Character building through details

[Colleen Thomas]

If that's so, (Which I didn't know from your first post) then these passages ought to be just fine!

Totally my fault there. I didn't mean to imply this was the only character work I did, but it certainly reads that way. *HUGS*

 

[PBI298]

Jumping in a bit late, but...

Colly, I've been following your work since not very long after I discovered this site a few years ago, and I have to say that it is exactly the level of detail, whether it be plot or characterization, or both, that has drawn me, and keeps drawing me, to your stories. Having an actual plot, where tension builds up, and one cares for the characters, makes the payoff that much more fulfilling. There's plenty of plot-what-plot stuff around, please keep on with the quality stuff for those of us that want our brains stimulated as well as, um, other bits

As to the way Jade was written, I thought the characterization was bang-on. The way she thought about her equipment, especially the fact that she was purposefully using older, but tried and tested, kit over the new supposedly-superior stuff rang true in this ex-groundounder's heart. It gave her an authenticity and an authority that made her insights into how to handle the problems later on in the story seem entirely logical and natural.

If I had my druthers, I'd vote for more characterization AND detailed plot background in stories to come. Kinda heretical in some quarters, here, I know, but, there it is

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Jumping in a bit late, but...

Colly, I've been following your work since not very long after I discovered this site a few years ago, and I have to say that it is exactly the level of detail, whether it be plot or characterization, or both, that has drawn me, and keeps drawing me, to your stories. Having an actual plot, where tension builds up, and one cares for the characters, makes the payoff that much more fulfilling. There's plenty of plot-what-plot stuff around, please keep on with the quality stuff for those of us that want our brains stimulated as well as, um, other bits

As to the way Jade was written, I thought the characterization was bang-on. The way she thought about her equipment, especially the fact that she was purposefully using older, but tried and tested, kit over the new supposedly-superior stuff rang true in this ex-groundounder's heart. It gave her an authenticity and an authority that made her insights into how to handle the problems later on in the story seem entirely logical and natural.

If I had my druthers, I'd vote for more characterization AND detailed plot background in stories to come. Kinda heretical in some quarters, here, I know, but, there it is

thank you for the compliments and welcome to the Ah

It really is a boost to me when veterans of any service tell me my military fiction characters have resonance with them. It means a great deal to me and I so appreciate you ading your input.

 

[hugo_sam]

thank you for the compliments and welcome to the Ah

It really is a boost to me when veterans of any service tell me my military fiction characters have resonance with them. It means a great deal to me and I so appreciate you ading your input.

Colly,
If I can add my 2 cents......You know me always lurking...
Your character portrayed a solid leader to me. I do agree somewhat with the comment about a solid NCO rather than an officer, but who knows the makeup of a force in space in the future. Maybe competance actually come into the officer corp, lord knows they could use it. Likewise I did not see any apologies or special cirmcumstance about the leader being female. A strong and caring leader has nothing to do with gender. I thought it was well done, flowed well and dealt with the military aspects correctly.

Hugo

former SSG U.S. Army

 

[Stella_Omega]

Totally my fault there. I didn't mean to imply this was the only character work I did, but it certainly reads that way. *HUGS*

*HUGS* back at you!
No, I would not object to any of these paragraphs, interspersed within a story. I would be learning something, while being intertained.

It really is a boost to me when veterans of any service tell me my military fiction characters have resonance with them. It means a great deal to me and I so appreciate you ading your input.

And I think- that should be your bellwether, right there!

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'm just enjoying watching the hugs.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm just enjoying watching the hugs.

Maybe one of us should write a western- so the heroe can kiss his horse at the end.

or, a novel set in the court of the Empress Catherine- the horse gets a bigger part in that one....

 

[BlackShanglan]

Maybe one of us should write a western- so the heroe can kiss his horse at the end.

Been there, done that. Although I found 15th century England more interesting than the American west.

Shanglan

 

[Stella_Omega]

Been there, done that. Although I found 15th century England more interesting than the American west.

