Story Discussion: May 11, 2007. "Patteran, ch. 01" by fcdc

[Penelope Street]

There is no dramatic tension: the two main characters accept each other for what they are, accept their place in the scenario without rancour and, presumably, will accept their fate in similar equanimity.

This pretty much echoes my sentiments regarding the tension issue.

Thanks to Penelope for inviting me. I only wrote that to stave off the inevitable, "what the hell are you doing here?" after I introduce myself.

Actually, I don't believe anybody would have thought that. No one needs an invitation to join a discussion.

For example, when I started the story, I thought we were in France...

Is there anyone who wasn't confused just a little by the opening, whether it was about the Marys, the animals, the scientists, the locations, or something else? Is the opening meant to be a little confusing to reflect Sara's state of mind?

Again, thank you for inviting me. I'm going back to humor land now. I'm working on a fairy tale, "Who Snite and the Seven Whores." Probably sorry you asked now, huh, Penny?

You're welcome. And, no.

I just want to say thanks, jomar, starrkers, and MarshAlien for crossing over into the SDC, and thanks fcdc and Penny for luring them.

Having a few more voices join the chorus of usual suspects certainly makes for a more vibrant discussion.

So true! But luring? Coming so soon after the Snow White reference, did anyone else think of apples?

In the "one who shall not be named" thread...

LOL. Cute. Real cute.

It may be niche work, but is very well written. ... it "shows, not tells" as is often quoted around here.

This was what I had hoped Jomar would touch on again here, because I kinda had the opposite feeling- that there was too much telling. Here's a sample sentence that two others referenced, Varian who liked it and Marsh maybe not so much:

She knelt above him, her body contorted, her posture weird. She saw the change in his face as he realized the unnatural position she had taken.

Like Varian, I enjoyed this imaginative moment- but at the same time I thought it could have been so much more. We didn't get to see her position or his expression and I would like to have seen both- then I could made up my own mind about what he was thinking and whether or not her position was weird, unnatural, or something else entirely. It's kinda creepy the way it is, but I think it could have been downright chilling.

She stripped of his clothes with the impossibly harp knife...

Why not use her fingernail, it would be creepier?

Oh! Great idea, especially after the squirrel scene.

This was Sara's story, so Joe was less interesting...

Really? I agree Sara is the more interesting character, but I still think it's Joe's story. Am I the only one?

I like the mythology aspect, and in science fiction, I don't care if the author is making things up as they go along, as long as they're internally consistent.

I agree.

I don't feel an emotional connection to either character, or feel an investment in what happens to them yet, but so far the story has kept me engaged on an intellectual level.

Are we back to the character versus plot driven fiction thing?

She wanted a battleground, littered with corpses, where the sight of fucking would be as natural as death to anyone that stopped by.

This is one sentence I did not understand- which may be while I liked it. To me, it said Sara's view of the world was way different than mine- though I still don't know what her view is.


I agree with everyone else who has said fcdc's command of the English language is impressive. What a unique tale too- a great one for discussion. Thanks bunches for sharing it.

 

[starrkers]

*Puts up hand* The beginning confused me too, but I'm easily confused so didn't mention it.
I thought she was in Europe somewhere and wondered how she ended up in the US.
The passing mention of the scientists also threw me. I assumed they would have some pivotal importance, but was wrong.
And the Marys dead for decades reference I took at face value.

I'm used to missing cultural references in things, particularly US references - so rarely are they explained - that I figured it was just me.

 

[jomar]

Originally Posted by Jomar (in Voldemort's thread)
It may be niche work, but is very well written. ... it "shows, not tells" as is often quoted around here.

Originally Posted byPenelope
This was what I had hoped Jomar would touch on again here, because I kinda had the opposite feeling- that there was too much telling.

On both this and the point below I could easily argue both sides. But what I was thinking here was that the author let the story unfold by using small moments to tell us about the characters (the river promising safe passage, Sara not needing shoes, wanting stars, but needing other eyes, her twiginess, the past intertwined with the present, Joe's race and non-acceptance and pull toward Sara). The unfolding was not really done with external or internal dialog, but with glimpses and new info about the characters. I agree with you that things could have been so much more, but sort of got the impression that fcdc wrote it, gave it a quick edit or two and let it fly. I know what you mean though - "He would be afraid if he saw her true form..." That's telling. A higher grade if she said something about Joe stiffening at an alien shape he thought he saw in he peripheral vision, or Sara shimmered to her true form when she came and he was horrified. Overall, I thought the way she presented the characters gave them increasing dimension.

Originally Posted by Jomar
This was Sara's story, so Joe was less interesting...

Originally Posted by Penelope
Really? I agree Sara is the more interesting character, but I still think it's Joe's story. Am I the only one?

Here, I was thinking that it's sort of a hand off. That this is Sara's chapter. She's the predator, trying to get what she wants but meets a headstrong man whom she's been keeping track of for whatever, and grooming him for her service. At the end it clearly leaves the next chapter to be about him and his journey.

