neongrey

I very, very meticulously avoid direct real-world reference in the overall setting design but that's closer than not; there's little to no mechanization so I'd err earlier than that if I was drawing parallels myself but there's also a sort of economic decay that comes with depression-era stuff which is apt. So no, not off base at all. Unsure is probably correct. She's the main character so the goal is to enjoy reading her but liking... Hmmm. I'll take a look at that. This is pure POV writing. Lasila's very restrained, very cold, self-centered, hyper-conscious of appearances. In this I won't sweat that so much; it's a broad intro, so if you're not getting everything yet the important thing is just having names and positions in your head. In this I will say 'yes'. English-wise this is they-unknown but the language and culture used internal to the story is trinary-gendered so one is generally inclined to hold to the unknown a bit longer than one would in English. Yeah she's not a nice person. Or a good person. How much walter white I shake into my frankandclaire underwood changes from time to time but those are the sorts of direct antecedents I'm looking at. There is a lot going on all at once, yeah. I have some concerns but I think this will work out. For Lasila, everything subordinates to the political/financial plots.

look there's a lot of bits going into other bits and one needs to keep them straight! hehe or, you know, not straight, as the case may be

Well, that is the thing, really, and that's part of why Iluya's exclusivity clause is so significant; there's a fair bit of polyamory of various sorts going around here (and not much of the form of stable multiparty groups format; eg there's a triangle formed between Iluya, Eshrin, and Lasila, but at no point the three of them all together (which would be bad news)). Actually, here's the org chart. Mind there's some spoilers and one character who's never appeared in any material I've submitted and is honestly not terribly significant but still fills out the arm there. But this is all simultaneously. I mean. Not like in the same room simultaneously but yeah. I dunno though, I feel like it's a little bit different with yours because they're both women and I'm kind of hemming and hawing and hoping it doesn't look like I'm doing the ol' 'girls are fun ~until you get a man~' sort of thing. But I dunno realistically nobody's in what I would call a traditional romantic relationship anyway. I dunno, I'm probably overthinking things and how they'll come off in this particular sense. I do that a lot; I spent ages worrying about Lasila in general until I read a thing that's basically doing a similar thing with toxic masculinity that I'm going for with neoliberal white feminism (to wit, expressing disgust while beeing deeply and inevitably tainted by its influence; at least, this was my reading. most of the reviews on goodreads were talking about 'testosterone' and 'badass' and sighhhhh) that honestly didn't always succeed, and that was actually pretty reassuring. So yeah. A fair cop. I think what I'll do with this is wait until I've done the next chapter before thoroughly going over that bit, because the subject comes up with Adrichel as they go over things, and the two bits should complement each other, so I'll want to see what I've got to work with both sides.

They're pretty much always highly relevant, though I generally go full oblique on how they relate (and apparently feel urges to get more referential in them; but then, I was listening to a lot of Year Zero when I did this one's epigraph.............). 3's was actually our introduction to Senator Melqueth and his politics. But they're a means of dribbling need-to-know information in ways that won't interfere with the main text. And it's another means of foreshadowing, which I tend to apply with a trowel to everything. And nobody's said anything so I've been wondering if they were doing their job. It's directly referential to her disheveled appearance, but if that needs clearing up it needs clearing up. I'm gonna ask you to dig a little deeper here, because I need more on this. Specifically, what is giving you the impression that this is non-pertinent? She isn't expecting he'll stay turned away the whole time, and even that aside your own carriage affects how you sound. Doing that sort of thing shoulders-square, straight-backed will still sound a lot more confident than she wants to sound. So she changes her whole body language to match the impression she wants to give. It's one of those things that's a bit too instinctive to exposit but it's also fairly well-grounded in real-world stuff. Fair cop. Again, just wanted to make sure they're doing their job. Yeah, I'm definitely feeling it works better there with the shorter age gap; there's less obligation for him to be in charge of her so him actually wanting to have his own damnation life isn't coming off as badly anymore. The thing about Lasila is that taken as individual pieces a lot of her positions would be fine but they're all bricks in the 'Lasila is an awful person' wall. And there's an undercurrent that while she doesn't really want him getting in the way of her life, she's still basically demanding that he remain at her disposal. But this is slightly closer to subtext than text so. She's got legitimate concerns and legitimate issues with him going, but................. I'm a little more thinking that her last girlfriend dodged a bullet (even if she was lousy in the sack)... but then, I wouldn't want to get dumped for not taking a prestigious enough job... This bit sort of frustrates me because it's part and parcel of the bisexual's dilemma. I think it should be fairly clear by this point that Lasila's fairly attracted to women (men hasn't come up because the only male she's interacted with is her brother) and there's definitely some sexual tension with Iluya which I need to fold back in because it was far more present in the original, but both of Lasila's primary love interests are men... and Iluya has a similar problem, too. I feel like doing more with the two of them together in that regard but then one runs into the problem of, again, both of them going for men overall, which, i mean, is fine, they're bi, but augh. And here I am placing a relationship with a woman but it's very much in the past and aaaaaaaaaugh again, same sort of question as for Mandamon: what's feeling less significant about this? In particular, the exclusivity clauses (and the related relationship polygons (I just drew an org chart. if i rearrange it slightly it forms a trapezoid with no bottom)(i could post it but there are ~spoilers~ lol)) here are highly plot critical, so if I'm losing people around here, that's an issue. The next chapter also has a fair bit of hammering out details around those clauses, so... Interesting, because that's one of those bits that I worried about putting in; it's sort of built up to earlier on what with her bits about actually squeezing money out of the war, but this is the first real solid indication that Lasila really doesn't actually want anything to get better if it means she doesn't directly benefit. And it felt pretty heavy-handed to me doing it like this, so, hmm. But, y'know, if it works, it works. Lasila is, if nothing else, an expert in both faking it until she makes it and being absolutely, 100% stone-cold. It comes in handy sometimes. Hehe.

