|
|
WK34
Oct 3, 2022 20:55:11 GMT
Post by rockefeller on Oct 3, 2022 20:55:11 GMT
I read Shell's The Typewriter over a month ago and have been letting it fester, as I am increasingly wont to do, since. I'm not sure where the line between adult and young adult lies, but am pretty sure this cap falls well on the youthful side. Generally (only generally) I find the age of characters, particularly the main character, indicative of the target audience. I was going to suggest Catcher in the Rye or Lord of the Flies as exceptions, but then realized I read them both in high school. Shell's predominantly high school characters struck me as immature, even for that grade.
The plot was predictable from the get-go. Of course it's going to be a magic typewriter. Of course it's going to rain down shit upon the wholesome, nice, lovestruck protag's evil, bullying classmates. What kept me reading was wondering how it would end. For me, the characters were too black and white to believe in, and so care about, but, as a once aspiring writer myself, I was curious as to how the author would wrap things up. Convention would have the magic typewriter turn on its possessor, except that here said possessor struck me as too clueless and innocent for that sort of justice. So its instead hooking her happily ever after up with the dreamy boy she has a crush on makes sense, probably works for some young readers. Though I was disappointed. Anyway, TQR has never published YA fiction, and will not begin here.
PS I have a question for Guevara, my fellow floorite, here: How is personification different from the pathetic fallacy?
|
|
|
|
Post by guevara on Oct 12, 2022 18:32:56 GMT
Rockafeller: Personification is when you give a characteristic or trait human form. Let's say you create a character who is kind to everyone. She "personifies" kindness. She is a character meant to illustrate what kindness is. So Heathcliff in the novel Wuthering Heights is the personification of vindictiveness. The pathetic fallacy is giving a human characteristic or ability to a nonhuman thing. So, like I said earlier, "I missed the fly ball and it lay there on the ground laughing at me"; or, the mountain scoffed and dared me to climb it. Well, I've never heard a baseball laugh or a mountain scoff. You could say, "The mountain stood there, tall and rugged, as if it were scoffing at me and daring me to climb it." You're not attributing human characteristics to it, you're illustrating what your imagination said. That's the difference between the two things.
|
|
|
|
WK34
Oct 16, 2022 13:12:43 GMT
Post by rockefeller on Oct 16, 2022 13:12:43 GMT
Despite its striking me as more of a blog or journal entry than a short story with a plot and character arc, a beginning and ending and all that, I'm terminalizing Both Men on Bui Vien. I've never been to Vietnam (though I almost scored a probably one-way tour back in the late 60's when Amerika was napalming and carpet-bombing them in a "police action" with motivations totally opaque to everyone I knew), and Holden's memoir excerpt, or whatever, seemed to offer a real taste. I especially liked the scene with the prostitute, which struck me as particularly authentic.
PS Thanks for the clarification on personification, Guevara. I'm not convinced that the pathetic fallacy is always wrong. I'm sure I've seen it used as a literary device by some pretty respectable writers. You know, like the sun smiling down, the wisdom of mountains and all that. Even the universe is considered by some to be a conscious construct.
|
|
|
|
WK34
Oct 26, 2022 16:12:46 GMT
Post by sturgeon on Oct 26, 2022 16:12:46 GMT
This journal is full of mysteries.
Why did "Both Men on Bui Vien" get sent to the Terminali, yet I can't see a review of it here on the floor? (Spoiler alert: I didn't like it at all.) And yet Rockefeller was so complimentary about "Beside the Sickle Moon", but it seems to have got lost on the way to the second floor?
For that matter, it's a mystery to me why some of the caps in the Terminal get two yesses and don't get published (eg "How I Truly Met Your Mother") - I'd love to know why Rorschalk nixed 'em. And vice-versa, at least one story got published without going through the Terminal. Some stories get a yes and a no in the Terminal and yet never seem to get a tiebreak (eg "The Unexamined Life").
The Inkblot moves in mysterious ways.
But, hey, this remains the only journal on the net where every VC gets to see under the hood, for better or worse. Not only that, but most VCs get a pretty detailed critique from some of the best investors working today - and/or from me.
The greatest mystery of all, perhaps, is that this whole machine hangs together as well as it does. Kudos.
|
|
|
|
WK34
Oct 26, 2022 17:50:06 GMT
Post by rorschalk on Oct 26, 2022 17:50:06 GMT
Yes. Owing to my God complex this journal, at times, works in mysterious ways. One of its operating principles is Ralph Waldo Emerson's "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." We do, however, try to keep a high degree of consistency, you must agree, but there will always be exceptions to the rule and that's just life.
