Thanks.
--
Diego went out for more wood and left me alone in the house with Arienne and her new baby. The cottage smelled of burning oak and balsam, cooked mutton from supper, blood and afterbirth. A phantom of screaming, only recently faded, hung in the air.
She'd put out the candles, couldn’t afford to have them lit anymore than necessary. It’d been a hard winter on everyone. So we wondered when Diego would return and huddled around the dying hearth, Arienne with a child suckling at a breast.
I tried to ignore the writhing of the snakes in my veins, but couldn't suppress a twitch, feeling them slither up around my spine, my skull, like crimson ivy.
My sister noticed this, but probably blamed the cold. I pulled my cloak tighter for effect.
Can't say I'm happy with the punctuation, even if it is the character's voice. Maybe I'm a traditionalist or utterly biased, but... with the exception of dialogue, I would prefer to read stories that don't have words deliberately omitted for effect or subbed with a comma. But that's the risk you take, I guess -- you can't please everyone.
Still, take note: As I said, the premise is interesting, and I'd probably get used to the voice quickly enough with only a few grumbles of complaint while I read it.
I guess I should have stated that this would appear in a speculative market. That should paint your perspective a bit.
quote:
A phantom of screaming, only recently faded, hung in the air.
Interesting beginning. Love that line.
quote:
Diego went out for more wood and left me alone in the house with Arienne and her new baby. The cottage smelled of burning oak and balsam, cooked mutton from supper, blood and afterbirth. A phantom of screaming, only recently faded, hung in the air.
I like the image that "A phantom of screaming" generates as well. But you could definately punch this pasage up a bit.
quote:
She'd put out the candles, couldn’t afford to have them lit anymore than necessary. It’d been a hard winter on everyone. So we wondered when Diego would return and huddled around the dying hearth, Arienne with a child suckling at a breast.
Conserving candles makes sense, but candle making is a pretty simple process, you could pick something better to illustrate the hardship of the winter.
Also dropping things like "with a" can give statements more impact. ex. "We wondered, huddled around the dying hearth, when Diego would return. Arienne lay quietly beside me, her babe suckling greedily at her breast."
Punch it up a bit and really paint the picture. I like the setting and the feeling of desperation you generate, but you can enhance it.
quote:
I tried to ignore the writhing of the snakes in my veins, but couldn't suppress a twitch, feeling them slither up around my spine, my skull, like crimson ivy.
I love this passage but have absolutely no idea what it means...it sounds like someone going through drug withdrawl.
I'd definately be interested in seeing more.
Survivor, do you think the passage you pointed out is unclear by itself, or do you think that right now the reader doesn't know enough? Because I can assure you the issue gets cleared up in a hurry from this point onward.
HuntGod, I appreciate your comments about punching it up. I kind of question your suggested revision, though, due to the infusion of two adverbs in one sentence. The underlying point remains, however, and I'll think on it.
Thanks again, everyone!
Are the snakes really in her veins. It sounds like they are at the line where she pulls her cloak tighter. What is she hiding is what I'm asking, but then I'm almost too confused to care.
You do give the sence of creepy. I'm just not sure why I'm worried yet.
I agree with HSO. The word omition makes the reading more difficult. I'm ignorant of what a "speculative market" is though.
I just can't decide. I would read the whole thing though. You have me intriged.
Rachel
or even this...
"We wondered when Diego would return. Arienne lay quietly beside me, huddled around the dying hearth, her babe sucking greedily at her breast."
[This message has been edited by HuntGod (edited January 27, 2005).]
quote:
Survivor, do you think the passage you pointed out is unclear by itself, or do you think that right now the reader doesn't know enough? Because I can assure you the issue gets cleared up in a hurry from this point onward.
We need a little definition of the term "unclear by itself" here. A passage can be "clear by itself" by being self contained. No string of information, even if it was generated completely at random, can ever be "unlcear by itself" if you allow later information to clarify it.
When the reader encounters this text, it will be in the context of information already provided. Information that hasn't been provided prior to this point in the text is not part of the context of this passage.
An opening passage must be clear in and of itself. Sure, you could have given us some up-front information that would be known to any reader, like genre and story length. I doubt that would have made this a lot clearer.
It is important to remember that readers (people in general) have a lot of difficultly remembering something if it doesn't seem very meaningful at the time. If you are hoping that people will get to a later passage in the text and will instantly remember this part because now it makes sense, you will be cruelly disappointed. It is also important to remember that people stop reading if they can't make sense of things. So not only will they not remember this passage long enough to find the explanation of what it means, they will never find the explanation anyway because they will have stopped reading.
Sorry to belabor this point, but it is important. Very, very important. Most readers won't reread your novel all the way through or your short story several times to try and find a reason to enjoy it. They will read a few pages, decide it's no good, and not keep reading. Editors know this, so they do the same thing.
[edited for Clarity]
[This message has been edited by Rahl22 (edited January 28, 2005).]
I mean, when you say "the words themselves aren't unclear--just the message they convey", what exactly is that supposed to mean? Were you thinking that the complaints about clarity were because our monitors were all fuzzy at the time? How could anyone possibly think that your wording and phrasing were very clear, but just didn't know what you were talking about?
The entire point of being clear is that people understand what the heck you're saying. Don't mess with my head, punk, I just got it back on spec.
You've never read anything and, while the prose was very clear, you didn't know what was going on? I think there's a difference between being confused, and knowing exactly what you're confused about. One implies the author doesn't know what he's doing, the other that he does.
Or maybe I'm just flat out wrong (which has happened before).