Shanglan

dammit, well, you won't see much of me tonight whilst I finish reading this! have I mentioned that I love your ways with period prose, Shanglan?

 

[yui]

dammit, well, you won't see much of me tonight whilst I finish reading this! have I mentioned that I love your ways with period prose, Shanglan?

Shang is perfect at period prose. And go read!

 

[elsol]

*burp*

I always thought the 'writing rules' were used to force someone out of the path of least resistance... once, they tried other ways they could decided to go back to being lazy.

i.e. the path of least resistance for a lot of information is a list.

The funny part is of course that the path of least resistance is to 'skim' the list.

Drives my girl question... she makes a list and I ignore it.

And the Christianists think God doesn't have a sense of humor.

Sincerely,
ESol

 

[cantdog]

dammit, well, you won't see much of me tonight whilst I finish reading this! have I mentioned that I love your ways with period prose, Shanglan?

This is a threadjack of the worst kind, but do read Will.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm back... blinking my eyes furiously, seeing that precipice in my mind.
And feeling this need to twitch my ears, shake my mane out, and stomp a hoof.

 

[cantdog]

The rape-proofing thing was extraordinarily off-putting, somehow. I liked it, but I have to think of the entire distinction between 'armors' as artificial, don't I? Neither the older kind nor the newer exist.

As a fireman, I have donned what amounts to combat gear. We have to do that to meet summer conditions, on the edge of heat stroke, and winter conditions most parts of the country would find starkly incredible. The gear is the same, so the question becomes how much of it do you use and what do you sleep in? What do you already have on, in other words, and why?

For me, as a fireman, if a piece of gear required hours to don, It would go in the closet and never come out.

You'd have to put it on when you came to the country, and you'd resent every minute you had to spend bathing or whatever, when you could not have it on.

I can't imagine such an item. You would simply live in it, except when sheer necessity for bodily maintenance made it unavoidable.

Hours to put it on . Wo. Almost any alternative would be preferable. But I got the message the rape-proofing clinched it.

Because of the rape-proofing, she would continue to use an armor which had this immense, near-insuperable drawback of needing hours to don.

Hours. Work this out with me. How early, how much earlier than ANYBODY ELSE does this woman have to get up? Three hours? Four? Only two? Isn't that a significant losss of sleep? How often does an emergency occur? Could she put it on in a minute or two in case of ememrgency? I do not receive the impression that she could, actually. If the threat is immediate and without warning, then:

Does she sit in her room and wait while "new-armor' sorts of people deal with it?

Does she join the fray with no armor at all, because she has a leadership position?

If she does neither of these, then how does she don armor that requires hours in just a few seconds?

The whole construct seems unreal to me. But, as a fireman, I want right-now kinda armor. If it ain't "right-now," then I would have to wear it the whole time I was in harm's way. Every second, asleep or awake. Does she do that?

I don't believe your character could make such a choice. The fact that a whole paragraph is devoted to how rape-proof she is in the stuff makes it almost plausible, but still I see that she alone of all the people she works with would have to live 24/7 in the stuff except when she absolutely had to take a shower or risk her health.

 

[elsol]

The whole construct seems unreal to me. But, as a fireman, I want right-now kinda armor. If it ain't "right-now," then I would have to wear it the whole time I was in harm's way. Every second, asleep or awake. Does she do that?

I don't believe your character could make such a choice. The fact that a whole paragraph is devoted to how rape-proof she is in the stuff makes it almost plausible, but still I see that she alone of all the people she works with would have to live 24/7 in the stuff except when she absolutely had to take a shower or risk her health.

In Basic Training, some of us could sleep while marching.

Yes, she (I) would wear it the entire time she (I) was in the zone.

You'd be surprised how much isn't uncomfortable when Death is con list of pros&cons.


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[hugo_sam]

In Basic Training, some of us could sleep while marching.

Yes, she (I) would wear it the entire time she (I) was in the zone.

You'd be surprised how much isn't uncomfortable when Death is con list of pros&cons.


