3784 words, second draft. Draft 2.5 really, I went back through again after correcting as I typed. Not sci-fi. Part character study, part what-if: What if psychics who work with police really get their information from informants, undercover agents, surveillance equipment, and satellites that the FBI/NSA/pick-your-alphabet-agency don't want compromised? I would like some readers for the entire story if anyone has time.
So here goes:
“Why did you change your name from Stephanie to Rose?” The reporter had done her homework. Rose smiled placidly. “The symbolic imagery of a rose creates cleansing vibrations that surround me as I work. It's my professional name. Roses are perennial, you know.” “In the Backman case, you said the killer wrapped the body in a blue tarp. But he didn’t.” “No. It was a white garbage bag,” Rose said. “So sometimes you’re wrong.” “Certainly, dear.” Especially when the images were blurry. Or the witness or informant had a bad memory for details. Or it was safer to be a little mistaken.
Posted by bculwell (Member # 3537) on :
When I first read through, I tried to skip the first paragraph, but I did catch that there were psychics involved. As I read the 13 lines I thought it was good, but the last line really hooked me.
"Or it was safer to be a little mistaken" combined in my mind with the fact that Rose had changed her name but didn't want people to know, and I thought that maybe the story was about a psychic who solved crimes but had some terrible secrets to hide. I thought that when she stated that the witness had a bad memory for details it meant that she would probe the minds of the witnesses to see what was happening.
Then I read what the story was really about, and I must admit it wasn't as exciting to me as what I had built up in my head. It reminded me of the new show coming out about a guy who the police think is a psychic but he really isn't, but he still has to solve cases and keep up the whole fake psychic thing. "Psych" I believe it is called. Anyway, I just thought I would mention that because it was my initial gut reaction to keep reading, definitely, but I might have put it down if it didn't keep up the intrigue.
I also must note that after reading it over again there was no real indication that people thought she was psychic (in those lines). It would help if he had said "so sometimes even psychics are wrong" or something that made the idea a bit more obvious.
Posted by Louiseoneal (Member # 3494) on :
I hadn't heard about that movie. I need to find out if it has the same premise. I hope not.
I see what you mean about suspense. I think if I made this longer, I could make it suspensful despite the fact that she isn't really psychic. But it's no good if someone else has already done it.
Posted by wbriggs (Member # 2267) on :
I had trouble sometimes telling who said what.
Otherwise, it's cool, it's interesting. Although it might be more interesting if we knew whose POV we're in; what her stake in it all is; and if it were something important to her.
Posted by Verdant (Member # 3498) on :
I worked in the field (not physic) for a bit. Send it to me, I'll read.
Posted by mommiller (Member # 3285) on :
To be honest, your premise hooked me more than the first 13 lines did. I don't watch television so I guess that aspect of it being close to a series in production is okay by me.
I'd love to read the rest of this, send it on over.
Thanks
Posted by Corin224 (Member # 2513) on :
I like the opening. That's 13 lines? I think I posted too much on mine then.
I didn't even read the synopsis. I got that she was either pretending to be a psychic or at least exaggerating it. And I loved her personality just from those few sentences. You really get that sense of condescention (sp?) from her that the showy psychics seem to have.
I wouldn't mind reading more, if you're up to shipping me a draft. nathan.nelson@comcast.net.
-Falken224 (posing as Corin)
Posted by Louiseoneal (Member # 3494) on :
I think it's less than 13 lines, I just found a good cutoff point and decided to leave it at that. Here's the latest version, fixed up with critiques in mind, I'm trying to make it clearer who is saying what and hint more strongly that Rose is psychic:
“Why did you change your name from Stephanie to Rose?” The reporter had done her homework. Rose smiled placidly. “The symbolic imagery of a rose creates cleansing vibrations that surround me as I work. It's my professional name. Roses are perennial, you know.” The reporter gestured for the cameraman to get a closeup of Rose. When Rose was pinned and squinting, the reporter leaned forward and said, “In the Backman case, you told police the killer wrapped the body in a blue tarp. But he didn’t.” “No. It was a white garbage bag,” Rose said. “So sometimes your visions are wrong.” “Certainly, dear.” Especially when the images were blurry. Or the witness or informant had a bad memory for details. Or it was safer to be a little mistaken.
