The Fountains of Probability
"Mr. um...Kyyt?"
Kyyt's name could only be pronounced correctly underwater, but he didn't want to offend this human woman who destroyed his name so delightfully, so he nodded. I should show her a smile, he thought. How do I make a smile? Ah, I remember.
Smiling, Kyyt said, "Yes, Major?"
"We will be landing soon. I've arranged for your transportation and security. The other members of our cell are waiting--” She stopped.
The unhealed burns on her face made her expression hard for Kyyt to read, but he thought she had suddenly become very sad, perhaps nervous, too. The scar tissue confused him.
Abruptly, she leaned close to him and asked very quietly, very awkwardly, "Would you mind if I...touched you?"
"Not at all," Kyyt replied.
She nodded slightly, not really listening. She was looking very intently at him, as if recognizing someone she had known long ago.
"Feel free to touch me, but what you feel will be very different from what you see. So, perhaps it would be better if you did not touch me...Major?"
That brought her back to reality. Clearing her throat, she took a step backwards and resumed an appropriate distance. By now, Kyyt had grown accustomed to the impaired geometry of her face, and he watched her grow businesslike and cold. This marine major had become angry with him. He had exposed one of her soft parts, an unhealed wound somewhere.
The major doesn't quite seem solidly constructed, but it might just be my perception that her behavior was markedly unmilitary for Marine Corps officer.
Do remember that posting more than the first manuscript format page of a text could compromise your ability to sell first rights to that work to a publisher. Naturally, the closer you are to the final form of the text, the more of a problem that will be, and the converse. There is also the issue of etiquette, I suppose.
I really like the job you've done with the alien POV.
Overdone...probably. But that just means that most writers do it badly, rather than properly. In this case, it is done properly.
Anyway, if you still need a reader, I probably can look at it.
Still, you've asserted that it's "cheesy" three times, and so far as I'm concerned that probably means there is no point in discussing it further with you. You think it's cheesy, and that's that.
Anyway, I found this detail very believable. It didn't bother me nearly so much as having the Major make a move on the alien without knowing why she would do such a thing. Or not knowing why the Major had burns on her face. I assume I'm going to find these things out later, but if the story started back when those burn occurred, shouldn't that be where you start telling it?
Anyway, all this discussion (and my own questions) has intensified my interest in your post.
If you're still looking for readers, I could do about 3000 words.
However, I do have a problem with non-constructive comments. People saying it is cheesy... what is the point? If you don't want to help then stay off the thread.
I liked the introduction to the chracters. I think the story starts here because Kyyrt is the main character (I hope so anyway) and so for him he is just learning about what is occurring.
Other than that it is hard to judge on 13 lines, but the Major's reaction to him did disturb me. I would not expect her to behave in such a way.
Sci-fi doesn't have to be realistic, but it does have to be reasonable.
All that would need to be changed to satisfy me is this: "Kyyt's name could only be pronounced correctly underwater, but he didn't want to offend this human woman who destroyed his name so delightfully, so he nodded."
to this:
"Humans were never able to pronounce his name correctly. Their vocal chords never had to evolve to the ocean, and since there was no way to correct her, he nodded."
Would you prefer tacky, maybe?
Sorry, Archer. But I have to agree that 'cheesy' is cutting. Find a more...hmmm...intelligent way, perhaps, to state your opinion.
Actually, I kind of happy that this post has stirred up some controversy. I've been keeping an eye on the replies to the initial post and, at the very least, it's helpful to know how people react to different things.
One of my biggest problems in writing is knowing whether people understand what the @$#&%! I'm talking about, or whether they have the same reaction I have when I come up with an idea.
There're a lot really wierd things that happen in this story, and I'm still trying to figure out what works and what doesn't.
quote:
As far as I know, pronunciation underwater is only hampered. In other words, you can pronounce more in air than underwater. I don't know if you have some sort of genetic mutation lined up for that one, but it's really just kind of cheesey...
quote:
If Kyyt can speak to humans, I doubt the pronunciation would change from underwater to air. Rather, it would change from species to species. And the whole different scientient species mispronouncing another species' names is overdone and is really a joke now.
Cheesy is just one word I used. If you think that's all I was saying, then you weren't paying attention. I just give what I have, and if I only know what I don't like, I won't hold back because I don't have any empty compliments to give. It's hard to do that with 13 lines anyway.
And if someone thought something I wrote was cheesy, I'd hate them NOT saying so. THAT'S what's unproductive.
I'll have you know my parents DIED in an unexplained cheese explosion, and to this day the slightest mention of anything related to cheese makes me very...VERY...
Er, ahem. I'm fine. (Twitch!) No, really, (clenched fists, gnashing of teeth) it's OKAY. I'm ALL RIGHT. No, I'm NOT YELLING! WHY DO YOU THINK I'M YELLING? THIS IS HOW I ALWAYS TALK! YOU GOTTA PROBLEM WITH IT?
Ahem.