I have to research beside the sickle moon cap, thank you for bringing that to my attention. I must admit I am not as attentive as I once used to be.
As for How I Truly Met Your Mother, I believe my critique that disqualified it from becoming a capital gain is still up on the site, and quite exhaustive and very helpful, as the VC noted upon its receipt.
The inclusion of Chris Miller's excellent cap was I admit an executive decision which bypassed the process altogether, something I think I have done once before. We hadn't published anything in quite awhile and I had previously read it and was wowed by it and it occurred to me that if we didn't publish something right away duotrope would consign us to the perdition of "inactive status" so I did what I had to do. You must admit it is a very deserving piece, regardless of how it got there. When someone gives you gold, you don't quibble. I wish I had something more clever to say about it, but I don't. It stands on its merits as far as I'm concerned.
The Unexamined Life has been a thorn in our side, you are most correct to say. I reached out to Guevara about it the other day. It may have been a case that I farmed out to DePlancher, who has been slowly receding from our orbit these last few years, her unmooring no doubt having some to do with her partner in crime Doomey abruptly going away.
Speaking of Dep, coincidentally she made her dissolution from the haunted disco official just the other day. We should all take a moment to honor her 20 years of service to our ungainly operation here in the cyber theater of nightmares and dreams. DePlancher, we salute you!
I have addressed your concerns to the best of my ability here. I believe this has something to do with my request to redo your latest critique. I understand it's asking a lot, and perhaps a hit to your pride. Not sure how to word that! A confrontational post maybe? You obviously understand and admire what this place was made for and I truly appreciate that grokking of the bottom line. We're all capital managers here of various stripes and unique opinions in that other world apart from the fantastic world of TQR. TQR is hanging by a thread and has been for a very long time. Each and every one of your efforts is as important as an "only move" in chess that must be made in order for the game to go on, a wrong move spelling checkmate or damage so great that any thought of coming back from it is nothing short of a dream. I am honored that you see the machine hanging together so well when it's truly teetering on the ledge now more than ever.
All I am asking is we give the VC more than "I can tell you're not of my political persuasion so go pound sand." (Although, that would be an epic troll/critique, come to think of it.) The paragraph above it about the excessive adverbs was on point and could have stood alone, albeit somewhat short shrifting of the VC, and I'd have not raised a fuss, nor an eyebrow.
Now, I must away to go see a man about a sickle moon...
PS pasted from the TQRspeak page: Investors = readers of TQR (they are investing their valuable time).
|
|
|
|
WK34
Oct 26, 2022 19:41:47 GMT
Post by guevara on Oct 26, 2022 19:41:47 GMT
The Grotian Tapestry
“The Grotian Tapestry” started out with promise but then quickly went off course. The set-up was intriguing. A magician is polluting the river of a town, making it do strange, perverse things—things that have destroyed the weaving industry upon which the area survives. So far so good.
Someone hires Delza, a woman warrior, to do something about the situation. She arrives, is slightly affected by the magician’s curse, but finds help and healing. She agrees to go after the sorcerer (who, we find out later is a sorceress). Delza seems quite taken with Min, daughter of the man who summoned her—and this is where the story begins to go off the tracks.
The story fails on its depictions of characters—a thing that derails a very good plot trajectory and ruins what could have been an entertaining tale.
We are soon introduced to Galloway, a local warrior/strong man. But he is presented not as a real character but as a caricature of the egoistical, bullying male. He embodies rudeness, pig-headedness, male chauvinism, and just plain idiocy. He calls Delza “girl,” assumes she loves him at first sight, and is presented as an idiot, a bigot, an egoist and a sexist.
The trouble with this is that when a character in a story is so completely irredeemable—when he or she has no admirable qualities—the figure is boring and becomes an allegorical fabrication and not a true human being. Very few people are completely evil, stupid, or self-centered. Even the most wicked and stupid are, at base, human beings. Galloway, unfortunately, does not possess even basic grace. Delza ends up killing him.
It is here that the storyteller takes yet another twist. Delza notes that “a man’s weakness is between his legs, not in his heart.” Soon Min and Delza get cozy. Soon all the female characters are getting cozy.
