Re: Which book sounds most compelling?
- From: spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jonathan L Cunningham)
- Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 23:30:44 GMT
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:07:05 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
<b.scott@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:46:01 GMT, Jonathan L Cunningham
<spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:49e23379.22954757@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
BOOK FOUR: A member of the Imperial Court of Borgim couldn't possibly
be anything less than perfect, so the empire's newest lord couldn't
possibly be an oversized ex-sailor with a salty tongue, a down-to-earth
attitude, and a forceful disposition. Nor could his dislike of courtly
affairs have made him the target of malicious gossip, gotten him engaged
to the wrong girl, or forced him to sing before the entire court. Most
particularly, he could not have brought forbidden magic into the court
or endangered the life of the emperor, because that isn't just less than
perfect -- it's high treason.
Too cutesy. Why not just say something like:
The empire's newest lord [name?] is an oversized ex-sailor with a salty
tongue, a down-to-earth attitude and a foreceful disposition. His
dislike of court etiquette have made him enemies who have put him into a
difficult situation, including an unwanted engagement, and a public
singing performance which will make him a laughing stock [or will it?].
On top of all that, he has brought forbidden magic to court, which is a
crime punishable by death, if found out.
Because it utterly fails to suggest the book's tone, which
is the heart of its attraction.
Or the thing that would put me off reading it.
But having read *some* of Michelle's work, I disagree that it suggests
the book's tone: I doubt the book is so badly written.
I don't claim my down-to-earth paraphrase is well written - and it
certainly isn't anything like the way Michelle would write it. But it's
not as off-putting. YMMV, and obviously does.
OTOH, Michelle's current lack of success suggests that my reaction may
not be atypical; it behoves Michelle to conside whether yours is
typical.
My (feeble) attempt was intended to suggest that *Michelle* rewrite the
three sentence summary along different lines. I am sure she could get
the tone in without it being so negative.
Note: I actually *like* Michelle's writing, and plots, and
characterisation - what I've seen of them. My difficulties with her
writing lie elsewhere. But I *don't* like the three sentence summary
quoted above. I repeat - I don't think it suggests the book's tone: if
it does, I definitely wouldn't want to read the book.
That still allows for the possibility that we disagree about whether it
suggests the book's tone. To determine that, we would both have to had
looked at the book as well as at the summary, and I haven't seen the
book.
Jonathan
--
"If common sense were a reliable guide, we wouldn't need
science in the first place." Amanda Gefter, New Scientist.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Which book sounds most compelling?
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: Which book sounds most compelling?
- From: Michelle Bottorff
- Re: Which book sounds most compelling?
- From: Zeborah
- Re: Which book sounds most compelling?
- References:
- Which book sounds most compelling?
- From: Michelle Bottorff
- Re: Which book sounds most compelling?
- From: Jonathan L Cunningham
- Re: Which book sounds most compelling?
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Which book sounds most compelling?
- Prev by Date: Re: Which book sounds most compelling?
- Next by Date: Re: Which book sounds most compelling?
- Previous by thread: Re: Which book sounds most compelling?
- Next by thread: Re: Which book sounds most compelling?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|