readers.

Pat

quote:

---

Historical accuracy or otherwise did not hurt Dan Brown.

---

I don't measure prudence and responsibility by how many books someone sold. Mein Kampf is a big seller, too. And I don't think that calling something "fiction" absolves a writer from writing hateful and misleading things about real people. Not that a lack of absolution is going to stop hateful and deceptive people.

Besides--putting the moral issues aside--gross exaggerations of true, historic people will come off as cartoonish and contrived. It will diminish your story significantly. A decent attempt at being reasonably accurate (as Deb seems to be making) is well worthwhile for the sake of the quality of your work.

quote:

---

I do not think fiction has to be historically accurate. It can be as accurate, or as inaccurate, as its writer chooses.

---

*wounded puppy-dog look* You don't like to do research, do you? How could you not...? *heavy sigh* Well, I guess not everyone loves doing research.

Personally, I feel that "getting things right" not only adds a lot to the story but is a moral obligation if you are pretending your story happened in a real time and place. Why? Because people who don't know any better will believe that you are telling them correct information. You will be misleading them if you can't be bothered to find out the truth. Heck, I believe this so strongly that I even research history to make such that my "alternate history" stories sound accurate.

As a reader, every time I read a story that is blatantly wrong, I figure that the writer is lazy and thinks readers are idiots. Unless it's a really small detail, I do them the honor of not reading their stories ever again.

So, no, you don't have to get the historical details right, but you will lose readers because of it.

TaleSpinner said:

quote:

---

...fiction is no place for preaching.

---

Say what? *confused look* Since when? Fiction is all about exploring human interaction from our particular view of the world and persuading other people that our view is the correct one--that the Christians are misled fools (Dan Brown) or that having sex with only your married partner is absurd (Sharon Green) or that homosexual partnerships are as binding and long-lasting as heterosexual marriages (Mercedes Lackey) or that evil objects can't be used for good ends and will instead corrupt good (J.R.R. Tolkien) or that no one should take a life lightly (J.R.R. Tolkien) or that even 'good guy' governments can be downright stupid (David Weber) or that people will follow an honorable leader through hell (David Weber) and so on.

Your statement just struck me as very odd. Unless you mean that fiction stories should literally not be a sermon with a tag on the end of "And the moral of this story is..."?

Mmm, sorry, I guess I got a little away from the main point of this thread.

All good fiction has a moral center, but that isn't the same thing as preaching. Preaching turns people off, a moral center draws people in.

That happened in pretty much any of the church-run countries. And it was not the present day Catholic church, so don't take it personally that it came up, dear brother and sister Catholics. The truth is that cruel people get in on the available horrors.

Deb, good job. This topic sounds like a great one for a story, and you've set up all the basics here without sounding like that's what you were up to.

I'm assuming the narrative is looking back on this years later because she's very distant from the torture. Most of what I have are nits.

quote:

---

When they Why not just say the Inquisitors here? began breaking this is probably a personal peeve - but they broke the bones they didn't begin breaking the bones of my feet with an iron bar does the iron bar matter? I had been thinking they were breaking the bones 1 by 1 but this is more of a smash the foot sounding approach , I finally wept. All the tortures before that, the terrors, the stink and the screams and the mindless irrefutable evil of it all – those things had not broken me. Ah, but when they took away my power to dance – they took my soul. VERY NICE!!!
The Inquisitors were worse than just ruthless, worse than just fanatic. Behind their lurking insanity, there was a joy to their cruelty. They did not kill me for being a witch, because they knew all along I was no such thing. They did not kill me for being Rroma, even though many pious Catholics in Barcelona think the Romany are worse than the Jews. This was a bit confusing because it made me think she was a ghost. Since they don't kill her at all, wouldn't it be clearer to say - "didn't maim me" rather than didn't kill?
Instead, they took away the one thing, the one gift that no one had ever been able to touch before. And then, they

---

You might be able to cut some of the words but I doubt you could do much without changing the Voice. Nice Voice BTW.

I'd read on.

And Talespinner? In fiction, we're ALL attractive!

quote:

---

King's Falcon (you gender bender, you!)

---

That's me.

When the Inquisitors took an iron bar to my feet, and started breaking each and every bone with precision and malice, I finally wept. All the tortures before that, the terrors, the stink and the screams and the mindless irrefutable evil of it all – those things had not crushed me. But when they took away my power to dance, oh – they took my soul.
The Inquisitors were worse than just ruthless, worse than just fanatic. Behind their lurking madness, there was a joy to their cruelty. They did not really believe me a witch, although they might have, had they known more about my grandmother and the things she had taught me. They did not really care that I was Rroma, even though many pious Christians in Barcelona think the Romani are worse than the Jews.

Whose screams is she talking about in the second sentence? I'd think it would be her own screams but I don't think she'd include that in a list of the things they'd used to try and crush her.

"But when they took away my power to dance, oh – they took my soul." - I like this but I'd take the "oh" out, I thought it weakened the power of the statement.

I think you lost some of the tension in the second paragraph by veering off to talk about what the Inquisitors "didn't" and "might" have believed, I know you put this in to introduce the MC but for me you lost too much momentum here, I'd have gone straight into the telling of the "crime" whatever that is.

Remove the first comma, after feet. The sentence reads better as one complete breath. It also makes I finally wept stand out a little more.