I have read some really good literature that contains lesbian relationships. But such literature fails when it relies on cliches, stereotypes, and caricatures. And throughout the story, just this is the case.
Delza falls for Min; she finds out the sorcerer, Carter, is a woman and falls for her. Min is killed. Suddenly Delza has developed a strong liking for Carter. The two ride off together and, we assume, live happily ever after.
Characters who do not act realistically when they experience loss (as Delza does not when Min is killed) and who fall in love with someone they don’t even know (as Delza does with Min and Carter) are not believable characters. They are excuses to continue a plotline. The male characters in the story are stupid, bumbling, treacherous, and ridiculous. All in all, tale falls flat due to its lack of believable and compelling characters.
Too bad. It started off so well …
|
|
|
|
WK34
Oct 26, 2022 20:37:06 GMT
Post by sturgeon on Oct 26, 2022 20:37:06 GMT
Yes. Owing to my God complex this journal, at times, works in mysterious ways. One of its operating principles is Ralph Waldo Emerson's "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." We do, however, try to keep a high degree of consistency, you must agree, but there will always be exceptions to the rule and that's just life.
Long live TQR. |
|
|
|
WK34
Oct 26, 2022 20:47:48 GMT
Post by rorschalk on Oct 26, 2022 20:47:48 GMT
Regardless of our real world pecadilloes, we are working toward the same end. One who understands our intentions here such as yourself is, to belabor a word I've used twice today, gold. Striking nerves and showing passion is what fuels this place and you have given it out today in spades.
|
|
|
|
WK34
Oct 28, 2022 13:23:06 GMT
Post by rockefeller on Oct 28, 2022 13:23:06 GMT
At the request of our illustrious leader and simian in charge, to put a rush on this cap, I read Bob Beach's Independence Day yesterday. On the plus side, I read it clean through, found it engaging and was never tempted to skip or even skim. The prose is tight, easy to parse. The first hook sinks nicely. Why is the MC's wife acting so uncharacteristically nice? I wanted to know. Turns out she wants breast implants. Really? That's it. Slap 'em on the Visa. Surprise that shallow, materialist dick of a husband for his birthday or an anniversary or whatever. At worst, beg forgiveness. Or, at second worst, dump him and take (at least) half his stuff (w/ alimony). Is how I was thinking anyway. But because he's a patriarchal yuppie prick and she's somehow both feisty and submissive and still very much in love with this 2D dude, they have a 60's type Ward and June Cleaver sort of relationship where he calls all the shots, enjoys all the perks, and she asks permission for scraps.
Ordinarily in this sort of setup the guy suffers a setback on his materialistic journey, experiences some life and attitude altering comeuppance, and either grows into a better human being and thrives, or crashes and burns, which, given his unlikeability, would've been my preference. But, as it turns out, neither is the case.
Correction: I just reread the final paragraph, and see now that it's the former of the two scenarios (albeit without the setback) that appears to be in the works. He'll grant her the tits. Improvement to his character is, if not demonstrated, at least prognosticated.
I feel like the Beach let himself off a little easily with this rather quick wrap up. I disliked the MC too much for it to be satisfying. Poetic, yes, but still too summary to be entertaining. A rare instance where more would've actually been more. But hey, I was wrong in my initial assessment, it was an overall knowledgeable fun read, and so I'm letting it ascend. I'm guessing the Fish, who is perhaps the most widely read editor I've ever known, will like it. The Bull, whose predilections often run parallel to my own, will find it mildly objectionable. Curious to see.
|
|
|
|
WK34
Oct 28, 2022 13:37:58 GMT
Post by rockefeller on Oct 28, 2022 13:37:58 GMT
Hey Sturgeon, my "review" of that "Both Men on Bui Vien" cap is third from the top in this thread. It's a lot less verbose than is my wont, which is probably how you missed it. Structurally, it's not really a short story, which is why you might not have liked it. I'm going to go read your remarks on it now to see if I'm right. You know I have the utmost respect for your opinion.
PS: Very sad to hear Dep's retired. I'll miss her flowery wit. But at least she's alive (which has not always been the case with our retirees here). I hope she's living large.
|
|
|
|
WK34
Nov 6, 2022 0:03:30 GMT
Post by guevara on Nov 6, 2022 0:03:30 GMT
"Sunrise on Good Mountain" is a good story—a very good story! Let me explain why.
