4/19/16 ecohansen Mole People 1of 2 (minor v, nudity)

[ecohansen]

You know the drill.  All criticisms greatly appreciated.  Sorry again for the lateness.

[spieles]

So this was very quirky with, as you said, lots of fun and weird facts. I'm def getting the 1930's boy adventure vibe what with the faeces and feisty Mrs. Royall laying the smack on the President and George Washington being a zombie and all.

 

If you would be so kind, let me know what you think of the gimmick of having the characters speak in quotations.  Is it good in theory, or should I drop it?  Did I manage to pull it off, more or less? I know I need to include more quotes in some of the long monologues if I do keep the gimmick...

 

I think so. I enjoyed the rich language you have weaved through this, and I think the quotes contributed. I'm wondering if it interfered with flow at times. For example, in that first paragraph, I would consider moving the second line and skipping straight to "Soon it would be spring." have the faeces go down the river - and then have his mind float to Andrew Jackson and the Kingdom of Sanguenay and then to make everything horrible upon horrible - a crazy woman steals his clothes! (But I'm not sure how that works with your quotes and the structure, you see?)
 

Did I manage to maintain a single authorial voice?  I was trying to write a grown-up version of a 1930's boy's adventure story, but I feel like I was bouncing around too much between humor, historical awesomeness, and actual story.  Were there places where the story started to read like "10 Wierd Facts You Didn't Know About the 1820s?

 

Hah. I got all those vibes but mainly, I think just working on smoothing and transitions are the key issue at the moment. Make those fixes, and I think the rest will come naturally. 

 

So, some of those I noted...

 

Why not start off directly labeling the President as John Quincy Adams? It felt like a detail that was withheld for no reason. And I quite like the effect of starting a story with "President John Quincy Adams swam through the cold Potomac, sunlight glinting off his naked buttocks." That, my friend, is a stellar opener. Otherwise, I was so focused on who the president was - of a bank? of the country? that it took away a bit from the punch.

 

George Washington's appearance. First, I thought he was a secret service man. Then when you described him as "creature" in the paragraph below, I was confident he was a mole person. Even with the reference to wooden teeth, I was quite astonished when it was truly George Washington.

 

I never think of poundcake as a sweetmeat. I always think of gumdrops and sugared nuts in that category.

 

This line: "Mrs. Royall scrambled for her cane, preparing to defend herself."

 

I hadn't really thought there was any threat. The president's words were rather mild. So what does Mrs. Royall perceive that the reader has missed? We just need a little more setup there.

 

This line: "If they are not rescued, the world will end?"

 

Goodness what a statement! But why? I need more context and specifics. Give me the stakes so I'm as invested in taking on this mission as are Quincy Adams and Mrs. Royall.

 

This line: "You have told me little I did not already know, and you may well believe that I have devices for countering your threats.  I'll leave for Canada and the Kingdom of Saguenay immediately.”

 

Okay, I think when you say "your threats" that you actually mean threats to the nation and not that Quincy Adams is threatening her. Need a bit more clarity here. Then, because I was still thinking she was countering his threats, I was completely shocked by her resolve to help the president. Could we get a gesture or facial cue that shows her resolve to help? I think we need that transition before she says she'll leave immediately.

 

I enjoyed the difference between professional prize fighters and Virginia street fighters and why this was the reason that George Washington was able to simply walk around with a bag on his head.

 

In the fight scene, I would lose the line about five ruffians with "assorted injuries" - she'll be immediately drawn to the action - then at the end she can describe the bludgeoned men left in the road and they can leave gloriously without a word.

 

I hope that helps. :)

Edited April 20, 2016 by spieles

[kais]

Nudity? Sign me up!

 

As I go

- Switching between language styles (going from the person't direct, historical quote, to your writing of their words and thoughts) is jarring. I'm having a hard time staying in the narrative because of this.