Posted by oliverhouse (Member # 3432) on :
I'll read.
The first wasn't bad, but the second is better.
Regards, Oliver
Posted by Rahl22 (Member # 1411) on :
Still doesn't feel like it's quite there, largely because of how disembodied it feels. You have people talking, but no setting in which they're acting. Take a sentence or two and set the stage. It will make it feel much more real and will not slow the action (I think that's probably what you're afraid of).
Posted by Louiseoneal (Member # 3494) on :
More setting, incoming. I'm afraid I'm going to have to go back and add setting bits to the entire thing, I'm playing "She woke up in a white room" without realizing it.
...
Rose watched out of the corner of her eye as the cameraman panned the room. He filmed the velvet unicorn painting that hung behind the sofa Rose sat on. He lingered over a cluster of polished stones in a beaded netbag that hung from a nail by the doorway, and then he filmed the clockface bordered by a flaky gold sun and a moon the shade of tinfoil. The reporter gestured for the cameraman to get a closeup of Rose. When Rose was pinned and squinting, the reporter leaned forward and said, “In the Backman case, you told police the killer wrapped the body in a blue tarp. But he didn’t.”
Posted by Sara Genge (Member # 3468) on :
I really like this. I'd love to read it. Send it in, please
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
A critical point in establishing your setting, keep the POV in mind.
Your first version is actually the strongest, despite being dialog heavy and detail poor. Your subsequent revisions add details...but they are the wrong details for your POV. Or at least you fail to connect those details to the POV.
That said, I could probably read this.
Posted by arriki (Member # 3079) on :
Your first attempt was much better -- for me. You didn't need the line about the reporter doing her homework. Just the unassigned questioned and Rose's reply works fine. Though I think her answer could be shorter. More like --
Rose smiled placidly. “It's my professional name. Roses are perennial, you know.”
Posted by Louiseoneal (Member # 3494) on :
Well, I wanted Rose's answer to be a little spacey, new age and vague. Distracting.
I see what you mean, Survivor, about connecting to her POV. I can also connect her realization that the reporter has done some background research to her POV. Let me try:
“Why did you change your name from Stephanie to Rose?” The reporter had done some research. But how much, and how far back had she gone? Rose kept her placid smile in place. “The symbolic imagery of a rose creates cleansing vibrations that surround me as I work. It's my professional name. Roses are perennial, you know.” “Rose watched out of the corner of her eye as the cameraman panned the room. He filmed the shabby velvet unicorn painting behind the sofa. He lingered over a net bag bulging with polished stones that dangled like a severed kidney from a nail beside the door. He swung around and filmed her least favorite prop, a wall clock bordered by a flaky gold sun and a moon the color of tinfoil.
[This message has been edited by Louiseoneal (edited July 08, 2006).]
Posted by arriki (Member # 3079) on :
For me...your first opening going on to Rose's reflection on details of what she comments on is far more engaging than the camera panning around the room. Camera is not awful, just the other is so much more unique. Put the camera after that. Go in stages to the scene setting. Finish her conversation first. Umm..not so much finish as leave it hanging for a break in scene estblaish at a more interesting point...the fact she is not entirely truthful about what she sees.
Well...that's my opinion.
Posted by Pergascript (Member # 3539) on :
i'd like to read it also
Posted by Louiseoneal (Member # 3494) on :
Are drones more believable as the source of the information than satellites? Is the covert use of satellites in domestic law enforcement too implausible? I goofed on using the NSA as the source. The NSA apparantly doesn't have eyes in the sky. I'm fixing that, but I'm rethinking the source of the images, although I still want to use images from some kind of unknown or little known surveillance equipment (not street cameras). Turns out the BBC did a story on drones over L.A., one of them is called Skyseer. Maybe that will work better, if forms of the drones exist that can stay up for a long time and take photos constantly, otherwise, they wouldn't catch random crimes or random lost hikers.
