For the rest of you who are already familiar with the Challenge you have, on purpose, stumbled onto the 7th Rewrite Discussion Zone.
Per the desires of some to tinker a bit with the format, I've changed the length of the deadline to two months, but will still issue a challenge monthly.
posted
#7 is interesting. The story does have typos, but it's more to do with whoever translated it into English has no clue about storytelling, in my opinion -- I struggled, then I took notes as to what the story was about.
Still, it's got a great theme. I've got a killer idea, and I hope to participate in this one. I may be the only one, I fear... please tell me I'm wrong.
posted
There might be more than 3 parts -- each time I read it I see it differently. The fact that no one has a name is troubling... but hey-ho...
I took notes to summarize the story, which I agree is convoluted. Here are my numbered notes, if they help anyone. Feel free to amend them if I blew it -- this would help me...
Story spoilers -- if you haven't read it, don't read these notes. Thanks.
Notes:
1. Father, the fisherman, makes deal with mermaid to save his head. Gets lots o' fish, but must deliver first person who greets at home to mermaid in future.
2. Loses son rather than expected dog, has to deliver boy to mermaid at age 16
3. Son escapes mermaid's clutches at time of delivery, races away on horseback.
4. Son meets several animals, helps them sort out their food woes by divvying it up.
5. Animals return favor by giving Son magical charms, trinkets that will help Son when he's in trouble
6. Son meets a farmer (I guess), helps them in some way.
7. Farmer wants Fisherman's son and daughter to marry, but Son marries someone else (why this part is in there is beyond me...)
8. Son is captured by mermaid
9. Son's wife comes to the rescue, devises a ploy to trick the mermaid
10. At opportune moment, Son uses charm to escape mermaid.
Story end.
That's I how saw this tale, anyone see it differently? Have I misread this?
[This message has been edited by HSO (edited March 16, 2005).]
posted
Wow! Maybe I should include more poorly told stories. They seem to draw at least as much attention as the others!
I think HSO did a pretty good job of summing it up. It IS convoluted. But one of the really inspiring parts of doing these rewrites is using your imagination to fill in the gaps.
For instance, with the goat story, the original tale has a few serious gaps--such as motivation. Why on earth would the little Billy Goat Gruff rat on his own brother to save his own sorry little skin? And why on earth was the Troll stupid enough to believe him and let him go? Not only with the little goat, but the medium one as well. In order to remake these stories into something appealing to a real market, those questions must be answered believably.
This Chilean one has LOTS of little bits to fill in. And I look forward to finding out how you guys do it.
posted
This story reminds me of stories from the Mabinogion. They also tend to wander, and I often find myself asking 'But why?'.
It brings up a point that is often alluded to but not often brought out; our modern form of story telling IS modern and is not representative of story-telling as you look back in history. I suggested this tale for that very reason: to challenge us as more modern forms do not.
I think that if you place yourself in a different space and time as you read this story, that it might make more sense.
Picture yourself on the mountainous south coast of Chile, it is evening and the rain drums a counterpoint to the surf. You live in small family groups and know everyone you are likely to see. Just now everyone in your extended family are packed into the largest hut on the headland. It is warmer that way, and your friends are near. The flicker of the flames in the hearth seem to bend themsleves to the will of the storyteller. Her face is lined, her eyes are young, and her voice is the sound the sea makes as it rushes out to catch the wind.
She will use the familiar and the fantastic to illustrate the values that have allowed your family to survive.
"Once upon a time there was a fisherman who had to give fish to the king every day. On the day he failed to do so, his head would be cut off. ..."
There's your hook. It is a familiar one. You must struggle every day to feed yourself and your family. Even the youngest understand this.
Do you see how this begins to make sense in its context?
posted
Nothing wrong with the hook, Mike. It's the rest of the story that took me by surprise. Some things came too late, other things not really developed (like telling us all of the animals that were present at the feast, something not revealed until later, really), and still other things that I couldn't understand why there were in there at all.