Chapter 5, Lasila 3; we stop alternating next time because Lasila 4 will need to follow immediately. I'm not after anything too specific here, so do what your heart tells you for your callouts. Couple things though: * since starting this version, I've been including epigraphs and no one has commented on them. Have they been helpful? Interesting? Have you just been skipping them? * In the second section, after Lasila's questions about the lawyer are answered, is anyone being unreasonable? If so, who? * I have a couple other concerns but more of the 'turn you loose and see if anyone notices' variety, so. Previously in Lasila's story: On the eve of the living goddess Alia's death, two things happen that will change Lasila's life: she takes on a new client and her brother announces he's leaving to assist with peace talks. The work for the client promises to be routine marriage contract negotiation, and her brother is adamant that this is a real chance to end the decades-long war that's been draining the city dry. Nothing will sway him, no matter how greatly Lasila objects to him, her only living family, leaving her entirely alone. Matters only complicate when Lasila goes to pay her respects to the fallen goddess, and she encounters the mysterious priestess Maranthe who informs her that she is thick with the gifts to work shudkathra magic: the magic of the enemy, who use it in war to call down disease and demons. Maranthe implies that if Lasila would know more of this, she should attend an upcoming celebration to honour the rebirth of the goddess. (surrounding these chapters, we learn that the goddess' death is not as routine as is being put about: we encounter her murderer, a moon-kissed boy/girl forced into collusion with the moon-priest Savae, who we last saw leaving to destroy one of the canals that forces water throughout the city) This time: The routine contract negotiation turns complicated with the emergence of the other party's lawyer, and Lasila goes to meet with him.

Can't wait to see what sort of fights I start this week, hahaha. But this is a fun one, I think. It has an action scene!

Well, it's not 100% the chapter I expected to write, but I'm ready to go on the 28th.

If we need to change procedure it should be possible to get a hold of a mod to edit posts that need to be edited, that much shouldn't be an issue.

Could also set up something through mailchimp or something in the interim too, but that would require everyone signing themselves up again.

I'll be okay. Canada turns it from being in a train wreck to just watching it. So yeah. I've just had to be that person who's there for a lot of friends and a few relative strangers lately and as you can imagine I'm not super cut out for that so it's... kind of wearing and hard to process. I'll deal.

Ugh, I'm gonna work on this short I had a brief idea for. For some reason I'm not feeling cynical political fantasy this second.

No worries~

I don't think my suggestion would change in that circumstance; the reading can be handled by establishing that's what's going on and doing your scene cuts. But see what flows for you, I guess.

I think Blade of Tyshalle by Matthew Stover might have had a bit of that-- not from objects but about people. Otherwise it feels fairly familiar conceptually-- a bit more common in things like TV or film, I think, since that's a bit better suited to fast cuts like that. Technically this feels pretty simple; establish the character has these flashes, note one's coming on, make your cut to the other pov, do the scene, cut back. I would actually probably colour this a lot from the viewing character's impressions, since it's getting fed through another set of eyes on top of that. If I were feeling fancy I would do these flashes in a different tense from the main narration.