Sincerely,
ElSol

I agree Elsol.......
Try days on end in a flak vest or NBC suit or a steel pot(before kelvar) or combat boots................

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The rape-proofing thing was extraordinarily off-putting, somehow. I liked it, but I have to think of the entire distinction between 'armors' as artificial, don't I? Neither the older kind nor the newer exist.

As a fireman, I have donned what amounts to combat gear. We have to do that to meet summer conditions, on the edge of heat stroke, and winter conditions most parts of the country would find starkly incredible. The gear is the same, so the question becomes how much of it do you use and what do you sleep in? What do you already have on, in other words, and why?

For me, as a fireman, if a piece of gear required hours to don, It would go in the closet and never come out.

You'd have to put it on when you came to the country, and you'd resent every minute you had to spend bathing or whatever, when you could not have it on.

I can't imagine such an item. You would simply live in it, except when sheer necessity for bodily maintenance made it unavoidable.

Hours to put it on . Wo. Almost any alternative would be preferable. But I got the message the rape-proofing clinched it.

Because of the rape-proofing, she would continue to use an armor which had this immense, near-insuperable drawback of needing hours to don.

Hours. Work this out with me. How early, how much earlier than ANYBODY ELSE does this woman have to get up? Three hours? Four? Only two? Isn't that a significant losss of sleep? How often does an emergency occur? Could she put it on in a minute or two in case of ememrgency? I do not receive the impression that she could, actually. If the threat is immediate and without warning, then:

Does she sit in her room and wait while "new-armor' sorts of people deal with it?

Does she join the fray with no armor at all, because she has a leadership position?

If she does neither of these, then how does she don armor that requires hours in just a few seconds?

The whole construct seems unreal to me. But, as a fireman, I want right-now kinda armor. If it ain't "right-now," then I would have to wear it the whole time I was in harm's way. Every second, asleep or awake. Does she do that?

I don't believe your character could make such a choice. The fact that a whole paragraph is devoted to how rape-proof she is in the stuff makes it almost plausible, but still I see that she alone of all the people she works with would have to live 24/7 in the stuff except when she absolutely had to take a shower or risk her health.

Combat armor, traditionally through the centuries, has taken quite a bit of time to don. From the Samurai, to Western knights, Roman soldiers, to Greek hoplites. At times it has been so cumbersom it took two or three others to help a man get into his combat gear. This is especially true of gear designed to provide full body protection, even more so when the weight and placement of gear could hamper freedom of movement.

Before the ren faire, if I'm going in my knight costume, I can legitimately expect an hour plus getting ready. That outfit is all leather, consists of only a few pieces, but since I usually plan on spending all day, I check each piece to make sure it isn't going to chaff, or constrict or just get plain uncomfortable. For that outfit, I'm only donning boots, grieves, skirt, bracers, gorget, jerkin, hat and whatever rig necessary for the arms I choose.

In World war I, soldiers might wear their gas masks for hours or until the filters were choking them. In world war II, B-17 pilots spent a couple of hours getting into and testing their Parachutes, electric flight suits, oxygen masks, and other warmth giving equiptment, with further time struggling into flack jackets after they crossed the channel coast. And they stayed in this equiptment on flights all the way to Germany or even farther. Periods of many hours. On okinowa and iwo Jima, Marines might stay in their boots, helmets and web gear for MONTHS at a time or from the opening salvo until the Island was declared secure or they were relieved.

If you read the passages, with anything short of an eye to dismiss it, you would also notice her armor also serves as enviornment suit. How long did the Apollo, gemini and mercury astronauts spend in pre flight? How much longer would they have spent if that pressure suit was also their main line of defense against a hostile foe?

AS to emergency situations, she is on a fucking cruiser. If she's on a drop, she's in her armor. I will admit, in a case of ship to ship combat, there is a slight chance her ship could be boarded, but I also make the assumption that they will know before hand if a fleet engagement is likely and their FMF will have time to prepare. In the advent of a surprise attack, I further assume some portion of the FMF is on duty and in their armor.

