Feeback on the first 13 would be lovely, readers for the rest would be nice too.

***
“I am the goddess Kalypso, the daughter of the Titan Atlas. No man may find. My island, Ogygian, or see it as it truly is without my leave. I have allowed you, my descendants, to enter my domain so that you may learn the truth. While you are here, you will have every comfort.”
Stephan, Susanna and Michael sent a worried glance between themselves. They hadn’t actually expected to be on anything more than a pleasure cruise through the Adriatic Sea. The problem with hunting a goddess is, of course, that occasionally I let myself be found.
Still, that damned Homer had made them nervous. They only knew the lies he told. I should have struck him down rather than let him commit that atrocity to page and ink. It was that error. . .

Or

"No man may find my island, Ogygian, or see it as it truly is, without my leave."?
________________________________________________________________

2) Who is Kalypso talking to? It was a little confusing coming out of a quotation to Stephan, Susanna and Michael sharing a worried glance. I thought you were switching PoVs for a minute.

3) What set them to hunting for Kalypso?

NITS You can cut the "the goddess" from the opening sentence, the daughter of Atlas would be a goddess. Likewise, the "Titan". Stephan, Susanna, and Michael were looking for her, so even they knew.

IMHO
Suggestion: "Without my leave, no man may find my island, Ogygian. For thousands of years I have hidden its true nature. This is a privelage I have granted only to you, my descendants, so that you may learn the truth. While you are here, you will be afforded every luxury."

I love the fact that it alludes to Homer deliberately lying. That would've hooked me...I'm your target audience.

[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited February 26, 2007).]
 

“I am the goddess Kalypso," I TOLD THEM ...

My reasons:

* I want to know POV up front
* I don't get why the dialog matters until I know the situation
* You seem to be switching POV between goddess and visitors. If they glanced with worry at each other, that's their POV (since only they know if they're worried. Goddess could think they *look* worried). She also doesn't know what they expected, so we need to note that it's her surmising.

I wonder whose POV it should be? The agent of change, so I hear.
 

Ditto Briggs -- as usual. (How many times have I written that over the past six months? ) I was thinking of the same solution. Starting with the POV first would make the dialogue more understandable.

Now, I know this is a nit, but here it is. This sentence feels weird: "The problem with hunting a goddess is, of course, that occasionally I let myself be found."

The stuff before "that" is (apparently) from the perspective of the mortals; it wouldn't be the goddess's problem if she's letting herself be found.

The stuff after "that" is from the perspective of the goddess, right down to being first person.

Consider "the problem with eating an apple is that eventually you'll get some peel stuck in your teeth." Same perspective for the "pre-that" part as the "post-that" part.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd prefer something more like, "The problem with hunting a goddess is that occasionally she might want to be found." or "...that you might find her." Keeping the "post-that" part in third person keeps it in the mortals' perspective.

Last nit: Stephan and Susanna have the same first initial. They have different genders, which helps you tell them apart, and I didn't stumble over this at all, but some people will say that the S&S combo here is a no-no.

Regards,
Oliver
 

Thanks IB for the typo catch.

Humm. On the POV, the entire thing is supposed to be Kalypso's first person POV. She's the Goddess of Concealment and I've taken a bit of liberty with what secret she knows so that she can choose to know exactly what they are thinking. Will's suggestion should clarify that though.

I tried David's POV for a while but I liked hers better. For him this was a drunken dare that's taken a turn towards the bizzare. It's much more important for her and she's the only one who knows why she brought them to the island.

How about?

****
My mortal visitors Stephan, Susanna and Michael glanced at each other. I knew they hadn’t expected to be on anything more than a pleasure cruise through the Adriatic Sea. The problem with hunting a goddess is that occasionally I want to be found.
“I am the goddess Kalypso, daughter of the Titan Atlas," I said as they stepped on the shore. "I have allowed you, my descendants, to find Ogygain so that you may learn the truth. While you are here, you will have every comfort.”
Still, that damned Homer had made them nervous. They only knew the lies he told. I should have struck him down rather than let him commit that atrocity to page and ink. It was that error in kindness designed to save Ulysses’s life that had reduced me allowing mortals to approach my island again.

***

Since Susanna and Stephan rapidly become minor figures, does the double "s" issue cause any problems?

I still have a problem with "The problem with hunting a goddess is that occasionally I want to be found." If I'm the only one, ignore me.

I deliberately avoided the term "POV" because I think you can do what I suggested _without_ violating POV. The example I gave (getting apple peel stuck in your teeth) appears to be second person, but it's really what someone would say in the first person as well.

Looking at it another way: you refer to the same entity in two different ways in the sentence. "A goddess" is both indefinite and third person-ish; "I" is definite and in the first person. Thus you could also fix the sentence by saying "The problem with hunting for me is that sometimes I want to be found."

Your call, of course.

