posted
No writen word is fixed and immutable until published. Revision and rewriting can take place up to and even after publication, though most works' reworking ends with publication.
I feel the second version works for me more than the first, mainly because the first is a narrator summary and explanation of backstory-like introductions. The second comes from closer to the events, persons, and moment, place, and situation of the dramatic action, more artfully dramatizing the illusion of reality.
However, the second version still doesn't work for me. The most engaging feature of it for me is An Yong Nam's desire for the Advocate's approval of the girlfriend's assassination. As far as events are concerned, the denial is an effect without a prior cause and more or less finalized before the scene has barely begun. On one hand, the outcome effect is portrayed in medias res and implies a measure of mystery promised to be clarified later. As an in medias res, though, beginning "in the middle of things" without setup, backstory, or prior causal events works, for me at least, when unnecessary background that doesn't matter in the moment is left for later. And when I can fathom or infer a developing dramatic complication from events, characters, and settings. For me, in medias res' strength is starting in the middle of an emergent dramatic complication more than any ofther "middle."
The second version feels to me as if it begins at the end of a minor dramatic complication's outcome without dramatic development of the complication's context and texture. In other words, begins at an end of a scene, where I feel the scene would open several minutes at least before the moment of the scene as it is.
Here, I feel antagonism and causation influences are overlooked. Any of a number of dramatic questions are potentially short-shrifted. Why does Yong Nam want the girlfriend killed? Perhaps foremost, though as a dramatic question artfully posed for the sakes of tension's mutual attachments of empathy and curiosity, the question and other questions don't occur to me in the moment of reading because I have few, if any, clues or cues to what is going on, the meaning of the scene intended.
For tension's sake, I feel antagonism and causation development prior to this ending of what should be a contentious if respectful meeting between the Advocate and Yong Nam. In other words, the scene opens too late, even for an in medias res opening. I feel the scene can still be in medias res, start minutes prior to the Advocate's final rejection of Yong Nam's request, and develop crucial dramatic circumstances. Beginning at least with Yong Nam's defensive protest of the Advocate's impending rejection. Why does Yong Nam want the girlfriend executed, on what grounds, what justification? What motivates that agenda? And what is at stake if she is killed and, in the alternative, not killed for now? These are the moments I think the in medias res opening patently begins. Maybe not to reveal all the mystery of the texture's whys, but at least how strongly Yong Nam feels about the request.
Verbal expressions like "You can't kill his girlfriend" often causally precede final actions like stamping forms "rejected." The sound of the stamping then is a formal punctuation to the expressed final decision. Causality in that first paragraph is thus I feel also out of logical sequence. A different sequence than a logical causality needs a logical foundation. Words can be taken back due to their somewhat ephemeral nature, opening an opportunity there for Yong Nam to lodge a protest before the denial decision is formally finalized. Stamping a request document "denied" is final, indelible, irrevocable, and unequivocal. Unless a superseding, later appeal to a higher authority successfully overturns the prior decision.
The Advocate withdrawing the flight ticket from his pocket implies the action is done for effect. Taking a ticket from its secure carrying place otherwise doesn't feel logical at the moment, more so to check that the ticket is securely in hand, so to speak, or taken out at the airport check-in. The moment for the action being motivated by an intent to show Yong Nam the Advocate is late for a journey. Clarifying and strengthening that texture I think is called for; for example, rubbing Yong Nam's nose, so to speak, in the impudence for at least the exigency of the request and the bothersome triviality of the untimely request. The exacting details about the Advocate's coat, the ticket, and the actions the Advocate makes emphasize the actions' dramatic purposes, imply a significance to the gestures that are belied by the lack of texture and uninterpretable in the moment of reading.
Though perhaps the name on the ticket is readable by Song Nam, perhaps not, giving the Advocate's name and slight character development seem the sole purposes of the paragraph. I think attributing motives to the actions would make the paragraph clearer and stronger and more engaging. Like if Kun Hee brandishes the ticket in Song Nam's face for purposes of castigation and superiority display.