So is your position this is just fiction and they should be able to step into their gear like a pair of panties? Or are you completely ignorant of the history of armor and protective gear utilized by line soldiers? Or did you just feel the need to bitch and moan about anything that glorifies the military? I'm really curious, because you're banging the hell out of me over something you either know dick about OR I'm completely misinformed.

 

[oggbashan]

Time to prepare for combat

In the Battle of Britain, fighter pilots had to be in the air within 5 minutes of the call to scramble. That could include cycling across the airfield to their planes. Their parachutes were left in the cockpit. Everything else, e.g. helmet, survival kit, they wore all the time and fastened it when in the cockpit.

Bomber pilots were different. They knew when they would have to take off and could take time to prepare.

I know of two examples where time to prepare was out of sync with the need -

1. On Gibraltar at the end of the 19th century a large coastal gun was installed. It took three hours to prepare it to fire the first shot and then 3 shots an hour was fast shooting. An enemy vessel could traverse the Straits of Gibraltar and be out of range within the three hours.

2. At Dover, Kent, England there still is the 19th century 'Dover Turret'. Loading, aiming and traversing actions of the large muzzle-loading gun were powered by steam. From cold it took two hours to raise sufficient steam to operate the gun. If war had been declared then I assume that steam would be raised and kept at pressure. The gun was only ever fired once on half charge. It broke hundreds of windows in the town and provoked a cliff fall. Intelligent design at work!

Both show that arms designers don't always understand the realities of war.

Og

 

[PBI298]

I don't find anything wrong with the time it took (takes?) Jade to get in and out of her armour. Her armour isn't just armour, but, as Colly has said, an EVA suit; the fact that it is also powered battle armour probably means it takes even more time to get in and out of. Fully suiting up today to go fight takes a lot longer than it did 15 years ago, but very few troops I know mind the body armour and the webbing and the EW stuff and the uniform layers when any or all of that stuff could mean the difference between life and death. The best real life analogy I can come up with is suiting up to fight in winter; back before Gortex, when the Canadian army went out to fight in -20C and below, we'd be in about ten pounds or so of clothing before we started adding weapons and ammo and such. It would take about 15-20 mins just to dress properly (an eternity at -20C), so, yeah, we lived in most of our kit except when we were in our arctic tents. And, yeah, if we got attacked while we were in the tents, sucked to be us. Just like it would have for Jade and her crew. Implausible, though? Not really. Sucky for the PBI? You bet.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Also, it wasn't just rape-proofing she was worried about- there were issues o fmutilation and cannibalism too...

 

[oggbashan]

I used to have a US army issue jungle hammock.

It had a built in mosquito net, was waterproof and complicated.

In case of emergency you pulled the zip up instead of down and the whole thing fell apart dumping you on the ground instantly and presumably ready to repel the enemy.

That was the theory. I did it once when threatened by a bush fire. I ended up in a tangled heap and it took three hours to reassemble the hammock. The bush fire burned out before I had finished.

If I had been under attack I'd have been dead before I untangled myself. My hiking companion couldn't stop laughing.

Og

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'm back... blinking my eyes furiously, seeing that precipice in my mind.
And feeling this need to twitch my ears, shake my mane out, and stomp a hoof.

Thanks Stella. I'm glad that you enjoyed it. It's definitely my favorite.

Shanglan

 

[gauchecritic]

Yes, I know we've gone past this...

This leads me naturally to the question of who did invent this rule, or rather where it was that you came by it. It also leads me to your own comments on questioning rules, which on the whole I think even more valid here. If this is a rule that - and I don't really see that you've claimed otherwise - hardly ever applies in any meaningful way, why repeat it simply because "it's a rule"? On what divine authority does this thing rest?

