So, I didn't want to clog up the airwaves, but since we hardly seem to be flooded with new posts these days, I'm putting up another one. As ever, comments on the opening are good, full reads are better.
Edit: Slightly tweaked version
It was cold outside. Wilhem stepped into the abandoned chapel, and it was far colder within the decaying building’s welcoming shadows. He wasn’t bothered by the icy temperature; the chapel’s rotting grandeur warmed his soul as no fire or sun or fleshly embrace could do. Wilhelm wasn’t entirely sure what religion or faith it had been built for; He knew for certain only that its fragments of iconography, its soaring height and baroque elegance appealed deeply to his personal aesthetics, especially in their current state of dilapidation; and he knew the chapel’s lower bowels currently entertained a sacred guest, the object of his own worship. She it was he had come to see, feeling Her grey pull upon his mind even now as he wove his way amongst intricately
It was cold outside. Wilhelm stepped into the abandoned chapel, and it was far colder within the decaying building’s welcoming darkness. He wasn’t bothered by the icy temperature— the chapel’s rotting grandeur warmed his soul as no fire or sun or fleshly embrace could do. Wilhelm wasn’t entirely sure what religion or faith it had been built for, he knew for certain only that its fragments of iconography, its soaring height and baroque elegance appealed deeply to his personal aesthetics, especially in their current state of dilapidation. Most importantly, he knew the chapel’s lower bowels currently entertained a sacred guest, the object of his own worship. She it was he had come to see, feeling Her grey pull upon his mind even now as he wove his way amongst intricately
[ November 18, 2018, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: MerlionEmrys ]
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
An individual self-reflects about a visited place's self-import.
Narrative point of view: Third person Single viewpoint persona Interior discourse attachment Detached narrator Simple past-mixed tenses Indicative mood Ominous, formal register, and meditative tone
Motivation given Stakes risked intimated Attitude's tone: ominous, formal register, and meditative Implied specimen shape persona bridge
Event: a visitation Setting: a church ruin, cold, sans light ambience Characters: a viewpoint persona visitor and a pendent visited mystic persona, no narrator persona active
Shortfalls, mostly pump primer that sets up some of complication, conflict, tone, event, setting, and characters, and a back story background, albeit in now-moment scene mode, with quiet dramatic movement, little, if any, tension buildup movement, though a solitaire whose dramatic interactions are of the self, solely, limited to the self and place and situation.
"come to see, feeling" Dangled antecedent past-tense participle phrase. Dash wanted instead of the comma, or recast. And "feeling" is an unnecessary extra lens filter. Also, overall, an excess of empty adverbs, force emotional subtext and are emotionally lackluster.
I might could read further as a soon to be engaged reader, though on the too quiet side for immediate engagement, and several reservations evoked.
Posted by EmmaSohan (Member # 10917) on :
I am interested in the story so far and would keep reading.
I am stuck with saying how I might write it differently, and I don't like doing that, but like you said, there isn't much traffic.
"It was cold outside" Weak start, right? I thought dilapidation modified his aesthetics. Are "shadows", "entertained", and "guest" the right words?
As Jay often says, you seems to be writing a story. And that's a problem. I would rather see you shining a light on the things that matter, putting the other things in the background, and creating a mood.
That's just a feeling, and I'm not sure where I get that feeling from. But . . .
We read "Wilhelm wasn't entirely sure..." The focus of the next sentence: "He knew only for certain that its fragments." Meanwhile, "sacred guest" is buried near the end of a complicated sentence.
Posted by Jay Greenstein (Member # 10615) on :
We begin with a weather report. Why? He's not bothered by the temperature, so he's not paying attention to it. So apparently, only you care about it. But you're not there, or in the story. So as a reader, why do I care what you're focused on?
What else happens in the first paragraph? Wilhelm, someone we know nothing about, steps into an abandoned chapel, of some unknown religion, at some unknown time in history, in an unknown place. Then, we receive an info-dump of generalized information about the way the place causes him to react.