 

[jomar]

*Puts up hand* The beginning confused me too, but I'm easily confused so didn't mention it.
I thought she was in Europe somewhere and wondered how she ended up in the US.
The passing mention of the scientists also threw me. I assumed they would have some pivotal importance, but was wrong.
And the Marys dead for decades reference I took at face value.

I'm used to missing cultural references in things, particularly US references - so rarely are they explained - that I figured it was just me.

The beginning didn't throw me. But I should point out that I read a number of SF that start off quirky and I assume I'll understand in time. Having said that, were the scientists from Dharma?

 

[Verdad]

Hi to all the new critics from me as well—lovely to see so many of you!

I've pretty much laid out my impressions, but now that I'm here and some specific questions have arisen, I might as well add my take.

Showing vs. telling: In my opinion, the piece suffered from too much exposition.

The beginning: I didn't think it confusing, because sci-fi readers are accustomed to being thrown in situations they have to decipher along the way. I did find it unclear in one particularity, though, and now I see others have had problems with it too. I too thought we were still in France and felt some disorientation as to how we've gotten to the US.

Also, as Starrkers said, I expected scientists to be pivotal to the plot, and a lot of my later disappointment had to do with the realization that the story wasn't going to fulfill the promise. The scientists involved in all that carnage made this world more alien to me than it apparently should be, and I half-expected that to be the real horror in the story, disturbing all the more for being seen through the eyes of an unlikely observer, a mad spirit surviving into another era. With such expectations in place, I was bound to find the segue anticlimactic.

The mythology: I wasn't familiar with the belief in Sara-la-Kali, but I found her connection to Kali to be established without doubt. A necklace made of sculls is a very recognizable attribute, the long tongue didn't hurt either, and the sentence others have pointed out, about death and fucking on a battlefield, nailed it too. Powerful and visceral in its own right—one of the rare places that overflowed with emotion—it was also just what one would expect from Kali. I do wish she'd stayed more formidable like that throughout, particularly on the inside.

Sara vs. Joe: I know what Penny means when she says the story should have been Joe's. I missed a closer connection with him, too. On the other hand, I could also see how it could have been told through Sara's eyes only, this chapter at least, and still be his story. What seemed to dissipate the tension was going back and forth between them, with nothing being hidden, and to borrow from Starrkers again, both of their being perfectly reconciled with the situation.

 

[ninefe2dg]

I was hooked by the story....

.....I'm genuinely impressed by folks' ability to dissect stories and provide such insight. I can't do that nor would I even pretend to. I'm not well-read like most on these boards. I have no frame of reference as to whether this is "good horror" or "bad horror". If I'm Focus Group Guy, asked to give my impressions, what I'd say is that given the First Chapter, I'd want to read more. I found both characters interesting enough to warrant wanting to know more about each of them. I didn't find myself wading through it at all, and not at all bogged down by references I'm not familiar with.

Let's see, emotional responses? Intruiged? Definitely. Horrified? Not really. Turned on? Maybe had I been more in the mood.

I was curious about some of the numerical precision. Six times together, this was the seventh (was there significance to that I may have missed? could it just as easily been their fourth time?......spared his life for 366 days (yes I know that ties back to the year and a day mentioned previously).

Don't know what your ultimate audience is, either for this or your other pieces. From what I gather on the previous posts, those who have commented probably don't represent the masses in terms of their literary expertise (that's a compliment everyone!), and don't have to have things spelled out.

As more of a masses person, if that's the audience, I don't really mind if an author is explaining something to me he or she thinks I or most readers wouldn't understand. Everything I know about submarines (which is still very little) I learned from Tom Clancy. He is very skilled at being didactic in the midst of his novels. He knows he's doing it, we know he's doing it, and he probably knows that we know he's doing it, but it doesn't come across as condescending at all.

So.....if mass markets is what you're after, figuring out clever ways to explain things that might need explaining (in the case of your story, more background on the origins of the characters), is a good skill to have.

I offer that last piece of advice to all of you, assuming you write as well as critique.

 

[Penelope Street]

.....I'm genuinely impressed by folks' ability to dissect stories and provide such insight. I can't do that nor would I even pretend to. I'm not well-read like most on these boards. ...

Being well-read is not a requirement. About the only thing that is required is being well-intentioned.

I think you wrote a fine critique. Thank you for joining us.

So.....if mass markets is what you're after, figuring out clever ways to explain things that might need explaining (in the case of your story, more background on the origins of the characters), is a good skill to have.

Is this not a good skill to have regardless of one's intended market?

Everything I know about submarines (which is still very little) I learned from Tom Clancy. He is very skilled at being didactic in the midst of his novels. He knows he's doing it, we know he's doing it, and he probably knows that we know he's doing it, but it doesn't come across as condescending at all.

