Re: [CRIT] Opening

Tina Hall <Tina.Hall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jonathan L Cunningham <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I mean that, if a character is a drunk, then there must be alcohol in

But I don't need to know where the drunk is getting alcohol. It could
be he brews it himself, or he buys it, or he steals it.

Eventually, I end up with an answer, though.

So do I: as soon as I need to know (either it matters to the story, or
someone asks me).

What I don't feel (unlike some readers) is the need to know it before it
becomes relevant.

I think I can see a reason (this is pure conjecture) why "jumping to
conclusions" (as it seems to me) is useful. In Real Life it probably
makes it easier to react quickly because you (not you personally)
already think you understand the situation.

It may be relevant that, even in emergencies, I'm very slow to react
unless I've thought about it beforehand and already worked out what I'm
going to do.

I've had the opposite; no one voluntarily drinking alcohol or consuming
other drugs. People even probes their food and drink to make sure nobody

I don't actually have any drugs in my stories, and no drunks either (not
as characters) -- but IIRC, you think drinking even one glass of wine
makes someone a drunk, so we may be using the word differently.

The story is even called 'Getting Caught', but I only realized that's
the title at the end of the next book. It started out with 'no one
voluntarily consumes drugs'.

That's actually very difficult, in Real Life, because even ordinary
foodstuffs can have psychoactive effects. For example, the herb sage (as
used in sage-and-onion stuffing) or the spice nutmeg. Or poppy seeds on
a loaf of bread.

The effects are very small. There are other herbs where the effects are
stronger, for example tea, all the way from "very, very small" up to
banned substances.

How do you draw the line in your story? Or do you assume (as most people
do) that "drugs" are a separate category?

There must be alcohol in the setting for there to be a drunk, but
that doesn't completely specify everything about the setting.

You've got examples to draw from in the real world. What about
parameters you don't have examples to look at? (In relation to your
style; think about readers who would like your story if only you
supplied the basics you write from, your assumptions.)

The big question - the meta-question if you like - about the
done-to-death extract was whether readers *would* like the story if I
supplied the basics. A lot of the early crits made that assumption.

But later discussion threw a lot of doubt on that.

There are stories I'm writing where, I'm sure, that I could definitely
improve the storytelling by adding that kind of detail. I'm not sure -
indeed I think not - that the story under discussion is one of them.

Take a thousand other details, from plot and characterisation: it
says a lot about the possible setting, but still doesn't specify
everything.

It addresses the bits it touches, though. And the bits fit together to a
whole. What you say sounds like you want to leave out that which makes
it fit together. (You're tying it by your assumptions.)

More like I don't want to supply a lot of specific details to tie it
together: I'd prefer the reader to supply their own. For two reasons:
firstly, it's less words, so I can spend more time on the "important"
stuff, and secondly, what readers supply from their own imaginations
will be more vivid than anything I might write. (If they can do it.)

There's no doubt that your style is valid. I just wonder why you
wouldn't want to increase the potential audience, as you are writing

I'd like to increase the potential audience. If I had a magic spell
that would make everybody who currently hates my story love it
instead, I could get rich! I'd have agents queueing up, editors
holding auctions for the rights ...

<g>

I don't think that's true, and I don't think we're quite talking about
the same thing. (What's in my mind is improving what you write,
something you keep, to apply to all further stories, too. A small change
that has a huge effect and makes a better story for you, too. And not
just 'too', but perhaps even primarily for you.)

I certainly will make any changes that have a huge effect and makes it a
better story, in my opinion too.

It's about improving the story. I don't think many words would have
to be added.

I think we have already established that (1) the people, including
me, who like it would stop liking it,

I don't think so. Do you dislike all the stories that supply the
information you want to leave out?

A lot of stories would be impproved, in my opinion, by cutting a lot of
unnecessary description.

And there *are* stories (and writers) I've abandoned because they are
too wordy for my taste. There's a limit to how much description I'm
prepared to skim over.

(2) some of the people who don't like it would agree that it's
*slightly* better, but still won't like it,

I see no reason to assume that.

It was discussed.

I assume it because at least two people thought it would be true of
them. I see no reason to assume they are the only two.

and (3) the rest of them would agree that I'd made it worse.

I doubt it.

<shrug> I think it was Patricia who suggested that. She has a lot of
experience in these matters. I think it's plausible.

So do I, a little. But I'm probably better able to empathise with
how they feel.

I don't say that I never went along with some things that were dumb,

I didn't say I agreed with them. "Emphathise" doesn't mean
"sympathise" it means more like "understand why they feel like that".
It's possible to understand without agreeing.

That's true. It's just not what I connect with 'empathy'. (Emphathise
means to understand and _share_ the feelings of another.)

That's a common extension, but the online dictionary I use just says:

be understanding of; "You don't need to explain--I understand!"

However, rather than argue about it, I'll rephrase what I said: "I'm
probably better able to imagine myself feeling as they do".

The whole point of them is that they lack the human insecurity (a
cause for many of the human flaws). They know what they are. There's
no reason to be uncertain.

I can believe they lack human insecurity, but believe there would be
"testing" mates for different reasons.

Not by pulling hair and being mean. Not what you implied to mean by
'testing'.

Do they just go out and find the *first* mate who meets some minimum
requirements? Or do they try to find a mate who *best* meets their
requirements?

If they want to find the best available mate, then they will need to
compare the available mates. That's what I mean by testing.

But I wonder, is that adress you give still getting spam, without
being used or shown here?

That address is just starting to get spam - I used it to e-mail a
group of people. I guess that one (or more) of them have machines
which are infected by spyware and that the address has been
"harvested".

Ugh.

Don't know about the gate (I assume it's protected), but on my side of
it that isn't possible. :)

If everyone did that, there would be much less spam.

It's also possible that some organisations that shouldn't, have sold
it, although I've been pretty careful about where I've used it, and
it only started getting spam recently.

One of the weirder spam I got said "We aren't spam, you must have given
your adress on our website", when I had no way to do that (lacking an
internet access). Bah.

But the kruemel gate is pretty good with not letting spam through. I get
at most a handful a week, likely less than that.

None to this adress yet, but they have to harvest it first, I guess.

Let's hope they don't. (My first address "jlc1" got harvested because I
posted to a mailing list which automatically forwarded posts to a
newsgroup. I was getting spam on it within about two days. Out of
curiosity (and in case anyone who still has it tries to contact me) I
let mail to it get delivered to a different mailbox. Over 95% of the
spam I receive goes to that address - even though I haven't read any of
it for a couple of years. It's getting on for a hundred per day. If one
of those schemes for charging, e.g. 1 cent per e-mail, were adopted,
that would be a dollar (or a euro) per day. I doubt the spammers could
afford to waste that much money, since I'm only one person.

Jonathan

--
"There's many a best seller that could have been prevented
by a good teacher." Flannery O'Connor
.