Improving our 75 Word Stories -- READ FIRST POST

[GreenKidx]

Hey Brev-

Like most everyone else, I was lost on the first 20 or so read throughs. But I believe the understanding finally came. I (eventually) understood the dying person to be all human sons and daughters of Adam and Eve and the one punished, the "she" to be Eve.

Was I even close?

*When I say sons and daughters I mean descendants.

[The Judge]

Ah. Definitely, if it's only one speaker, you need to put all her dialogue into one set of speech marks, unless interrupting it with something (ie action or a dialogue tag) -- splitting it as you did indicates at least two speakers. To my mind, it doesn't help by having the dialogue separated from the foregoing bit in the hospital, since the separation also indicates a change, when in fact it's a continuation.

I did click it was Biblical, the language use was enough for that, but the "I was second" suggested Eve to me, (as I see it does to GreenKidx) but the bearing witness made me think John the Baptist -- and why either of them should be leading the dying person onward, and to where, was a mystery (particularly when there was loss involved).

[Ursa major]

By the way, Brev, if you really want the spoken paragraphs to remain separate, all you need to do is remove two characters, changing

“I was the second, but will be the last. Flesh of my flesh, I come to bear witness, as He decreed.”

“For all my children.”

“To endure the pain of your coming, and the bitter anguish of your loss.”

to

“I was the second, but will be the last. Flesh of my flesh, I come to bear witness, as He decreed.

“For all my children.

“To endure the pain of your coming, and the bitter anguish of your loss.”

[Brev]

Thanks for all your comments.
I wrote the speech that way, because in my mind it is spoken slowly, separately, sobbed by a anguished mind, as the dying man's soul is being led away, but I take your point that it only caused confusion.
I need to remember that the reader cannot see into my mind, and a good job too...

The person being punished was indeed Eve, the idea was that her punishment should be eternal. Original Sin was a 'biggy' and a couple of painful births not enough to appease a vengeful God. So 'He decreed' that she would also have to witness the death of every one of her descendants, till the end of time, hence her being the second and the last.

So, yes GreenKidx, you were there, which i'll take as a positive.

[mosaix]

Brev, you could always try running your stories past a friend or relative prior to posting. There's a danger that the author understands exactly what the 75 words is conveying but few others do.

[The Judge]

Good advice, mosaix. I always get the other half to read mine -- he never understands them on first read through, but at least then I have a chance of seeing where the confusion lies and how I can make things clearer eg this month by specifically using the terms "witch-finder" and putting Hopkins' name in the body of the story and not just in the title.

[Mouse]

Arkose, it was this line which confused me: "The ogre threw the staff and spot bit the ogre."

I stopped reading to puzzle over what 'spot bit' might mean. Until I read on and realised it was a name.

TDZ- I really liked yours and was understanding it... until that last line.

Brev - like others here have also said, I'm afraid I didn't get what was going on at all.

I have no improvements to offer to anybody. Sorry.

[Teresa Edgerton]

I eventually understood that it was Eve who was being punished, Brev. She was the second and the fact that she had to endure the pain of all the childbirths tipped me off -- but not until you asked the question!

But there was something so plaintive in the words of the story, that even though (or perhaps because) I didn't understand it, I liked it enough to come close to voting for it.

And TDZ, I have to concur with TJ when she said:

Overall, I was unhappy at a slightly sadistic feel to the piece ... I understand it is the killer in a child's body, but nonetheless a child is still tortured and killed, and again and again.

My reservations about the story are partly because I know that most such people have already been "punished" in advance. That is, while most children who have been molested and abused don't grow up to be molesters and abusers, most of the monsters who do these things were abused as children. To think of one of them reliving the kind of horror that had made him a monster in the first place was troubling to me.

[Parson]

Brev,

I read the Biblical context, should have known it by heart. But never once did I catch on that it was Eve that you were talking about. Rousting about in this forum has convinced me that I am quite dense.

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Originally Posted by Parson

Rousting about in this forum has convinced me that I am quite dense.

I'm not sure if this is entirely appropriate from another man, but.....




SLAP!!!!!



Yes, I just struck a man of the cloth. But he downgraded himself.



Then again, I really wouldn't want to be hit by Kirby.....

[Parson]

Parson rubs the offended area and determines to bite his tongue when speaking the truth after this.

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

It depends on the truth, Parson. It's like the episode of the Simpsons where Marge got into the real estate agency business.



"There's the 'truth'" *Shaking head no with determined shush look*


"And the 'truth!'" *Nodding head yes with big grin*


"This kitchen seems awfully small."


"Some would say it's awfully....cozy."

[Brev]

Originally Posted by Parson

Brev,

I read the Biblical context, should have known it by heart. But never once did I catch on that it was Eve that you were talking about. Rousting about in this forum has convinced me that I am quite dense.

Its more likely the unintelligible quality of my writing which left you bemused...

(braces for it, not the face i'm too pretty)

[TheDustyZebra]

Brev, I thought I was only partially lost on yours, but now I see that it was total. I had come to a conclusion that it was his own mother, but I couldn't make that fit with the verse and with the "I was second" part. Eve makes more sense with all of that!

TJ and TE, I have to admit, although I know it will disturb you both, that I have a rather sadistic couple of characters in my head that come out and do things like this in stories. They have reared their ugly heads before, as in the story where they were testing lawyer jokes. They have no compunctions whatsoever, I'm afraid, and for them the end totally justifies the means. I think for this story they were inspired by Heinlein's Committee for Aesthetic Deletions. So yes, there was indeed glee in that exclamation point, and a bright-eyed grin as well. Those two self-appointed revenge-masters were bent on saving innocent children, and they had no problem with placing a monster in an endless circle between prison and torture to do it. I mean, sure, they could undoubtedly find something more ...surgically precise... that would do as well to prevent the crime (oh dear, I think they just volunteered to perform an operation and that's not what I meant at all) but that wouldn't be their style. I have a feeling they are a small, rogue operation, anyway, so maybe they are limited as to their means. As for the contract, well, that statement wasn't exactly a lie, as such, because everyone is important to the timeline -- it just let him believe what he wanted. The paper he signed stated everything correctly, I must assume, and his eagerness to get out of prison kept him from reading it. One should always read before signing, after all.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Brev

Its more likely the unintelligible quality of my writing which left you bemused...

(braces for it, not the face i'm too pretty)

Slap!!

And let that be a lesson to you.

In 75 words, the stories are often ... obscure. Frequently, it comes down to how a story makes readers feel.