Yeah, I only crit when I sub (shooting for next week woo)-- I just do not have the time to do it when I don't, and even when I do, these days I end up not being able to get through every single one. And while I mean I of all people am not going to give anyone guff for choosing not to crit something for any given reason, I've noticed this going on a lot too, beyond just not being able to fit something in, or having chosen to leave off on a piece. The thing that keeps crit groups alive is people not, effectively, freeloading. And really, if you're not willing to say something substantive about someone's work, why in the world should you expect the same?

The poll question you originally called out doesn't address rational discussion of uncomfortable, upsetting, polarizing, or offensive ideas. (And slurs, for example, are not the same thing as hate speech; they can overlap, but they're not the same thing at all; neither does intentional offense really encompass hate speech). And yes, I think university campuses should restrict that. The question you called out is phrased thus: This is a phrasing that is geared to produce a certain response in the listener. It is a phrasing that is itself devoid of meaning because it is geared to make the listener impose their own meaning. For example, to interpret it as referring solely to 'rational discussion of uncomfortable, upsetting, polarizing, or offensive ideas'. The question here says nothing of the sort. It implies nothing of the sort. It is broad enough that it can apply to what you wish it to apply to just as easily as it can apply to holocaust denial (which is illegal to teach where I live). That question applies just as easily to Black Lives Matter as it does to the Westboro Baptist Church. It's a disingenuous poll question. And, okay, let's for argument's sake run with the notion that there's people who want legitimate government censorship of ?????????, I still fully maintain that 'well, if we say the racists shouldn't have a platform for their racism because that's censorship', that's still fundamentally supporting them over the people whom they oppress, and whose voices they silence.

Well, that's an awful poll question because it's so nebulous. Upsetting or offensive to certain groups-- that can mean literally anything. Hate speech is upsetting and offensive to certain groups, and I categorically, 100000% support anti-hate-speech laws. Allowing hate speech to prosper kills individual growth, it inhibits the ability of those targeted by hate speech to themselves speak freely-- or even to live safely. Hate speech is directly correllated with hate crimes, it is the language of oppressors, it is a language used to promulgate fear. On the other hand, for example, the very notion that black lives matter has also been shown, over and over again to be upsetting or offensive to certain groups. So I mean it's a manipulative question specifically written to produce the result that it has-- ie, to paint 72% of respondents into saying 'of course they shouldn't be able to do that'. Because phrased as it is, it's very difficult to disagree with. Flat-out, the racists (and I'm focusing on race here because of the book that started this off) have a voice. They're the voice of the status quo. They use this voice to suppress others; they're shouting over people to keep them from speaking. So I don't really have much patience for someone who would defend them over the people they work to silence. Because that's wrong. Deeply morally wrong. Look, I'm way too white for this to ring out personally from me. I'm never going to know what it's like to see my culture commodified but not credited, to live in fear that my next encounter with law enforcement will result in my death, to hear people say that it's more important that the people who want me dead be allowed to speak than I do. But I've got to do what I can to not perpetuate this sort of thing, as best I can, and part of that's not letting it pass when I see it. Oh for... yeah, see. Yeah. Stop the world, I want to get off.

I'm always baffled by what Americans consider censorship, because a commercial publisher being unwilling to provide a platform for literally any reason is hardly censorship. Does TOR censor cozy contemporary mystery writers by not publishing cozy contemporary mysteries? Is Harlequin censoring the writers of military thrillers by not publishing military thrillers? How about a publisher rejecting a story because it's hackneyed and trite? And you can say it's not the same thing, but from the corproate side, how is it different? If something is undesirable for their business model, why would they publish it? Freedom of speech-- even by the American definition-- doesn't guarantee a platform, and it doesn't guarantee an audience, and in the modern environment, there's no shortage of platform availability even if you rule out, say, all of the big five publishers. 'We're not going to help you say that' is a huge difference, both morally and legally, from 'you can't say that', or even 'you shouldn't say it'. Also, I'm going to ask you to consider the implications of what you're saying here. Racists don't struggle for a voice. Misogynists don't struggle for a voice. V*x D*y has his own personal publishing house and still manages to influence, for example, Hugo ballots, even if he gets shut down when it comes to the voting. You know who does get systematically denied a voice? People of colour. Transgender and non-binary people. Et cetera. And you get well-intentioned people who think, in the abstract, that it's bad that this happens, but when push comes to shove, they think it's more important that the people who would do harm to marginalized people retain an entrenched platform because of a nebulous concept of censorship rather than speak out-- just speak-- against the systematic denial of voice. Who would ultimately rather step up to bat for the racists (etc) than the people they harm.