As far as I know, it's simply a rule of thumb. Handed down from father to son, grandmother to granddughter since time immemorial

none of them has any direct bearing on the written word. That humans often do things in threes is not sufficient reason for all things in all contexts to be regulated by trinities, and that's the extension you are assuming if you suggest that the popularity of three in other contexts means that it ought to rule lists in writing. One might also observe that, as Umberto Ecco has pointed out, every number from one to ten has a structural or mystical value to many cultures, and has equally good reasons for it. Five, for example, is the number of classical senses and the number of digits on hands and feet. Two is the number of sexes and evokes the essential binary antithesis of so much of life - hot/cold, day/night, youth/age, etc. Nine for three times three, very popular in Irish literature (as are three, seven, and twelve), and so on and so forth. That a number is commonly seen is not a reason to arbitrarily dictate sentence structure around it.

First of all I actually started with lists are a no-no and was then forced into outlining the three rule. I was modifying the general no list rule, which is, as I said, easy to fall into and one of the ways to avoid it is to go for the three modification. Then each example you gave was a proofing of that rule. As a rule, six year olds can't perform algebraic substitution to solve linear equations, but some can.

The three rule isn't arbitrary, neither is it mystical, it is a widely accepted form establishing pattern, memory fixing and repetition limit. And it is for these reasons (as per examples) why it is equally applicable to writing.

Big tits, thin waist, broad hips, sparkling eyes, long legs, red hair. [or] Big tits, thin waist and legs til tomorrow.

<> "The Wasteland" - in free verse,with no meter or rhyme to prevent the Holy Trinity from operating. But here, too, I think that your logic is eating its own tail. If poetry is more concerned with rhythm and cadence rather than less, and if your argument is - as it appears to be - that the "three rule" is about rhythm and pattern, than surely it ought to hold more true for poetry rather than less.

I didn't say it held less for poetry, I said poetry has its own rules. You can't judge the orangeness of an apple.

This claim also suggests that prose is not and should not be attentive to rhythm and cadence, something that I think many writers of prose would dispute.

It wasn't my claim. My own writing is what some call 'flowery', 'verbose', full of ten dollar words' and is a fair description. My poem 'Hometime' was originally a challenge of descriptive prose, it was suggested I make it into a poem. (I'm so unversed in poetry that I didn't realise I could have left it completely alone and could still call it a poem.)

If we are here discussing the Edda and similar Icelandic sagas, these were composed before the French variations of cadence and stress pattern that we now call "meter" moved north. They were composed on the Anglo-Saxon model of balanced, caesura-split alliterative lines. There, I will agree, groups of three may face more problems, both because the typically four-stress lines could conceivably present difficulties in rhythm - although I'm not convinced it's a serious difficulty - and because Christianty and its intense focus on the trinity had not yet come to dominate the culture. However, it's not clear to me that Shakespeare owes any direct debt to them metrically, as there is no sign that any text of them was available to him or that he was capable of reading Old English. If we're talking more generally about the saga as the heroic cycle, I don't see that that applies in any meaningful way to the questions of cadence and rhythm, as it's a description of events and narrative patterns.

I'm not discussing anything so specific, just a tradition of story telling, word of mouth, entertainments.

In any case, Shakespeare's plays in blank verse present the same problem as poetry does. If they are structured around a rhythm and a cadence, and if your claims about this list rule are about pattern and rhythm, they clearly ought to hold to it more strongly, not less. For that matter, we ought to be taking Mr. Shakespeare to task for his use of iambic pentameter. According to the logic presented for justifying lists of three, surely then his lines should also be groups of three - three iambs per line, or iambic trimeter.

Now you're following your own gainsaid logic, not mine.

Must I go on? I certainly can. We cannot call a thing a rule when it applies so rarely, and this alleged rule finds the ground cut out from under it at every possible opportunity. That the rule of three can at times be a useful pattern, I do not deny, but there is a great deal of difference between an occasionally useful rhetorical or structural element and a rule - just as there is, one might add, considerable difference between speech-making and the composition of literary works, and between one type of speech-making and another. One hardly expects to see the same rules in effect at a funeral oration as one does over a conference table.

The rule applies where it does because it is a rule of thumb. A rough guide. A helpmeet.

Mind you, you've narrowed the range yourself to a point at which the rule becomes not only thinly applicable, but non-existent.