We've touched on showing and telling before, but I'm not sure we've ever discussed telling on its own. Maybe we should, because every author has to resort to exposition at some point.

 

[ninefe2dg]

Thanks for your comments!

Is this not a good skill to have regardless of one's intended market?

Yes, I suppose so.

We've touched on showing and telling before, but I'm not sure we've ever discussed telling on its own. Maybe we should, because every author has to resort to exposition at some point.

Some of the feedback I've received was "show" don't "tell". Could you briefly clarify for me how you see the difference between the two? I don't want to take the thread off-topic, but your thoughts on that would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

 

[Penelope Street]

Some of the feedback I've received was "show" don't "tell". Could you briefly clarify for me how you see the difference between the two? I don't want to take the thread off-topic, but your thoughts on that would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

The story discussion seems to have subsided anyway, so I don't think there's any harm in taking the thread a little off-topic. The easiest way I know to identify whether a piece of a story is showing or telling is to imagine the scene made into a movie. The parts that translate easily to the screen are examples of showing, the parts that don't are telling.

A simple example:
Telling: John looked angry.
Showing: John's eyes narrowed and his lips pressed white against one another.

 

[ninefe2dg]

A simple example:
Telling: John looked angry.
Showing: John's eyes narrowed and his lips pressed white against one another.

[/QUOTE]

Telling: ninefe2dg seemed to understand Penelope's explanation
Showing: ninefe2dg's right eyebrow raised in Mr. Spock-like fashion. His accompanying nod finally suggested recognition of the concept Penelope was trying to make clear to him.

Have I got it?

Thanks!

 

[Penelope Street]

ninefe2dg's right eyebrow raised in Mr. Spock-like fashion. His accompanying nod finally suggested recognition of the concept Penelope was trying to make clear to him.

I think this is a good mixed example. The raised eyebrow and nod are clearly showing. So is the Spock-like fashion bit, but I didn't know Mr. Spock raised his eyebrow when he understood something, so seeing it might not have helped me. The part explaining about the suggested recognition is pure telling. Showing something and then telling about it is natural thing for a writer to do, but in most cases I think it's better to avoid the explanation.

 

[ninefe2dg]

I didn't know Mr. Spock raised his eyebrow when he understood something, so seeing it might not have helped me.

Leonard Nimoy was (still is, I s'pose) one of those people who can raise one eyebrow and not the other. Whenever I tried it my forehead would cramp. He'd do it both to acknowledge a point as well as to punctuate his own QED. Of course this brings up the subject of "referencing".....I know, for instance, not everyone is going to "get" the comparison, but those who do, very much relate to it. Is that just a style issue maybe. Dennis Miller seems to take pride in having most people not understand many of his archane references. Spock isn't necessarily archane, but his eyebrow thing would be......ANYWAY.....

The part explaining about the suggested recognition is pure telling. Showing something and then telling about it is natural thing for a writer to do, but in most cases I think it's better to avoid the explanation.

I thought perhaps "suggested recognition" was slipping into telling. How might the accompaying nod sentence be tranformed into 100% showing? His accompanying nod.......what?

Thanks!

 

[Penelope Street]

I thought perhaps "suggested recognition" was slipping into telling. How might the accompaying nod sentence be tranformed into 100% showing? His accompanying nod.......what?

If he doesn't do or say anything else, then he simply raises his eyebrow and nods. There's nothing else I can think of to add that would be showing.

 

[ninefe2dg]

If he doesn't do or say anything else, then he simply raises his eyebrow and nods. There's nothing else I can think of to add that would be showing.

Makes sense, so by starting another sentence I'm boxing myself into "telling mode".

So when is "telling" OK? You had mentioned there are situations where some exposition is necessary. Other than that should "telling" always be avoided?

I see you edited your post for a tense issue. I'm assuming you made a boo-boo in your tense and quickly fixed it, and were not commenting on the nature of this discussion , which I happen to find very useful.

I also looked back on some of the alternatives you and others pointed out, re showing. Those were useful to me as well.

 

[Penelope Street]

Makes sense, so by starting another sentence I'm boxing myself into "telling mode".

It really depends on what the next sentence is. Another question I like to ask is "Can a character experience what is related with any of the five senses?" If the answer is yes, then I'd say it's showing. If you think about showing and telling in terms of the five senses, 'showing' isn't the best term since something heard, felt, tasted, or smelled still qualifies as showing, at least in my opinion.

For example, which of these is showing?

She spoke with a British accent.
She was tall.
She was beautiful.
She had green eyes.
She smelled wonderful.
She said, "This is silly."

The answer isn't always cut & dried, is it? But when the answer is obvious, then you've probably found a sentence that should be edited or omitted.

So when is "telling" OK?

I would be so easy if there was a simple answer to this question, but there isn't. I think exposition is ideal to cover the lapses between scenes, but is better avoided within a scene.

I see you edited your post for a tense issue.

I think I had 'raised' instead of 'raises'. Something like that, anyway.