Post by rorschalk on Sept 6, 2022 14:05:17 GMT
Dear Mr. VC,
Unfortunately, The Neuroprojector did not make it up off the floor. Here's Rockefeller's critique:
rockefeller Avatar
Posts: 194
Sep 4, 2022 at 7:20am Post Options
Post by rockefeller on Sep 4, 2022 at 7:20am
The lawyer who handled my parents' estate used to write in his emails, "If you have any questions, just ask myself." Because he billed at 400 per, and his minimum time slot was 12 minutes so that just him or his secretary's opening an email or answering the phone cost upwards of 80 dollars, I almost never did. Though I did once reply to him that one does not after, say, discovering one has made an incredibly stupid mistake exclaim, "Fuck myself!" but rather, "Fuck me!" (or some variation thereof). See, only you can ask yourself. And though I think he billed for his time in considering this edit, he never changed his grammar.
I relate the above fascinating anecdote only because Tom Hooke's The Neuroprojector suffers from a similar literary bent, which, even though the voice is quite well done and reminded me of something I once read of Poe's, where some poor schmuck gets bricked behind a wall in some revenge seeker's basement (wine cellar, I think), distracted a little. Not, in and of itself, enough to porthole the work. One (i.e., Hooke) could even argue that the mistakes were intentional, in voice, in character. The first person narrator in Wallace's brilliant Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature refers several times to his own "literary bend."
The challenge with writing in a strong voice that is (probably) not one's own (but rather gleaned from others' writings) is in staying concise and interesting. The voice cannot overshadow the tale, which, in this historical sci-fi (steampunk) yarn of a brilliant neuroscientist who invents a machine that can play videos of people's thoughts, therethrough allowing his partner (and narrator) to solve his (said brilliant neuroscientist's) own murder, does, and so drags and repeats at times, lending to the prose the kind of stuffiness that wears. I seem to recall the partner being opposed to the machine before the murder, but almost overly supportive of it after, which, given the speed I was reading, might not be a plot hole, but was still a head-scratcher. So, no. TQR will not be publishing it. And so there is still hope.
I'm tempted to apologize for taking so long to "review" this and other submissions. Since retiring, I've had much less free time. But then I remember from my own days of copious subbing, that quick turnarounds (so quick at times you just know no one read your work) while you're still very close to the piece, can be most discouraging. Whereas long waits beget long periods of hopefulness and anticipation, which when eventually disappoint have all but been forgotten.
Unfortunately, The Neuroprojector did not make it up off the floor. Here's Rockefeller's critique:
rockefeller Avatar
Posts: 194
Sep 4, 2022 at 7:20am Post Options
Post by rockefeller on Sep 4, 2022 at 7:20am
The lawyer who handled my parents' estate used to write in his emails, "If you have any questions, just ask myself." Because he billed at 400 per, and his minimum time slot was 12 minutes so that just him or his secretary's opening an email or answering the phone cost upwards of 80 dollars, I almost never did. Though I did once reply to him that one does not after, say, discovering one has made an incredibly stupid mistake exclaim, "Fuck myself!" but rather, "Fuck me!" (or some variation thereof). See, only you can ask yourself. And though I think he billed for his time in considering this edit, he never changed his grammar.
I relate the above fascinating anecdote only because Tom Hooke's The Neuroprojector suffers from a similar literary bent, which, even though the voice is quite well done and reminded me of something I once read of Poe's, where some poor schmuck gets bricked behind a wall in some revenge seeker's basement (wine cellar, I think), distracted a little. Not, in and of itself, enough to porthole the work. One (i.e., Hooke) could even argue that the mistakes were intentional, in voice, in character. The first person narrator in Wallace's brilliant Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature refers several times to his own "literary bend."
The challenge with writing in a strong voice that is (probably) not one's own (but rather gleaned from others' writings) is in staying concise and interesting. The voice cannot overshadow the tale, which, in this historical sci-fi (steampunk) yarn of a brilliant neuroscientist who invents a machine that can play videos of people's thoughts, therethrough allowing his partner (and narrator) to solve his (said brilliant neuroscientist's) own murder, does, and so drags and repeats at times, lending to the prose the kind of stuffiness that wears. I seem to recall the partner being opposed to the machine before the murder, but almost overly supportive of it after, which, given the speed I was reading, might not be a plot hole, but was still a head-scratcher. So, no. TQR will not be publishing it. And so there is still hope.
I'm tempted to apologize for taking so long to "review" this and other submissions. Since retiring, I've had much less free time. But then I remember from my own days of copious subbing, that quick turnarounds (so quick at times you just know no one read your work) while you're still very close to the piece, can be most discouraging. Whereas long waits beget long periods of hopefulness and anticipation, which when eventually disappoint have all but been forgotten.