[This message has been edited by Louiseoneal (edited July 08, 2006).]
Posted by Elan (Member # 2442) on :
Ordinary citizens can get satellite images off Google.
I can look my brother's address up in Seattle and see if his car is parked at his house or not.
Go to Google.com and select the "Maps" link.... then select "Satellite." I'm not sure how often these maps are updated, but the data is credited to NAVTEQ (TM).
Posted by oliverhouse (Member # 3432) on :
Right, but those are commercial images, not frequently updated, and not very fine-grained. For intelligence, you want much finer images at programmable frequencies. You want to see the girl get into the car, and sometimes you want to know whether she's smiling.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
Not very often.
Drones are pretty believable for 24/7 surveillance of an urban area, though building mounted cameras might be cheaper and more effective. They could be hidden and all, if your concern is public knowledge.
In a suburban or rural setting, the mobility of a drone would probably make it more cost effective than stationary cameras, but they would be at a distinct disadvantage in heavily built up areas. It isn't too hard to stealth either.
Posted by Louiseoneal (Member # 3494) on :
What if commercial satellite images sold or passed on to governments are better than the ones sold to us? Then it might not be strictly illegal to pass images on to police (but neither governments nor any company would want to advertise it).
Posted by oliverhouse (Member # 3432) on :
I also mentioned this privately, but for anyone interested: the issue isn't how the agency obtained information, it's whether they're authorized to collect it.
An agency that's only authorized to collect intelligence on foreign nationals is not allowed to accept information about an American citizen from, say, the citizen's girlfriend, or the FBI. Not part of their charter.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
Yeah, that's where the "psychic" comes in.
Posted by oliverhouse (Member # 3432) on :
As long as the psychic is the one disseminating information from the agencies, I'm okay with that. In fact, I think there are reasons that it's a brilliant idea. I even talked to Louise offline about some of the issues involved (and if anybody's interested, I'll post them publicly).
But if Rose the psychic is supposed to be a way for the agencies to _collect_ information that they're not allowed to have, or to hide the fact that they've collected that they aren't supposed to -- that just doesn't make sense.
Posted by Louiseoneal (Member # 3494) on :
At this point, thanks to Oliver's input, I'm going with commercial satellite companies helping out the FBI (good enough for government work, and if they're a little off or hazy, hey, sometimes psychics are wrong). That's not to say I'll be shocked out of my mittens if it turns out our military does pick up domestic activitiy with their high end satellites, but it isn't a necessary part of this story to convince readers they would pass that on.
Posted by Elan (Member # 2442) on :
quote:hey, sometimes psychics are wrong
This brings to mind a story of friends who live in Missouri... they told me a local TV network ran a week-long contest, pitting the prophetic skills of local weathermen against local psychics to see who would score the most accurate weather forecast...
The psychics won.
Posted by hoptoad (Member # 2145) on :
a friend of a friend of mine...?
Posted by The Beast (Member # 3546) on :
If this is fiction perhaps the military or security services have come up with some new technological wizardry that they are trying to cloak under the guise of psychic work (ie slipping bits of info to the psychic or pseudo-psychic to hide what they can actually gleen from us plebs). To me, buts it's just my point of view, inventing potentially scary technology is fun (so don't believe my self-introduction!). That way you don't need to worry about drones or spy satellites.
Posted by Louiseoneal (Member # 3494) on :
You want me to come up with something scarier than eyes in the sky that can read my wristwatch on a moonless cloudy night? (Okay, I have no idea if any satellite is that good yet.) I guess there are scarier things. Like tailored viruses that target specific genotypes, and heaven help us, there are people in our government who think this is a fine idea. I'm working on a fiction piece based on that nightmare already.
Oh, I can think of something scarier, or at least creepier: if the dorks in the CIA who supposedly spent years trying to create psychics (they gave up on remote viewing in 1995) had actually succeeded. Shoot, maybe they did succeed. I'll leave that one for someone else to write stories about, because I prefer the thought of satellites. Hm, then again, maybe that remote viewing thing was just a cover for satellite usage, too. That could be a fun angle. Not as easy to work into domestic policing, but fun.
