Very creative way of writing. I really enjoyed it!
I also agree, starting with the end was a great effect. It allowed you to concentrate more on his life than on his death, since you learned early on how he died.
Re: Editing starts.... here.astraevirgoOctober 3 2009, 14:51:41 UTC
I skimmed the other edit, and I think they're right -- too many adjectives. However, I don't think I want to do a line edit today. I think I will talk about characterization and world building
( ... )
I've got to admit, I'm not one for tragic stories, but yours is absolutely breathtaking and wonderfully done! Love the way you've inculcated Sparkle in your piece, and all your descriptions and your unique style of writing. Here's wishing you all the best in the poll!
Editor - into your bomb shelters, please.mermaidbiaSeptember 27 2009, 14:21:41 UTC
Hi, this is mermaidbia, finally catching up on her edits.
You asked for No Holds Barred, so I'll be honest: I think this is vile. Honestly. I think after three times or so reading it - reading several adjective-overloaded, needlessly convoluted and dragging sentences about fifteen times before understanding them on a language level, but not what their point was - I finally got what you were going for here, which is a "forward into the past" story where two points in history gradually meet. Nice idea, all over, especially the lopsided approach, but the execution is catastrophic.
First off, your prose is bland, incredibly confusing and the characterization of Jim McReeves is random and unfocused. At first you want to establish the idea that Jim is a child, or a young teenager, 13 at the most, possibly younger, but then you insert entire paragraphs of honestly overbearing purple prose that a child would not use to describe surroundings. It's icky. You don't seem to have a very clear idea of who this Jim is supposed to be. That may be part of
( ... )
Re: Editor - into your bomb shelters, please.mermaidbiaSeptember 27 2009, 14:55:55 UTC
My problem with this is that it's a very constructed piece: It's obvious you are trying to aim at a certain of "poignant tragedy" (which in itself already is a cliché) but at the same time you are trying SO hard that it comes off as overbearing, put on, and dishonest - it's more like a "Let's show people that war is hell!" school theater play. Jim McReeves, to me, is a stand-in character, two stereotypes in one - one, the bratty, "tough" aggressive younger brother who hates his older sister, two, the young tragic youth drafted to go into war. If you had crafted either of these a little more strongly, this would have worked, but besides these two clichés that you so comfortably place your character between, we honestly have no way to relate to this kid. You start out well enough, but then you kill it with scenery descriptions that - again - add nothing to the story, leave the character entirely out and make Jim a prop in a setting. To me he comes off as so incredibly unsympathetic - not human or real, just plain unsympathetic - that I
( ... )
Re: Editor - into your bomb shelters, please.mermaidbiaSeptember 27 2009, 14:58:02 UTC
The clear, blue sky’s enormous, stretching lengths dotted by whipped, fluffy clouds and underneath which reaching horizons of green and yellow and brown lay, was bent and distorted to myriads of earthy tones plus blue in the hard, golden beady eyes.This
( ... )
Re: Editor - into your bomb shelters, please.mermaidbiaSeptember 27 2009, 15:37:22 UTC
-like the way but then oh god so unlike the way the rice patties whipped back and forth, sometimes tickling and sometimes striking Jim’s crumpled body burnt to crisped by misfired napalm that would be reported by a man in uniform with a solemn face and a stiffly-folded American flag to Jim’s sobbing, shaking mother as a MIA, and here is his purple heart, ma’am- WAR POIGNANCY OVERKILL. Honestly. I know what you're trying to do here, but you're trying too hard, since inserting prose with italicized memories is already a trope that has been done a million times before, almost never very good. I've been told this has potential, but you're laying the tears on to thick. Letting go of the punctuation is a good strategy, but you're overusing the attributes again. "stiffly-folded"? "sobbing, shaking"? It confuses readers. It doesn't help. Keep the lack of punctuation, but ease up on it a little. The reader has an imagination of his own. "Here is his purple heart, ma'am"...what soldier would say that? This would be much more effective if you
( ... )
Hey there, just wanted to apologize again; not for the points I raised because I consider them sound, but some of my wording was way too harsh and inconsiderate. Teaches me not to do edits when I'm in a bad mood, and it was unfair to let that out on you. Really, I AM sorry, and I hope you took something good from this nevertheless. I know you can be a terrific writer because I remember some awesome pieces from you (Your "parasite" piece was, I remember, excellent) so it's really not aimed at you personally. Hope you understand that, see you next week!