Why not just have him react? As Mark Twain observed, “Don't say the old lady screamed. Bring her on and let her scream.”
It's his story, not yours. So focus on what matters to him, not history and overview. To the end of this excerpt the only thing he does is enter the place. From then on, you talk about him, in overview.
He's focused on the unknown woman, not how much he likes the place. You're getting ready to make this poor bastard's life hell. So fair-is-fair. Let him live it as we watch.
Your reader isn't looking for facts. Facts are boring. They don't want to know what there is to see. They want to be entertained.
Two quotes apply:
“Don’t inflict the reader with irrelevant background material—get on with the story.” ~ James Schmitz
“To describe something in detail, you have to stop the action. But without the action, the description has no meaning.” ~Jack Bickham
When you're alone on stage, or at the campfire telling a story, you have no visual aids, so you must set the scene, and describe the action. After all, you can't plat both roles in a fight scene, can you? So you make up for the missing visuals and auditory component with the way you tell the story—your performance. And what you provided is a storyteller's script minus the performance notes.
But on the page, just as on stage, you have a cast of actors ready to do your bidding. You can't tell the reader how you deliver the narrator's lines, right? And since the reader won't know what they say till after the sentence is read, they can't even guess. So the voice a reader "hears" as they read the narrator's lines is as exciting as what you'll hear if you have your computer read this aloud (and you should do that, to hear how different what the reader gets is from what you intended).
In short: It's not a matter of talent or potential. It's that you're using tools more suited to verbal storytelling because you're missing a bit of data on how best to introduce a scene, and build it. And that's fixable.
Do a search for Randy Ingermanson's, Writing the Perfect Scene. It's a condensation of a technique that can place the reader into the protagonist's boot-prints, living the scene.
Chew on the article for a bit. And if it makes sense, you might want to pick up the book it was condensed from.
Posted by MerlionEmrys (Member # 11024) on :
Extrinsic: The fact that I got even the ghost of engagement out of you tells me I'm doing something...different than usual, since you tend not to care much for my styles. I take it as a good sign. That you for the technical specs rundown also.
EmmaSohan, thank you for your thoughts. I've tweaked this fragment slightly. The style and voice are part of the point with this one, but I don't want the language off-puttingly complicated either.
quote:I would rather see you shining a light on the things that matter, putting the other things in the background,
That is what I've done, from my perspective. The trouble is, different things matter to different people, so, with most stories, I use myself as first audience. But, there is nothing more frustrating than a story that you are intrigued by, but that prioritizes its elements differently than your ranking off them (happens to me all the time.)
JayGreenstein: I appreciate your post. It seems we probably approach both reading and writing very very differently, but I would be still be quite interested in your thoughts on this story (or fragment thereof) as opposed to a bunch of quotations about other peoples views on writing theory. As a reader, what do you like or dislike? And in the case of the latter, as a writer what would you do differently, specifically?
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
The fragment's narrative point of view is of a viewpoint persona, insider looks outward and inward, of stream-of-consciousness type sensations, emotions, and thoughts experienced from within the narrative's real-world milieu. That is a polar opposite flip from your dominant narrative points of view: remote outsider writer looks in and reports externally observed experiences.
Still an altogether absent narrator, though this narrator type mitigates the extra filter layers of writer summary and explanation voice-over tell, is immediate to the now-moment of the action while it transpires from who, when, and where it transpires, is unparsed narrator reflections of the viewpoint persona's private experiences, is more so shown reality imitation, albeit on the heavy background and back-story side; regressive, retrospective, fills in readers for what is to come, instead of greater appeals of progressive, reflective, immediate, of the self, propelled forward into the breech crisis movement emphasis.
Posted by EmmaSohan (Member # 10917) on :
Hi Merlion. I liked how the inside was colder than outside. I liked how he felt warm. I liked the abandoned chapel, origins lost.