Are we just messing around, or are you actually trying to say something?
quote:
You've never read anything and, while the prose was very clear, you didn't know what was going on?
If you're suggesting that I said anything that could be so construed, then please show me where and when. I've read a lot of things, including the prose being discussed in this topic, and I don't think it was very clear.
quote:
I think there's a difference between being confused, and knowing exactly what you're confused about.
Yes, just as there is a big difference between having a broken leg, and knowing exactly which leg is broken.
quote:
One implies the author doesn't know what he's doing, the other that he does.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean, but if it refers to being confused and knowing you're confused, I will extend my broken leg analogy here. Knowing that you have a broken leg implies that you really have a broken leg (unless you are confused). Having a broken leg implies that you know you have a broken leg (unless you are very confused, or unconscious).
Now, if we're just messing with my head, I'd rather not play. I prefer to keep this thing in working order.
haha, ok, that last bit might have just been messing with you.
But consider a mystery novel. All the pieces might not be in place, and many things could be happening that don't immediately make sense, but the prose should clear enough that you know exactly what you don't know.
Regarding word omission, these are the lines I specifically had trouble with:
quote:
I tried to ignore the writhing of the snakes in my veins, but WORD OMITTED couldn't suppress a twitch,SEVERAL WORDS OMITTED and possibly a full stop (or period) feeling them slither up around my spine,WORD(S) OMITTED my skull,WORD OMITTED like crimson ivy.My sister noticed this, but WORD OMITTEDprobably blamed the cold.
While one's story can be poetic in its prose, if you go this route, you risk losing readers. If I wanted to read a poem, I would. I'd much prefer to read a story without filling in the blanks.
Still, I'm interested... so it ain't all that bad... definite potential is evident.
The reason I'm so curious is because that's more or less the way I write, with the exclusion of the slightly flowery word choice.
[This message has been edited by Rahl22 (edited January 31, 2005).]
I tried to ignore the writhing of the snakes in my veins, but I couldn't suppress a twitch. I felt them slither up around my spine, my skull, like crimson ivy.
My sister noticed this, but she probably blamed the cold.
[This message has been edited by HSO (edited January 31, 2005).]
p.s. thank you for the input!
HSO, with the exception of the "I felt" addition I would think the other "I" and "she" were redundant.
I know I generally try to preen out redundant identifiers in my stories and would have thought these fell into that category. The "I felt" though is definately needed to clarify the object of that sentence.
My writing style would include the pronouns so as to avoid any possible confusion. I don't want people guessing at what I'm trying to say. I want them to know exactly what I'm saying.
And I may be erring on the side of caution. But that's my plan, and for the moment, I'm sticking with it.
No worries on breaking the rules. I smell a mutiny afoot, I do.
Those two can be at odds from time to time though.
Also as a rule of thumb avoid things like "like" :-)
If you find yourself writing "like a ...something" then find another way to write it.
Okay, just for giggles, if I were going to rewrite these sentences for myself and not be redundant, I'd probably do it like this (not saying you should do it this way Rahl):
I tried to ignore the writhing snakes in my veins; felt them slither up and around my spine, crimson ivy probing into my skull, but the twitch couldn't be suppressed. My sister noticed it, but said nothing--maybe thinking it was the cold air.
quote:
A phantom of screaming, only recently faded, hung in the air.
quote:
So we wondered when Diego would return and huddled around the dying hearth, Arienne with a child suckling at a breast.
quote:
I tried to ignore the writhing of the snakes in my veins, but couldn't suppress a twitch, feeling them slither up around my spine, my skull, like crimson ivy.
quote:
My sister noticed this, but probably blamed the cold. I pulled my cloak tighter for effect.
I just can't tell what you're trying to say here. These sentances don't have any meaning.
Really, this primarily comes from the Writer's of the Future anthologies I've been reading. Without fail, every single one of the stories employs a similar technique. They bring up things at the beginning that seems strange, but is perfectly expected for the POV character. Then, as we settle into that POV, pieces of information start clicking with others to make a whole picture.
I confess that I don't always read people's 13 lines--sometimes I just skim over them and count them.
Your post about WotF stories made me go read the original 13, and my answer to the basic question of whether I'd keep reading or not is "yes."
Don't rewrite this to death. I think you are at the point as a writer where you don't need to change things just because someone asks you to. Change things because the change improves the story for you, the writer.
If Rahl were to take your guess and put it into the story as you wrote it, however, he would run the risk of violating point of view unless the point-of-view character could read his sister's mind.
And to be honest, I can't understand. I mean, the intro is good and I'd keep reading. I don't know exactly what's going on but I don't feel like I should know more yet. I have a sense that details are coming rather than being witheld, and that is an important distinction and, I believe, the one Rahl was trying to point out when he said, " I think there's a difference between being confused, and knowing exactly what you're confused about."
Anyway, I've read more poingnant hooks, but the job of a hook is to keep the reader reading, not to always outdo another story in shock value. This has done its job.
quote:
I'm on the fence too. There are just too many "Hah! try and guess what this is supposed to mean you stupid reader!" phrases scattered around in the text. It takes no great skill to make it completely unclear what is supposed to be going on in a story, the challenge is to be as clear as possible without breaking the mood of the story. You've broken the mood by not being clear enough.
Everything else is my attempt to answer Rahl22's numerous questions about what I mean when I say "unclear". Of course, for the past several days I've suspected that Rahl22 is just asking to be funny. So if Rahl22 doesn't ask me to define the term "unclear" anymore, I won't, since it seems to be bugging people.
--- Bill Clinton