Okay. I'm glad I read this apology before I read the actual edit. Yeah, don't do edits when you're angry.
Not because what you said wasn't valid--I've got yelled at before for purple prose, bad habit of mine--but the way you said it immediately made me want to defend my piece instead of change it. You seem like you know this, since you came back and apologized, but...I mean, just be careful. I recognized it wasn't my best piece, I told my friend it wasn't right before I posted it. I knew it was cliche and overly-dramatic, I wrote it a hour before the deadline and kept getting stuck! I knew it wasn't my best. But then for someone to call it "vile" and "catastrophic"? I was immediately turned off and, as I said before, kept finding myself defending my piece instead of looking for opportunities to improve it. When I edit, I try not to tell an author what their piece is, but what it could beUrgh, sorry for semi-ranting at you. You came back and apologized, which is awesome. Really! It takes big people to apologize, especially before
( ... )
Yes, I know the wording was going SEVERAL steps too far; however, I'm a lowly free LJ member and we can't edit our comments, so I had to apologize in another one. I really *am* sorry, and I know what you mean about telling people what a piece could be. Usually I try to approach pieces like this but I had a headache all day and wanted to get this done. It was all due to the mood that I was in, so I take the blame. Please, please don't let this discourage you from writing!
Comments 26
I also agree, starting with the end was a great effect. It allowed you to concentrate more on his life than on his death, since you learned early on how he died.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Here's wishing you all the best in the poll!
Reply
You asked for No Holds Barred, so I'll be honest: I think this is vile. Honestly. I think after three times or so reading it - reading several adjective-overloaded, needlessly convoluted and dragging sentences about fifteen times before understanding them on a language level, but not what their point was - I finally got what you were going for here, which is a "forward into the past" story where two points in history gradually meet. Nice idea, all over, especially the lopsided approach, but the execution is catastrophic.
First off, your prose is bland, incredibly confusing and the characterization of Jim McReeves is random and unfocused. At first you want to establish the idea that Jim is a child, or a young teenager, 13 at the most, possibly younger, but then you insert entire paragraphs of honestly overbearing purple prose that a child would not use to describe surroundings. It's icky. You don't seem to have a very clear idea of who this Jim is supposed to be. That may be part of ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
WAR POIGNANCY OVERKILL.
Honestly. I know what you're trying to do here, but you're trying too hard, since inserting prose with italicized memories is already a trope that has been done a million times before, almost never very good. I've been told this has potential, but you're laying the tears on to thick. Letting go of the punctuation is a good strategy, but you're overusing the attributes again. "stiffly-folded"? "sobbing, shaking"? It confuses readers. It doesn't help. Keep the lack of punctuation, but ease up on it a little. The reader has an imagination of his own. "Here is his purple heart, ma'am"...what soldier would say that? This would be much more effective if you ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Not because what you said wasn't valid--I've got yelled at before for purple prose, bad habit of mine--but the way you said it immediately made me want to defend my piece instead of change it. You seem like you know this, since you came back and apologized, but...I mean, just be careful. I recognized it wasn't my best piece, I told my friend it wasn't right before I posted it. I knew it was cliche and overly-dramatic, I wrote it a hour before the deadline and kept getting stuck! I knew it wasn't my best. But then for someone to call it "vile" and "catastrophic"? I was immediately turned off and, as I said before, kept finding myself defending my piece instead of looking for opportunities to improve it. When I edit, I try not to tell an author what their piece is, but what it could beUrgh, sorry for semi-ranting at you. You came back and apologized, which is awesome. Really! It takes big people to apologize, especially before ( ... )
Reply
Rock on, and cut the adjectives! ;)
Reply
Leave a comment