I liked the "sacred guest" (prefer better description?). The pulling on his mind.
I liked the mood of spookiness and creepiness. And self-destruction?
In the following I just mentioned the parts I liked. Like you said, people like different things. And I didn't capture the mood I liked (and you had). So I'm not saying it's good, I'm just trying to explain what I meant.
The inside of the abandoned chapel was colder than the winter outside, but the chapel’s rotting grandeur warmed Wilhelm's soul like nothing had before. He didn't know what religion or faith it had been built for, but its fragments of iconography, soaring height, and baroque elegance appealed deeply to him. Especially in their current state of decay.
Most importantly, the chapel’s lower bowels held a sacred guest, the object of his worship. Her grey pull upon his mind led him through intricately
(And I like the dash replacing the semicolon, I thought it made the sentence easier for me to understand.)
Posted by MerlionEmrys (Member # 11024) on :
Thanks, Emma, that was useful.
I realized I had about 4 or 5 semicolons in that puppy, at least some of em had to go.
Ahh ha...you're quite perceptive. It isn't precisely self destruction you're picking up on, but its very much along those lines.
This story is mostly one of Mood and Idea. The idea part is too complex to really do much with in 13 lines, so I focused on the Mood part (and a touch of Character) to attract attention in the opening. But, of course, it won't work well on people who aren't that interested in Mood, in general, or even indeed on those who just don't care for this particular mood. This, however, does not bother me, because I don't subscribe to the idea of literary silver bullets or objective, universal standards for art. Your posts showed me I have achieved my desired result for at least one person (and if there's one there'll be more) at least for the first 13. Now, if you really want to make my month, you'll read the whole thing (or one of the other ones I've posted) Posted by Jay Greenstein (Member # 10615) on :
quote:but I would be still be quite interested in your thoughts on this story (or fragment thereof) as opposed to a bunch of quotations about other peoples views on writing theory.
Okay. Putting on my manuscript critique service hat, the rejection slip would come out of the drawer with the first line.
Why? The all-time worst novel opening begins: "It was a dark and stormy night." You opened the same way. Never begin with a weather report, a dream, or a description. Begin a story with story.
Had that rejection not happened, it would have been rejected for the info-dump format of the overview. Story happens, it's not talked about by someone we can neither see or hear as a summation and overview.
In short, you're telling not showing.
quote: As a reader, what do you like or dislike? And in the case of the latter, as a writer what would you do differently, specifically?
Both of them are irrelevant. My reading tastes, and how I write, have nothing to do with the professionalism of the presentation.
The field of fiction writing has been under development for centuries. There are tricks of the trade and specialized knowledge that must be mastered just like any other profession. And given that our schooldays training is primarily in how to write essays, reports, and papers, all nonfiction applications, we weren't taught professional writing techniques there.
As an example, there are three issues a reader needs addressed quickly on entering any scene, so as to provide context for what's going on: Where am I? Whose skin do I wear? What's going on?
You address none of those in the opening. And as a result, though I know our protagonist has entered an abandoned chapel, I don't even know what planet this takes place on, let alone the era or country. I have a name, but know more about the chapel that the man and who he is as a person. So I have zero context to know what a "sacred guest" is, what makes her an "object of worship," or what a "gray pull" is. You know. He knows. But shouldn't the ones you wrote this for know, as they read?
You know, because you start reading with that context, plus your intent for the scene. But intent doesn't make it to the page, and the reader has only the context that's inherent to the words provided.
As an example of what I meant by letting him live the story, suppose you'd begun with him approaching the chapel. As part of his decision-making I would notice things about it that give me a sense of place and scale. His wondering if the person he sought was there, or how they would react to his presence—his personal planning for what he hoped might happen—would give me a sense of place. Then, as he entered and glanced around, I would know his reaction as it happens rather than as a summation from someone not on the scene. How can the reader feel as if they're in the scene living the story with the protagonist as their avatar, if someone not in the story talks about what's happening in it?