But that doesn't mean it's bad. It's different. Convoluted, yes. But not disagreeable. I liked it, overall. And it has given me a great idea for a story.
posted
There had to be the time with the shepherd because otherwise he never would have met his wife who saved his neck with the magic apples.
This definitely generates a lot of ideas...the story in general, I mean. I will definitely be a reader on this one when the time comes, it should be fun to see what people do. I might have a try but I am trying to get going on my novel.
[This message has been edited by catnep (edited March 16, 2005).]
posted
Thanks for setting the scene mike. I was not complaining, honest. I have a book of Navajo tales that read much like this one. The book was written from transcipts of the storytellers actually telling the story. I understood that this story was probably written in a similar manner. No worries.
Posts: 579 | Registered: Mar 2004
|
quote:There had to be the time with the shepherd because otherwise he never would have met his wife who saved his neck with the magic apples.
Well, it's interesting, isn't it? The master shepherd and his daughter serve one purpose only, really. To give the story a middle. That's it. Because the Son could have run into the giant, and then met the princess-behind-door-number-three, in any number of ways without even dealing with shepherd.
Cut out the shepherd and daughter and you lose nothing, and only need to come up with a way for the Son and giant to meet that is plausible. Moreover, since the Son doesn't marry the shepherd's daughter, and since neither the shepherd or the daughter do not have anything really important to add other than a setting, what point is there to having them?
The way I see it, there isn't a point to them being in the story. They add nothing, in my opinion. Meeting the giant is important -- far more important, but it's hardly touched on. A few sentences... then... back to the shepherd. Pish.
But someone thought it necessary... for whatever reason... and they are there, now, in the story. I just wished there would have been more to them, that's all -- a plot twist... anything.
[This message has been edited by HSO (edited March 17, 2005).]
posted
I see what you're saying, though for my part I tended to be drawn to the illusive side characters than to the boy/man. It generated more ideas in my mind, and I found him (the Hans of the story, I guess) a bit dim.
Posts: 85 | Registered: Feb 2005
|
quote:But someone thought it necessary... for whatever reason... and they are there, now, in the story. I just wished there would have been more to them, that's all -- a plot twist... anything.
My point is just that there are social reasons for how a story is told when it is oral storytelling that may not be valid in written storytelling, and that may not be valid now, as compred to then.
posted
okay. I believe you. Not being argumentative, but what is the social reason for them being included? Maybe I'm just being too narrow-minded and can't see it. Help.
By the way, there is some conflict with them being there -- the marriage thing that doesn't work out. Conflict is good.
posted
I think the obvious reason is that the story is true. Without editing, true stories never turn out as neat and tidy as created ones. There are always detours and unexpected loose ends. Posts: 579 | Registered: Mar 2004
|
I can't come up with a reason for it being there, though, beyond whim. Maybe some of the elements here and type of characters (Laban-like shepherd who has his own schemes on the young man through his daughter)were familiar in other folktale legend and so it made more sense to the original listeners. That is as good a guess as I can give. OR, perhaps, some old fashioned feminism poking up...women prod men along by being schemers, sacrificers and saviors to their sucess, but alwasy in the background(kidding...I hope that is obvious). Someone else will have a better go at it.
[This message has been edited by catnep (edited March 17, 2005).]
posted
The thing I find interesting about the scenes with the shepherd and his daughter is that those scenes are the ones that stick out the most in my memory of the story.
posted
When I read the first part of the story (fisherman and the mermaid), it made me think of Rumplestilskin (sp?). The rest of the story was very scattered and I had a hard time understanding the "why" behind the actions.
Not sure I'll get anything in on this one, but we'll see -- inspiration may strike.
posted
This could also be a prime example of: "You can't please everyone."
Some of us don't have a problem with the shepherd's and daughter's roles, and some of us do. Some of us have entirely different issues with the story.
Which leads me to believe that it's your basic preference thing. Just like some people like SF and others don't.
I do, however, stand by my earliest comment about the translation. I would venture that when this story is told in its native tongue, it will probably make a lot more sense.
[This message has been edited by HSO (edited March 18, 2005).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