They did not really believe me a witch implies that they have made statements or shown signs that illustrate this. It would be more accurate to show your MC believing that they do not think she is a witch, but having no real proof to this fact. It can be used to play up the fear and uncertainty she is feeling, rather than just a sense of hopelessness at the hands of people who couldn't care less about her suffering.

All in all, very good. Solid atmosphere, interesting and alluring voice, good topic (at least to my tastes). By the way, if I can suggest a book to you that is somewhat on the same topic (medieval Spain), see if you can find a copy of Guy Gavriel Kay's The Lions of Al-Rassan. It's spec fiction, and the places, people, etc. are changed from the historical figures they're drawn on, but the remainder of the novel is set very solidly in the period, is the result of a lot of research, deals with complex racial and religious tensions, and is a superb read (especially if you like to have your heartstrings tugged from time to time).

Good work!

Jayson Merryfield

Oo! very chilling. It immediately grabbed me, esp the contrast between what they are doing and what's most important to her, her ability to dance.

"Precision" worked for me, since I could actually see isolating feet bones and digging them in with an iron bar. I did think you could cut "malice", since you cover it later with "joy to their cruelty"--otherwise, it felt a bit redundant, and didn't move forward. I like the bit of info about the grandmother.

Okay, now that that is out of my system...

quote:

---

When the Inquisitors took an iron bar to my feet, and started breaking each and every bone with precision and malice (I think the setting might be more powerful if you removed "malice." Cold cruelty always seemed more unnerving to me), I finally wept. All the tortures before that, the terrors, the stink and the screams and the mindless irrefutable evil (if the MC still thinks it was "irrefutably evil", then inquisitors weren't doing their jobs very well; I'd imagine that after all that, somewhere some part of most people would wonder if perhaps it was actually deserved) of it all – those things had not crushed me. But when they took away my power to dance, oh – they took my soul. (I love this line)

The Inquisitors were worse than just ruthless, worse than just fanatic. Behind their lurking madness, there was a joy to their cruelty. (Again, it seems to me that the image might be more potent if the inquisitors were joyful of the process, joyful of their "art," but utterly unconcerned with being "cruel" to the MC.) They did not really believe me a witch, although they might have, had they known more about my grandmother and the things she had taught me. (Again, this makes it seem like the inquisitors are doing a very poor job. Why didn't they know more about her grandmother? One of the dangers of the inquisition is that entire families could be suspect because of the actions of one individual) They did not really care that I was Rroma, even though many pious Christians in Barcelona think the Romani are worse than the Jews.
My crime had been far more terrible: I had caught the eye

---

All in all, this seems like a very good improvement and certainly something that I would pick up and read further.

quote:

---

When the Inquisitors took an iron bar to my feet, and started breaking each and every bone with precision and malice, I finally wept.

---

I preferred the original sentence for a couple reasons. First, "iron bar" doesn't seem to correspond well with "precision." Second, it seems to undermine the fact that she is not weeping in pain, and it slows down the sentence.

quote:

---

They did not really believe me a witch, although they might have, had they known more about my grandmother and the things she had taught me.

---

I actually like the ambiguity here. It seems to imply that the Inquisitors are playing games with rationalization to justify their evil acts. Games that they know are wrong.

quote:

---

They did not really care that I was Rroma, even though many pious Christians in Barcelona think the Romani are worse than the Jews.

---

I struggled some with the word "pious," because on first read I associated it with the Inquisitors, but realizing it was about the parishioners, not the Inquisitors, I was okay with it.

Personally, I think a better way than saying "[they] think the Romani are worse than the Jews," would be to say "[they] think the Romani are below the Jews." I think it reads better, and it seems to fit the expression of the time better. It's not disruptive or anything as it is, though.

quote:

---

I actually like the ambiguity here.

---

Actually, the sentence "They did not really believe me a witch" does not indicate ambiguity at all, but a certainty that they did not believe her to be a witch. I agree that ambiguity on the part of the MC in regards to her torturer's motives and beliefs would be fantastic - but alas, as it currently stands, there is no ambiguity here.

quote:

---

Actually, the sentence "They did not really believe me a witch" does not indicate ambiguity at all,...

---

quote:

---

...and she is interpreting the situation...

---

I suppose we're looking from two different angles. If I understand you, you think that she is an unreliable narrator, and while she is interpreting the tormentors as not believing she is a witch, we are meant to question her as a narrator?

In my interpretation, we are to take her as a reliable narrator, so what she says is the truth, and she says They do not really believe me to be a witch. My suggestion was that she remain reliable and express some ambiguity about their intentions, something along the lines of I can't tell if their excitement is due to belief that I truly am a witch, or simple animalistic masochism.

I don't know, are we talking about the same thing from different sides? Or are we interpreting these 8 words that differently? Are we blowing the whole thing out of proportion?

I think you hit the nail on the head about the reliability of the narrator being our point of departure. I hardly ever consider a narrator as 100% reliable about everything--even the so-called omniscient ones. Generally, actions have far stronger reliability than motivations. (Hemingway's Francis Macomber aimed *at the beast*, not at his wife.)

First person singular, though, is especially unreliable. FPS hardly ever presents us an omniscient POV (it would be *weird* if it did), and I not only question reliability about others' motivations--I question the reliability of assessing the main character's own motivations.

Anyway--that seems to explain our difference in perception.