 

- The blocking on page 3 gets a little confusing between the first three paragraphs. I can't mentally work out what is happening

 

- I got whiplash in the final paragraph on page three. Royall is just agreeing to go, just like that? Why?

 

- Well now I just want a story all about Lascarina!

 

 

Quote gimmick

I like it, but it does pull me from the narrative, especially the first one. Maybe cutting some of them down so they are less jarring?

 

Authorial voice

I think this was more or less consistent. Your transitions needs some work, and some of the blocking was off, but those are less voice and more just general observations.

 

General

I am not familiar with 1930s boy adventure stories, so I don't know how best to give feedback on this. I was entertained in places, confused in others. I think it could do with some tightening, but I like the premise and didn't find it taxing to read at all.

 

I second spieles on the Washington thing. I thought for sure it was a mole person, and was actually pretty disappointed it wasn't.

 

Thanks for submitting this! Interested to read part II.

 

P.S. Could we get the full story on Lascarina sometime? Please?

[ecohansen]

Thank you both.

 

Spieles, thanks for the edit to the first line.  I'll definitely make the change.  As for the first paragraph, it was fighting me for some reason.  I think I spent most of an hour juggling the sentences back and forth when I first started the story.  I don't think I tried the arrangement you recommended though--it looks like it'll work!

 

Sweetmeat: I actually think of organ meat whenever I see this phrase.  But Anne Royall used it as written.  I'm not sure whether to keep it in to disorient with language drift, or cut it out.

 

Spieles and Kaisa,  oof, looks like I'll definitely have to work on my George Washington reveal.  Even the wooden teeth bit is sketchy, since, y'know, his teeth were actually hippopotamus ivory.  But I like the line and the image...

 

As for the stuff around John Quincy's infodump of plot: yep, those several paragraphs are horrible.  I wasn't sure how much should be revealed at this point, and after wrestling for longer than I should I just dumped in a rough guess of what should go there.  That section will be the main focus of my next edit.

 

Kaisa, Yep, Laskarina Bouboulina is one of my favorite historical personages ever.  The Wikipedia page I linked to doesn't mention her "man in every port" reputation, but it's a huge part of her myth.

 

Quotes: I'm planning to keep the narration more-or-less modern, but I definitely need to put a lot of work into making the actual dialogue that I write more historically accurate.  On the other hand, I don't quite want to get it perfect: I'm hoping that some degree of herky-jerky pastiche-iness will add to the strangeness of the story.  But that's definitely not my problem yet.  I don't suppose anyone has found a resource where I could automatedly check my writing against an 1820s dictionary, and make sure I'm not using anachronistic words?

Edited April 21, 2016 by ecohansen

[kais]

  I don't suppose anyone has found a resource where I could automatedly check my writing against an 1820s dictionary, and make sure I'm not using anachronistic words?

 

That is the kind of thing librarians LOVE to help with!

[Robinski he/him]

Well, I must say that I was thoroughly entertained. I love this kind of formal, intricate language and that alone would have kept me reading. It’s an interesting set up and a clever idea. I do feel that the premise for Mrs Royall running off after Andrew Jackson is rather vague. The world is going to end, take my word for it, seemed to be about as much as we got. I got past it, but it was a bit frustrating at the time.

 

For me, I would take out all the references, or rather add them as an appendix so that I can skip past them in the text. There’s no way I won’t to be distracted by the temptation to digress off into the bear pit that is the WWW while I'm clipping alone through an entertaining story. I would much rather suspend my disbelief, which I'm uncommonly good at, to the point of sheer dumbness on many occasions.

 

Keen to read more, post again soon!

 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

My first thought is Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

 

“I'm glad Mr. Adam's Adams’ messenger”

 

“London gin is poison” – Indeed not, I must protest this falsehood most vigorously! Everything, in moderation, can be pleasurable and a tonic.

[spieles]

Sweetmeat: I actually think of organ meat whenever I see this phrase.  But Anne Royall used it as written.  I'm not sure whether to keep it in to disorient with language drift, or cut it out.