I refer the right honourable member to the answer I gave some posts ago: If you must have a list, make it a list of three.

Possibly - although it seems very odd to me to insist upon a rule that appears to have no actual application simply "because it is a rule" - especially as I have yet to see whose rule this is, or on whose authority I am meant to reject all lists of greater than three (unrelated) (single word) (not in poetry despite poetry's focus on pattern and cadence) (not in verse drama) (yes in non-verse drama, except no one follows this rule) (not when the words are used to define each other) (not when connected by any sort of theme or purpose) words.

Obtuse is it now? The rule of three is a general priciple which refines the accepted wisdom of 'no lists'. You have heard it uttered previously to this thread by others than myself. I don't say 'follow the rules' I say if the rule is applicable (which I thought it was in reference to the start point) then be guided by it.

Why is the horse dedicating an absurd quantity of time to this issue?

It is because the horse is quite passionate on the topic of structure and form, and because the horse is quite passionate on the topic of good writing. It is because the horse believes that truly good writing comes from knowing, yes, the rules - and more importantly, from knowing the specific effects of fine differences in language, structure, and meaning, differences faint and fugitive enough to derive no benefit whatesoever from the imposition of simplistic, formulaic, and ham-fisted "rules" that not only attempt to outlaw useful expressions, but that - most importantly - teach writers to blind themselves to the real effect of their work.

It seems I have been taken to task on a differentiation of audience expectation. I understood that AHers were of sufficiently skilled stock to recognise that an iteration of rules is merely that, an iteration by which they may or may not lay store or otherwise.

I greatly appreciate the fact of someone having to ask the question (I was quite well known for asking the obvious of teachers when I was aware that my classmates were lagging and were either afraid or indifferent to the answers they needed) So may we say that we have, between our several selves, taught and learned rather more than perhaps was intended.

But what else would one expect from an epicene horse?

All the best -

Shanglan

and I shall remain, as ever, gauche.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Obtuse is it now? The rule of three is a general priciple which refines the accepted wisdom of 'no lists'. You have heard it uttered previously to this thread by others than myself. I don't say 'follow the rules' I say if the rule is applicable (which I thought it was in reference to the start point) then be guided by it.

I see nothing in your post that suggests that either of these items - "no lists" and "no lists more than three" - is, in fact, a rule. You cite "rule of thumb," "time immemorial," and "widely accepted wisdom," but these are vague terms unsupported with any specific instance or, indeed, any strong rationale. I ask quite seriously, where is there any support for either of these being a rule? The point of the various quotations I've posted is to supply evidence that they are not rules - not ones that appear to be followed by any of the great writers of the western tradition, at any rate. I've offered as many examples of lists as my indolence and my audience's patience are likely to support, and could offer a hundred more. I've seen nothing to confirm that "thou shalt not list" is a rule, and a great many examples that suggest it isn't. Why continue to press an alleged rule that has neither reason to exist nor, evidently, any indication that it ever has? The thing is simply not there, or at least it is not there in the work of anyone worth reading. What is the good of shackling oneself to a rule that Shakespeare, Swift, Wilde, Rushdie, and Shaw reject to a man?

The three rule isn't arbitrary, neither is it mystical, it is a widely accepted form establishing pattern, memory fixing and repetition limit. And it is for these reasons (as per examples) why it is equally applicable to writing.

And I return to what I think is the real crux of this. Yes, three is a pattern. As a pattern, it has certain properties that are sometimes desirable. Likewise, two, four, five, and seven are patterns, and they have certain properties that are sometimes desirable. To say that three is the rule is imply that only three has any properties to which an author should be attentive, and that only three communicates anything significant in form or structure. This is simply not true, and it is an immense disservice to oneself to attempt to believe it. Good writers must recognize the effects, not of one, but of a wide variety of structures, and this is as true with lists and items therein as it is with meter, rhyme, paragraph structure, sentence structure, or any of the other tools at our disposal. To say that three is the limit because three sticks well in memory is like saying that iambic pentameter is the only appropriate meter because it sounds something like ordinary human speech. Yes, it has those properties. But other meters have other properties, and "The Charge of the Light Brigade" would lose the bulk of its power if Lord Tennyson had not recognized this fact.