It's not a matter of good or bad writing, or of talent. It's that you're presenting a transcription of the storyteller explaining the situation as a dispassionate external observer—explaining, not entertaining.
Take a look at that article I suggested. That technique, used with skill, can make a scene so real that if the protagonist is hurt the reader will wince.
I wish there were an easier way to say this. Still, hang in there, and keep on writing. It never gets easier, but after a while we're confused on a higher level...and the crap to gold ratio changes for the better.
Posted by MerlionEmrys (Member # 11024) on :
quote: Why? The all-time worst novel opening begins: "It was a dark and stormy night."
And yet that's exactly how the award-winning "A Wrinkle In Time" begins. And I'm pretty sure there are others.
That aside, I didn't ask for you to try and pretend to be an editor, so you're still a bit missing my point somewhat.
quote: Story happens, it's not talked about by someone we can neither see or hear as a summation and overview.
Story does whatever we tell it to-or, sometimes, we do whatever it tells us to do (my Muses can be a little scary sometimes.)
quote: In short, you're telling not showing.
Goddess above, don't get me started on "show don't tell." Meredith or extrinsic can tell you what happens when I get going on that subject. Short version: it's usually used as shorthand by people to mean a lot of different things rendering it, in my experience, something darn close to meaningless.
quote: Both of them are irrelevant. My reading tastes, and how I write, have nothing to do with the professionalism of the presentation.
In my semi-humble opinion the only place "professionalism" has in writing is when it comes to manuscript formatting and cover letters and whatnot. This is art we're talking about.You and I are both artists, and consumers/partakers of art and as such, the things I have mentioned aren't just relevant, they are pretty much all that is so. All we really have to offer each other are our opinions and experiences. Or, if you don't wish to accept that, I'll say this instead: All that I desire, or that is helpful to me when I put my work up for feedback, are the opinions and experiences of my fellow writer/readers.
quote: As an example, there are three issues a reader needs addressed quickly on entering any scene, so as to provide context for what's going on: Where am I? Whose skin do I wear? What's going on? You address none of those in the opening.
Actually I do. You are outside an abandoned chapel. You are in the skin of Wilhelm, who is named immediately and from whose POV the scene is written, and he is about to go see a female person or being who resides inside.
I think what you mean is, I don't address them in a way or to a degree that you like-which is totally fine and indeed what I am looking for, but you're not saying that. Your're telling me stuff about some mythical universal reader and quoting rules and the opinions of other authors at me, and making absolute, factual statements that aren't accurate (though truthfully I don't much feel that factual statements or accuracy have much place in discussing inherently subjective stuff-like art-anyway, which is why I prefer people just give me their opinions/experiences, stated as such.)
quote: don't even know what planet this takes place on, let alone the era or country. I have a name, but know more about the chapel that the man and who he is as a person. So I have zero context to know what a "sacred guest" is, what makes her an "object of worship," or what a "gray pull" is.
Oh come now, what planet? The second sentence includes a human name and the word "cathedral." While that doesn't necessarily mean its on Earth, it certainly allows you to orient yourself.
Identifying/explaining all the things you mention would require more than 13 lines.
quote: As part of his decision-making I would notice things about it that give me a sense of place and scale. His wondering if the person he sought was there, or how they would react to his presence—his personal planning for what he hoped might happen—would give me a sense of place.