Pronunciation: 'tsheezee
Definition:[adj] (informal) of very poor quality
Saying something is of poor quality is a statement of judgement only and does not provide any critique value. If that were all that were said, then it were poor judgement to judge and not critique. If it were NOT the only thing that was said, then it were at best poor judgement in word use.
If my critiquer were someone whose critiques I had learned to value, and that person simply said to me that my work was cheesy, I would 1) rush to ensure that I understood that definition of the word in its context, and then 2) if it were 'meant' as poor quality, chastise the critiquer for not living up to their usual critiquing standards.
I might not be so charitable to anyone else who provided a negative judgement with no accompanying value (as opposed to a judgement that my work had no value, accompanied by an explanation of why not).
I have read things that I thought were crap, and STILL tried to provide value in my response. Others here have critiqued pieces of mine that offended them. They STILL provided value. Now, that's critiquing.
quote:
All that would need to be changed to satisfy me is this: "Kyyt's name could only be pronounced correctly underwater, but he didn't want to offend this human woman who destroyed his name so delightfully, so he nodded."to this:
"Humans were never able to pronounce his name correctly. Their vocal chords never had to evolve to the ocean, and since there was no way to correct her, he nodded."
Okay, ArCH submitted his constructive bit on how to make it seem less "cheesy" to him. Now Corpsegrinder can decide for himself whether ArCH's suggested change is utterly souless prose that misses out on nearly everything about Kyyt's character that the original illustrated so clearly, and whether to use that in his next revision.
All friends now?
Yeah, I looked up cheesy too, and got exactly that. The problem is that that's not all cheesy means. I don't think the dictionary is quite right on that one. To me, cheesy is just something that is tacky. It just seems to be there just to be there, and it seems like a trait forced upon a character.
To me, there's just something not quite right about it.
My alternate phrase does seem a little soulless upon re-read, but the idea behind it is what I'm going for. It just seems more natural for the difference to be that of species and not of medium.
If Shakespeare can make up new words, and if slang can be invented, and if bitch can now mean an easily scared person with no integrity, I think the meaning of words can have context not put into their definitions.
mm said that "cheesy" means "of very poor quality". You claim that it means "tacky".
But "tacky" also means "shabby" or "of poor quality".
Or did you mean that "cheesy" literally meant "tacky" as in "sticky"? Because that's not really true. Literally, "cheesy" means "cheese-like" or "made with cheese". While it is possible that something that was literally cheesy to also be literally tacky, the terms do not imply each other any more than "red" and "glowing" imply each other. Some things are both glowing and red, but most red things aren't glowing and most glowing things aren't red.
You said that it was "cheesy", meaning "of poor quality". You then clarified that you meant "tacky", also meaning "of poor quality". Are you not taking us seriously here? Divine Retribution!
P.S. If you meant "cheese-like/made with cheese" and then clarifed to mean "sticky/adhesive", then I really don't know what to say other than that we aren't taking you seriously anymore.
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited December 16, 2004).]
quote:Sorry. 1) There's no conflict between "new and expensive" and poor quality. 2) When the above is described as "tacky," it is the the wearer's taste that is being judged, not the clothes themselves. And the judgment being made is that his taste is of poor quality.
Tacky doesn't neccissarily [sic] mean of poor quality. A flannel shirt with dress pants is tacky, but both can be new and expensive.
quote:
Definition:[adj] (informal) of very poor quality
quote:I would like to point out that an otherwise reasonable sample of writing, full of typos and grammatical errors, would be of very poor quality. It would not be cheesy. The people writing the dictionary probably felt that this distinction was a connotation, and therefore not worth including, even though connotations are a very important part of the meanings of words.
Yeah, I looked up cheesy too, and got exactly that. The problem is that that's not all cheesy means. I don't think the dictionary is quite right on that one.
That being said, the word "cheesy" does have the connotation of being an insult, and, as we're all supposed to be writers here, I think we should try to come up with words whose connotations match what we mean.
Really. I can't think of a single word that fits the situation. Should I just pull a Shakespeare and call it fanangally?
I did not mean it as an instult. I meant it as a description of the thought that came to my mind when I read it.
I can think of plenty of words that are appropriate to describe the passage you called "cheesy". "Deft", "subtle", "intriguing"...and so on. But, because your opinion of the passage is such that you couldn't use those words, you are left with no options that actually fit the passage you described as "cheesy".
But seriously, that wasn't really any kind of response whatsoever. And here is poor ol' corpsegrinder (love the name, btw. It reminds me of Warcraft III) who can't get anymore opinions on his work because you guys are too busy talking about how wrong my opinion is.
Not saying that you're in the wrong or anything like that. Or that CG didn't ask for what you've contributed to this discussion. Or that what we've done is more in line with the purpose of this forum.
Or, you know, any sort of response whatsoever
Hillarious
Really
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited December 21, 2004).]
Please. Don't talk to each other or refer to each other any more.
Okay?