I love technology. And by the way, Mr. big brother? My watch is wrong!
Posted by Elan (Member # 2442) on :
I gave my brother a book about remote viewing. It was pretty fascinating. The title is Psychic Warrior by David Morehouse. According to him, remote viewing IS a viable method of information transfer, although it may not be the exact science your story requires. Books about medical intuitives brush up against the same concept... access to information your awake conscious brain has no way of knowing.
Posted by Louiseoneal (Member # 3494) on :
It's possible to train your mind that way, I suppose. I bet I could ask almost anyone if they ever had a dream that came true or had a flash of empathy or telepathy and they'd say yes. And there are seizure-sensing dogs, so maybe there are seizure-sensing people. But the thought of psychics working for the CIA gives me hives.
Posted by Elan (Member # 2442) on :
I've done quite a bit of reading & exploring of stuff in the metaphysical realm. The world is stranger than we CAN imagine. Talk with a shaman one of these days if you want to see what I mean. Posted by Louiseoneal (Member # 3494) on :
Beh, talk with one? I dated one. We just broke up. I don't suppose he was much of one, though. Spent most of his time playing online games. Long story. Never mind.
I spent years looking for a mystical something, off on some mystical this or that, and looking for 'mystical right' too, and you know what I learned?
People are basically the same and not all that mystical or wise. Most of the time, when you think someone is being wise and profound, you're really just projecting what you're figuring out about life onto that person, and the more incoherent and stupid the person, the easier it is to project your own wisdom.
Also, the world is bizarre and there are things we can't understand, but most of the time the world is less incomprehensible than just confusing. Which is why fiction is so much fun. I can create a mystical world, mystical right, and reasons for anything that happens on the page. Too bad I can't do it in reality!
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
Again with saying "people" when you should say "humans". No, I'm not taking offense. I'm just making an observation, that's all.
Posted by Louiseoneal (Member # 3494) on :
Are there humans who aren't people or vice versa that I am somehow offending?
Anyway, the story is as finished as it's going to be and I sent it off today. Thanks everyone for your help, your critiques brought this story a long way in a very short time. And thanks for the cat, Oliverhouse!
Posted by mommiller (Member # 3285) on :
You'll have to let us know how the story does. I really enjoyed reading it.
Thanks for sharing it with me.
Abby
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
quote:Are there humans who aren't people or vice versa that I am somehow offending?
Okay, now I'm offended. You probably think of yourself as open-minded, too.
Posted by Louiseoneal (Member # 3494) on :
Thanks Abby.
Survivor: Oh dear, the cat is giving me a nasty look. I begin to see the error of my ways....
Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :
Now that's not very fair, Survivor.
All anyone here can see are the words you type in your postings, so how is anyone to know how you think about the nature of human-ness or the nature of people-ness and how or if either relates to you without searching and reading all of your relevant posts?
Posted by Rilnian (Member # 3506) on :
AHHHH Kathleen, will you marry me. Lawl. I put a post somewhere comparing you to "Big Brother". I think by asking her about this idea helps, Kathleen is phsycic, trust me.
To Louiseoneal,
I have been reading the stuff you put up, and I really enjoy it. Keep up the goods, and tell us all how it does!
Posted by TMan1969 (Member # 3552) on :
Good Luck and I enjoyed reading the banter and your first 13 lines..
Cheers
Look up, Listen up - someone is always watching and listening
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
All I ask is that everyone recognize that "human" and "person" aren't completely interchangable.
In return, I've very graciously acknowledged that the terms aren't mutually exclusive
Posted by Louiseoneal (Member # 3494) on :
*draws a venn diagram and traps survivor in the middle*
There you go. You're human, and you're people, and you're caged.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
This is what I get for trying to be gracious.
Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :
I hadn't heard about that movie. I need to find out if it has the same premise. I hope not. 
This is what I get for trying to be gracious.