Creative Writing Assessment Piece for this term.

[edgeofthewood]

Well, here you go. It's a reworking of the previous story posted here on 25 January. I'd be interested in how you feel about the changes I've made, if you're out there. :) It's about 3,600 words.

Comments

[the_gwenzilliad]

Pleh. All my supposedly short stories feel like the beginnings of longer stories. I need to work on that.

'Shin' is definitely a Japanese name. Yee, now I think about it, does sound more Chinese. I'll look into it.

I'm glad you liked it. Any specific points to address, aside from the name?

[janewilliams20]

I think I immersed too deeply in that, and have just realised that I'm freezing.
Also, that's so much of a reworking that I barely recognise it. I like both pieces, but they're very different.

[the_gwenzilliad]

Yes, they are very different. This one could not have been written without the first one, however. Michelle's personality actually shaped the story quite a bit.

[keristor]

Hmm. I'd call that a new story, not a reworking. I like both, but apart from the name of one of the participants (and the title) I wouldn't even recognise them as similar stories. In the original the title suddenly made sense near the end (and the viewpoint Michelle didn't think of herself as creating a reality, she just was) whereas in this one the world-changing is obvious from the start but there is nothing to connect Michelle with it any more than anyone else in the story.

This one feels like a part of a longer story about CME, or possibly a collection of stories in the same setting. This part is John's story, not Michelle's (which would probably be an interesting story in its own right).

[janewilliams20]

But what Yellow Hand is doing is what Michelle was doing in the previous story - I think. Not that I'd have realised that without reading both.

One thing niggled at me slightly: "Nura". Not being famliar with Babylonian naming conventions, we were five sentences in before I knew what gender it was. Maybe that's an intentional niggle, given the use of "presented as" for descriptions all the way through?

[keristor]

Hmm, I'm not convinced that what Yellow Hand is doing is the same. Michelle appeared to be creating the scene whereas Yellow Hand seems to be using sympathetic magic to attract the animals.

And what it's missing is the connection with the title (Michelle being the feminine of Michael which means "who is like God"). If anyone it's John who is "playing God" by fiddling with the mortals.

[the_gwenzilliad]

I'm slightly worried that in an attempt to remove the "I just didn't get it" reaction that nearly all my classmates had to this story, I've made it too mundane. I did really like Michelle's point of view and probably will go back and write something else about her sometime.

Regarding Nura and her gender -- They were pretty short sentences, though I take your point that maybe male and female should be part of the overviews we see when a CME looks at a specific person. Nura is a human who lives on Planet Earth. She is born with her gender, and certainly at that point in history would have been bound to stay within her gender role. However, the beings who are tweaking the show from behind the scenes may be able to appear in any guise they wish, thus the use of 'presented as' throughout for descriptive details of CME team members and environments.

From Wikipedia's article on angels, under the heading "Famous Angels and Their Tasks":

Michael (translation: who is like God) Performs God's Kindness

[keristor]

Another point I just noticed: dates. Dates CE are given as just numbers (2008, 1968, 646, etc.). Then we jump into pre-history and suddenly the dates are given as "20,018 BP". But 'BP' is "before present" -- when is the "present" in this? Surely the CME is outside our timestream, making 'present' meaningless? Or if they are in our future then all dates to them would be Before their Present. (BP is usually used only approximately, because it (obviously) changes all the time, so c.20000 BP makes sense but 20018 BP will be wrong next year.)

BCE and ACE would make sense (or something like GC/BG for Gregorian Calendar / Before Gregorian). Or for that matter just a signed number (2008, -20018) from the epoch date (everyone there knowing what that date is).

[the_gwenzilliad]

That again is a very good point. I should have used CE/BCE.

[aunty_marion]

Like others, I wouldn't have recognised that as a reworking of the original at all. In fact, I had to go back and re-read the other one, and apart from the fact that they both feature 'Michelle' and there is a certain amount of creativity involving transforming ideas into reality in both, I didn't think there really was much in common!

But I like this version much better than the previous one; there's more 'story' to it, it's more cohesive in its ideas. As Zander says, it feels like part of a story that's looking for more.