Yikes.

Yeah, the first book is short but the women he does have I think are done well; it's definitely something gets better at and does more of as he goes. I don't think the next two books are quite as good as the first, but I like them pretty well. And I appreciate some of the stuff in 3, quite a lot.

About the spoiler, I'm going to waggle my hand and go 'actually yeah probably a fridging'. That character doesn't exactly have their own plotline; they're an adjunct to several others' stories. They're not the only character the story treats in this manner though, and it's got a lot of well-realized female characters so I'm not as bothered as I am under a lot of circumstances. Especially after the third book I'm pretty well satisfied the author's doing his best with women and he's doing better than most, I think. As far as Bechdel goes, this is a series that's always going to struggle with that because it's very tight third person POV of a male character; I'm not going to sweat it if the rest lines up. And I very much appreciate the way some stuff is handled in the third book; I'm not going to say more than that because it doesn't sound like others are there yet? I would not call the flashback bits interludes per se; they're as much the story as the present-day stuff, and I think it's an interesting way of going about it. It's a series I actually very much enjoy, on the whole.

Seems clear enough.

I will say, I'm not fluent, even conversationally (I can say 'I'm sorry, I don't speak Japanese' which I think is important to know for most languages, lol), and I haven't practiced in years, but a surprising amount of inspiration for the primary culture in my story is derived from politeness quirks in the Japanese language. Particularly, especially even, the fact that a direct 'no' is considered quite rude. e: this crossed my tumblr dash earlier; it's a bit hard to read up near the top because tumblr is a bad website but it's an interesting discussion of these sorts of issues.

Yeah, that's what is I believe called a T/V distinction, I believe after the french form of 'tu' and 'vous'. This is actually a fairly common distinction in indo-European languages; in general the plural form does double duty as the more formal form. English actually used to have this distinction; while we now often read 'thou' as being more formal because of its archaism, in its time it was actually the informal singular. 'You' was the formal/plural form that has in this time become the sole form. If you look back at your Lord of the Rings, this is actually a big part of why the people of Minas Tirith assume Pippin must be royal in his homeland-- he's running around calling everyone 'you' in thus the most formal possible way. Formality in English is interesting, because it's so often conflated with archaism. This does actually come up a lot with fantasy writing; because contractions are seen as informal, people will often decontract when wishing to appear formal, or they'll use perceived archaic words out of a general sense that in the 'olden days' people spoke more formally. The result generally comes out quite stilted and unnatural; part of this is the constructions actually being unnatural, but also because we're not used to hearing the language framed this way. Either way, it's generally not a good result. Social register in English is actually possible to manage, but it's fairly delicate work, because we don't really currently have a codified divide between 'formal' and 'informal' language. Mostly you have to play it by feel.

One of the problems with approach 1) that I'd like to point out is this: Even with the best of intentions and appropriate research on the part of an author, works produced by non-marginalized authors will pretty much always receive far more exposure than works by marginalized authors. This is pretty verifiable, statistics-wise; it occurs pretty broadly, not just in fiction writing. You don't have to screw anything up, but there's still a very good chance you're talking over someone discussing the same things. Now, fiction is less of a zero-sum game than, say, acting roles (where cisgender actors taking roles for transgender characters is demonstrably taking work away from transgender actors) but it's important to realize to what extent it's possible to crowd people out. Doing something well doesn't inherently mean it's harmless. This isn't to say don't, but I do feel like 'is this something I, personally, should be writing about' is a question that should generally be considered. This is far from a blanket 'option 2 is the correct one' but realize generally that even outside of diversity there's subjects we'd all inherently say that we shouldn't write about. I shouldn't write a story where the physics of rocketry is critical to the story, because I know nothing about rocket science. (it wouldn't be as big of a deal because nobody's really hurt by badly-written rocket science, but you get the gist). There really are occasions where sometimes 'this is the story I want to see, but I shouldn't be the one to write it' really is the best option. e: actually, I'm going to expand on the rocket science example. Nobody's really hurt by badly-written rocket science, but imagine if, say, I wrote a story about rocket science, and people used that story as a sign of my expertise in rocket science, and they sought out my opinions on rocket science, before they even thought to talk to an actual rocket scientist. This sort of thing actually happens a lot with issues involving marginalized people; men considered experts on women's issues over women, white people experts on black issues over black people, etc, etc, etc. (this even happens outside marginalization, too; pop science authors taken as authorities over scientists in the field, etc, but yeah)