The rule of three is not a rule. The effect of three is an effect, but an effect is not a rule; it is an observation. Observations are excellent things when they lead to more observations, like an analysis of the effects of lists with or without descriptions additional to the individual words, or lists with or without balanced coordinating halves, or lists of two, four, five, or eight. Such observations lead one back to the only true rule: that one must give attention to all of the fine and beautiful gradations of effect in the English language. To reduce this delicate and sophisticated process to the blind imposition of "three" as the single answer to all situations, or to the "rule" of "no lists" applied with equal lack of interest in the actual effects, is antithetical to all good writing. We must hone our perceptions and observations, not slam of wall of arbitrary rules down around them to prevent ourselves from catching a glimpse of Salome twitching her veils.

Shanglan

 

[cantdog]

AS to emergency situations, she is on a fucking cruiser. If she's on a drop, she's in her armor. I will admit, in a case of ship to ship combat, there is a slight chance her ship could be boarded, but I also make the assumption that they will know before hand if a fleet engagement is likely and their FMF will have time to prepare. In the advent of a surprise attack, I further assume some portion of the FMF is on duty and in their armor.

So is your position this is just fiction and they should be able to step into their gear like a pair of panties? Or are you completely ignorant of the history of armor and protective gear utilized by line soldiers? Or did you just feel the need to bitch and moan about anything that glorifies the military? I'm really curious, because you're banging the hell out of me over something you either know dick about OR I'm completely misinformed.

You asked me directly what the passage said about her as a character. How effective was it as character exposition, to me. I didn't feel a need to weigh in for any other reason than your own invitation. I hope that lays the personalities to rest, but if there are some people you do not invite in, kindly list me next time.

I was reading an almost fetishistic description of a piece of protective gear. It is nonstandard.

Her weapon is also nonstandard. Whether a railgun is better or not would of course depend on the circumstance, which we do not see, so I shelved that.

But there are explanations why nonstandard items can be used. This tells me that it is important to you, the writer, that she can have them. Clearly it is a superior armor to the standard one.

Then there's the rapeproofing idea. Sounds okay, but set against the fact it takes a lot of effort and time to take off is the fact that it takes hours to don. Your military-veteran defenders say why yes, you wear it all the time. They also say it's the first thing you put on, but we have to forget that idea when it takes hours. It would not be the first thing you put on, in a case like that, but rather an item you would never take off in the field.

Unless, like the medieval knight you compare her to, you expect combats to last mere hours and campaigns to contain weeks of down time. Does this military outfit she's in characteristically fight only for a few hours and then return to some fortress? Most wars are not ren faires. Most wars are not like medieval combat in lines and squares, with a break for darkness, truces to bury the dead, Sundays off. Medieval knights had people to help them get the damn stuff on. But maybe she goes in for a few hours or days and then always goes back to some safe place.

Lacking that data, I say that she is revealed only as someone with strong opinions about her gear, therefore a pro. She may or may not be revealed as someone who is extraordinarily attached to the idea of being rapeproof. My impression of the armor includes the fact that it has a major drawback. If that drawback is not so major (because these people don't become deployed for long term missions,for instance), then it doesn't count as heavily. So I can shelve that, too, until I see what she does.

If she does have to confront that drawback, if she does have to spend months in the armor because she dare not take the time to put it on again, then her reasons-- rapeproofing, super-strength capability, and so on-- for choosing that disadvantage become much more important. Because she is willing to undergo mortification of the flesh for the sake of those things, or else spend hours unarmored when it would have been prudent to be armored.

If she doesn't have to confront that drawback, then the passage reveals that much less about her. To be someone who'd just as soon have the better equipment does not set her apart from the rest of humanity.

So that is the answer. The answer to your question, from someone who may or may not be totally ignorant. But what if I were? Do you insist that only experts in the history of armor read your stories?