 

It's definitely era-specific. And sweetbreads are actually the ones with organ meats. So confusing. It was like they were talking in code back then to fool unsuspecting children as to the contents of their dinner plates.

 

As for the stuff around John Quincy's infodump of plot: yep, those several paragraphs are horrible.  I wasn't sure how much should be revealed at this point, and after wrestling for longer than I should I just dumped in a rough guess of what should go there.  That section will be the main focus of my next edit.

 

One suggestion, to take or leave. I think that if you broke up his big speech with Laskarina actually filling in chunks of the EVIL PLOT for Quincy Adams -- it will both demonstrate her prowess and understanding of the gravity of the mission while also allowing for some fun character conflict. 

Edited April 21, 2016 by spieles

[Mandamon he/him]

This was...amusing.  And not at all what I was expecting.  But on to your questions.

 

 

Speaking in quotations was alright, but does start to get a little old by the end.  For something four times this long, it might end up more like Mad Libs than a story.  However, as spieles notes, it does give the chance to make interesting asides, like the Virginia prize/street fighters.  This definitely kept my interest, however.  It's enough over the top and beyond that I wanted to see what absurdity came next. 

 

I think the voice was acceptable throughout.  I almost felt like the story was being shouted by a 1930's serial movie narrator, but it was consistent.

 

From the title at the top, I assumed the naked president in question was Washington.  Only at the second page do we find out it's John Quincy Adams.  However, I got immediately that the looming shadow was zombie George Washington.  The wooden teeth confirmed it.  I might have been tipped off more by going back to check after the Adams reveal.

 

On the story itself, something like this doesn't need to be seamless, and I can take some infodumping, but I agree the setup is a bit lax.  If you had any proof at all the that mole people were actually a threat, that would help.  How did Mrs. Royall find out about them in the first place?  Maybe that can help show how they are a threat.

 

Oh, and I completely agree with Robinski on footnotes.  I actually checked the end of the story first, before I realized they were links.  I love footnotes, especially off-the-wall ones (Pratchett is the best at them, of course).  It would take a lot more effort, but putting just a tidbit of that information you linked to as a footnote would make the story even more interesting, and maybe even teach people something!

 

Looking forward to more.  This reminds me a lot of Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next books.

[rdpulfer he/him]

Yay! I'm all caught up! It only took me two weeks . . . 

 

- I really like the emphasis on historical accuracy.

 

- I would have liked a little more lead-up to Washington's presence in the room. At first, he is just called "impossible" and a "monstrosity", but some description might clue in the reader before the infodump.

 

- I enjoy any team-up that involves a zombie George Washington.

 

- I would have liked to see more of Royall and Washington's interaction before they got into the thick of things.

 

- Overall, I enjoyed it a lot. I am worried some of the dialogue is too long. Some of this works because that's just how they talked in the time period, but too much might annoy the reader. 

[ecohansen]

Thanks everyone. 

 

Robinski, I definitely need to think about footnotes rather than direct links.  However, I don't have much to say in the footnotes except "yep, this really happened, check out the link."  I just re-read Nabokov's Pale Fire, and after seeing the marvels that can be done with footnotes, I hate to use them ineffectually.  But I agree that the asterisks are probably too distracting. 

 

Spieles,  great suggestion n making JQA's monologue a dialogue. 

 

Mandamon,  As for making the threat more credible, I'm currently experimenting with revealing much more of the Evil Plot during JQA's infodump.  One problem is that the Evil Plot hinges on Isaac Newton and Cotton Mather, and bringing them in early seems too much like name-dropping and trivia instead of plot. 

 

Rdpulfer, consider it done!  The Washington intro is substantially re-written now. 

 

All in all, it looks like I just have to work on the plotting, the characterization, the worldbuilding, the dialogue, the narration, the concept, and the gimmicks!  That shouldn't take long, should it?