Regards,
Oliver
 

[This message has been edited by arriki (edited February 27, 2007).]
 

Like the debate on Shakespeare's works (one or more writers?), there is great debate over who "Homer" was.

Created in 8th centuty BC, the Illad and Odyssey were not originally written down.

"It is probable that Homer's name was applied to two distinct individuals differing in temperament and artistic accomplishment, born perhaps as much as a century apart, but practicing the same traditional craft of oral composition and recitation. Although each became known as "Homer," it may be (as one ancient source asserts) that homros was a dialectical lonic word for a blind man and so came to be used generically of the old and often sightless wandering reciters of heroic legends in the traditional meter of unrhymed dactylic hexameters." - Read Print.com

So yes, technically she's wrong when she says "let him commit that atrocity to page and ink . . " but the other is too hard to explain in a short.

Knowing what you do about Homer is the creative license create a problem with your willingness to read on?
 

kings_falcon, Have you read "Where Troy Once Stood" Iman Wilkens? I am almost as enthralled with his alternative theory as I am with the Illiad. He proposes that Homer tailored the tale to his greek audience, that it really happened in England. He challenges that (using Homer's description) if you were to replace the Aegean with the Atlantic, much would clarify itself. There are many details about his alternative theory have an interesting logical twist.

You can check it out on his website, http://www.troy-in-england.co.uk/

[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited February 27, 2007).]
 

Yes. Because the writing down is so far from likely in the time period. Now if this were obviously an alternate reality...then I could swallow Homer writing down the stories if other things about the time period were upgraded to support such a thing.

It bothered me. Maybe it wouldn't bother other people.
 

Does it bother anyone else to have 9 proper names in the first 13 lines? Granted 6 of them should already be known to the reader. A hapless reader unfamiliar with the story may feel a bit bombarded. If Susanah and Stephen quickly become minor characters, maybe you don't need to introduce them in the first sentence.

Kalypso seems to be all over the place, too. I think she's having a hard time staying on subject.

Matt
 

Any comments on the revised?

**************************

“I am the goddess Kalypso, daughter of the Titan Atlas," I said as my mortal visitors stepped on the shore. "Ogygain is my home, my haven, which no man may see without my leave. I have allowed you to find it so that you may learn the truth of what happened when Odysseus’s god-driven wonderings brought him to my shore.”

Stephan, Susanna and Michael glanced at each other. I knew they hadn’t expected to be on anything more than a pleasure cruise through the Adriatic Sea. The problem with hunting a goddess is that occasionally I want to be found.
Still, that damned Homer had made them nervous. They only knew the fabrication he told. I should have struck him down rather than let him spread that atrocity.
 

Ok my addition of idiot might push it over the edge, but she is obviously not happy with him so... but who knows as they say time heals all wounds or gives them time to fester.

 

My take:

quote:

---

“I am the goddess Kalypso, daughter of the Titan Atlas," I said as my mortal visitors stepped on the shore. "Ogygain is my home, my haven, which no man may see without my leave. I have allowed you to find it so that you may learn the truth of what happened when Odysseus’s god-driven [wonderings<--"wonderings" or "wanderings"?] brought him to my shore.”
[I like this paragraph much better than the first version.]

Stephan, Susanna<--[Couldn't you replace one of the "S" names?] and Michael glanced at each other. I knew they hadn’t expected to be on anything more than a pleasure cruise through the Adriatic Sea. [The problem with hunting a goddess is that<--Again, this leads me to believe they were searching for her, not just taking a cruise. Do you even need this line? Or maybe try: Whether or not someone is looking for a goddess,] occasionally I want to be found.
Still, that damned Homer [and his lousy fabrications][had<--Scratch.] made them nervous. [They only knew the fabrication he told.<--I've eliminated the need.] I should have struck him down [rather than let him spread<--replace all of this with: over] that atrocity.

---

Hope this helps.

PS - I'm going to be putting up 13 in here, soon, too.
 

I'll email it to Lolo and Jeffrey shortly.

IB - looking forward to your 13.
 

I suggest substituting an "A" name for Susannah. Then again, I'm addicted to using A names for female characters. Alannah is the name of my friend's daughter and has a similar sound (without causing me to sing "Oh Susannah!" in my head.)

If you find yourself still needing readers, let me know. I don't list my email addy here (allergic to spam) but I can contact you if you list yours, thereby giving you a way to email me. I am not quick, but I think I am useful. I certainly learn a lot when I critique others.
 

From ancient Greek "idiotes," the core meaning is "individual." As in, "A private person, not a magistrate or king. A common soldier, not someone of rank. Unlearned or illiterate, as opposed to commonly educated." It carries a connotation of being removed the community, as in "chooses not to participate," or "withdrawn from the group."

Today, "idiot" seems to mean only "stupid," but at its root, it means more "not-special/isolated/removed" than just "unintelligent."