Diction glitch: "'graced' the top." Graced is an often misused verb in that context. Graced how? Graced meaning graciously expressed? Or an irony meaning offensively expressed? Use of graced instead of a straightforward verb like written, etched, printed, or typed, etc., confuses the sentence's meaning when it lacks for texture.
Context is who, when, and where significance, usually from subject and object portrayal--syntax. Texture is what, why, and how significance, usually from predicate significance--syntax.
Both full paragraphs open with "The Advocate." Likewise, repetition without context or texture development, or substitution and amplification, fails due to syntax redundancy. Consider varying either paragraph's opening syntax.
quote: The Advocate withdrawing the flight ticket from his pocket implies the action is done for effect.
This had been troubling me, and you're right.
I see the beginning as a little different, as it's no longer a question of why he wants to kill her. He submitted the request, the request has been rejected. The conflict he's faced with now is, "What next?"
Building up a narrative around the 'Why' seems like it would be a waste, as it's no longer viable as soon as the decision is made. It's like if you have a difficult client at work that you want to drop, and you submit a request to your bosses for permission to drop them, and they say, 'No'. I suppose you could spend a paragraph or two going into the reasons why the character wants to drop the client, but the story isn't really about that. It's about what to do now that you *have* to deal with client. How do you resolve the issue then?
Character agency still exists, but it exists in a losing scenario.
posted
I think where we are at odds isn't so much what the scene means as whether the scene's drama is dramatically adequate for an opening. I see a clash of wills between a subordinate and a superior, albeit courteous; in other words, dully respectful but with a contentious subtext.
Not so much why per se, if why at all Song Nam wants the girlfriend killed, but that the competition is the dramatic point, the purpose of the scene, its function. The final outcome of the clash could then be left artfully delayed, implying another way for the girlfriend's assassination to take place later, so that doubt of outcome is left to develop mystery and subsequently tension.
I forgot to metion priorly about "golden locks." That idiom usually means blonde curls. Perhaps something along the lines of //brass locks// would be stronger and clearer.
"Blue Korean air 'sleeve'," sleeve in close proximity to "cashmere coat" creates another confusion from seeming like a coat sleeve. Perhaps something along the lines of folder, holder, pamphlet, or envelope. I know the holder as a ticket portfolio, that is already used though for where the denied request document is placed.
The third version is to me stronger and clearer than the prior versions, though the focal emphasis viewpoint is tighter yet on the Advocate, where I feel the focal emphasis viewpoint might be stronger from focusing more on Song Nam's viewpoint. Not much, perhaps an expressed thought reaction of Song Nam's to the request denial shoehorned in between the first and second paragraphs to give Song Nam's emotional attitude toward the rejection.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: The third version is to me stronger and clearer than the prior versions, though the focal emphasis viewpoint is tighter yet on the Advocate, where I feel the focal emphasis viewpoint might be stronger from focusing more on Song Nam's viewpoint.
I wondered about this also. I'll work on it, and as always, thanks for the input!
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Current Draft is exceedingly better than the 1st Draft. Congratulations on your great editing.
I like the re-write so much, I'm sorry to say I can't say much about it.
I've noticed when editing my own writing that I continually take out extra commas. Perhaps that is becaues "writing" takes long than "reading", so we put in more commas when we write, thinking the reader needs a "break". But then when we read our work we discover they're not required. For example, you wrote, "He slid one across the table to An Yong Nam, and put the other in his black leather briefcase." I believe the comma is unnecessary.
You write, "You can't kill his girlfriend," without explaining why. Good! Make the reader earn that tidbit of knowledge by continuing to read.
Use of the word "graced" to describe the "look?" of the name on the ticket strikes me as trying too hard. A more tame word like "spanned" or "covered", something more subtle would be sufficient.
You wrote, "You'll just have to..." Consider changing to "You'll have to..." because the latter sounds more authoritative. Also, "just" is one of those words we all overuse so it touches a sensitive spot for most readers.
Posts: 92 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