You're not talking about a sense of place, you're talking about his intentions. So, as near as I can tell, you basically dislike this opening because it doesn't contain an explanation of his relationship to and/or feelings toward the thing in the chapel. That's fine, but it would've been easier to just say that.
quote: How can the reader feel as if they're in the scene living the story with the protagonist as their avatar,
That effect is not the desire of every reader (or at least not every reader all the time) nor the intent of every story...that being said...
quote: It's not a matter of good or bad writing, or of talent. It's that you're presenting a transcription of the storyteller explaining the situation as a dispassionate external observer—explaining,
I'm not quite sure what you mean. It's third person close, from Wilhelm's point of view. It isn't omniscient. Even extrinsic basically said (if I understood correctly which I'm never quite sure I have, so he's free to correct me sternly if I am wrong) that that's why he likes this one better than the other two, the whole one-persona, inside looking out thing. This opening consists almost entirely of Wilhelm thoughts/feelings/perceptions.
quote: Still, hang in there, and keep on writing. It never gets easier, but after a while we're confused on a higher level...and the crap to gold ratio changes for the better.
Now, I need to explain myself a bit here. I know responses like this that I'm writing to crits are frowned on by many and admittedly, my making of these points is probably largely pointless, and when I came back, I intended to try and avoid them. However, 1) they are a vice of mine and 2) the above quoted and the last bit of your first post, come across as somewhat condescending. It might be totally unintentional, but it made me feel a little talked-down to. I've been writing for about 15 years and have semi-professional short story sales under my belt. I didn't just start this.
That is why I ask for your personal thoughts and opinions, rather than having rules and quotes thrown at me. I am familiar with them. As I said in my first reply to you, we appear to approach writing and reading very differently. You appear to be (correct me if I am wrong) a believer in the "universal reader" and "this is what a story is" sort of approaches, wherein there is a single definition of what constitutes a story and a single set of things that are what all readers want/need at all times. This, in my experience, is incorrect, and because of it you give a mild version of what I like to call "reconstructive" criticism. Well intentioned, well delivered and well thought out, but basically consisting of ways in which the writer should largely or completely change the nature and/or style of the story. What is useful to me is advice on how to make my stories (which are of various different types, genres and styles) into the most effective versions of themselves that they can be, not that I should fundamentally do it all differently.
Essentially, from what I can tell, while I appreciate-truly, I'm not being facetious-the effort you put into your posts, as near as I can tell you probably could have saved yourself most of that effort and just said "this opening is too distant for my taste."
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
Part of what extrinsic feels engaged by is the somewhat reflective-reflexive contexture of, yes, interior discourse, plus, that the discourse is stream-of-consciousness' unconventional grammar, as of a solitaire individual's idiomatic thought processes. Otherwise, I'd have gone can of whoop on the grammar: "It was cold outside." and the several other syntax epithet "it" uses, for examples.
Weather reports' prose strength is subtext and foreshadows of extant or soon to transpire related events. Does this "It was" [weather] do so? For close readers, perhaps. Stronger and clearer, immediate relevance might be wanted for all readers' sakes and effect. "It" would be especially pertinent if it also alluded to -- internal and external social commentary irony, satire, sarcasm subtext -- Edward Bulwer-Lytton's 1830 novel Paul Clifford's opening line, which is much parodied and disparaged, ranked number one among the worst opening lines of all time, a dubious infamy distinction:
"It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents — except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness." (Novel available at Project Gutenberg)
Oh my. That's it; no immediate nor subsequent weather relevance timely developed thereafter.
Madeleine L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time's first line is the standalone, "It was a dark and stormy night." A personal sentiment thought, signaled by the one sentence paragraph, obvious allusion and all which it entails for the savvy. L'Engle soon connects the weather to Meg's personal, internal sentiment and external attendant writer, first-person narrator subtext commentary about Paul Clifford, and leaps the reflective scene forward, four brief paragraphs later: "It's the weather on top of everything else. On top of me. On top of Meg Murry _doing everything wrong_." (Kindle edition, Amazon sample.)
Underscores added: even wrong thought and cited paraphrase about the weather. Sublime self-reflective and external satire subtext. And more weather relevance anon and anon: unity, Chekhov's gun, allegory, and symbolism's one-two-three-go sequential motifs' repetition, substitution, amplification, and transformation.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)