The author in this endeavor tells a story. He does not go off into exotic pathways, attempt to create a dystopian, futuristic, or dysfunctional society; does not create unrealistic characters, makes the characters believable—at least plausible if you are willing to give them the benefit of a doubt. This makes “Sunrise on Good Mountain” an appealing, enjoyable, and worthwhile tale.
In a way, the story is an old one, a plot that has been reworked in various ways for centuries—no, for millennia. It can be classified in the old tradition of the “trickster story.” The trickster is an ancient fictional figure and seems to exist in almost every human culture. Native American tribes had multiple stories about Coyote, the trickster animal who constantly outwits humans, other animals, and the gods. In Greek mythology, Prometheus outwits Zeus and makes a fool of him several times. We know, of course, that at last he is captured and cruelly punished for this. But the Greeks would not permit him to suffer forever, so eventually you have the stories of “Prometheus Unbound.” At last he is set free. The Greeks could not tolerate a trickster being punished for his brilliance and trickery—neither, apparently, could Zeus, as the tales tell us. Puss in Boots tricks the ogre. Jacob is a trickster in the Bible. Every man or woman in a fairy tale who outwits a magician, finds the answer to a riddle, defeats a sorcerer or witch by outwitting them—all of these are tricksters. The author of this venture plugs into that old tradition and uses it skillfully and entertainingly.
I won’t go into the plot. It is a somewhat standard plot but has an element of mystery to it. Despite being a standard plot, it is convincing and believable. The characters have a reason for behaving the way they do. The characters come across as genuine. And there is an element of testing and quest in it. But overall, it is funny. And, oddly, one does not know if the woman who is the trickster figure in the story is lying so she can make a profit, telling the truth but managing to make a profit from that, or something else. Even so, the story is compelling, interesting, and, in the end, downright funny. It’s not so far-fetched that you would think it could never happen. It is not unique, innovative, or brilliantly original. But the writing is all of these things, and that is what matters in a story; not just what the author is telling, but how he or she tells it—the skill with which the tale is delivered.
As I said, I like this particular venture a lot.
|
|
|
|
WK34
Nov 10, 2022 15:07:55 GMT
Post by rockefeller on Nov 10, 2022 15:07:55 GMT
I read Cultera's Did Neanderthals Go to Heaven Too? a couple weeks ago, a sci-fi offering in which technology allows the afterlife to be exposed, monetized and monopolized through corporatist fascism. Really tough call. In a way it's exactly the sort of SF I go for, an idea piece where plot and characters feel secondary at times to the research and philosophical musings. In the end, we'll be able to pay our way into heaven. Not sure how heavenly it'd be all chock full of rich pricks, but then I've never been a fan of eternal consciousness in any form that I can imagine.
If death were just the stopping of one's brain activity, a lot of people could say what it was like (humor here unintentional). But medically you aren't dead until modern (someday to be ancient) medicine sees no possibility of resuscitation. So it's getting harder and harder to die. Eventually it'll probably be impossible for anyone to stay dead, even those of us who've been eaten by saber tooth tigers, decomposing for millennia, or vaporized by atomic bombs. Never underestimate technology's reach or the universe's ability to remember. The Amish have this expression, "You're a long time dead." But actually, as in subjectively, there's no difference between before birth and after death, so you're not dead, as in nonexistent, for any length of time at all. For me anyway, the 14 billion years prior to my conception passed in less than a heartbeat, and I expect the trillion, or however many, years pursuant to my life to pass equally quickly.
None of which has anything to do with the cap in question here. Except maybe to expose certain personal biases towards its themes. I found the sex scenes, indeed the MC's entire relationship with his wife, a little superfluous, as in inducing of the same sort of gag reflex I experience when reading the back covers of the low-rack romance novels in Zehrs while Ms Rocks shops, but without the laugh. Though I kind of liked his relationship with the old indigenous woman.
Like most cap, it needs an edit. E.g.:
...from what I was seeing it had to be at least doubled that.
After you answers a few questions to our satisfactions...
Thousands of little rodents occupied every squared inch of ground.
But it seems like a fair amount of thought and effort went into this yarn, and that it might warrant further reflection and abuse from the denizens above. I know y'all are super busy with your own growth and survival, and I apologize if I've read this wrong. Know that your responses ("Moo... Glub...") will impact my future ambivalences (on the fencers).
|
|
|
|
WK34
Nov 24, 2022 15:11:50 GMT
Post by rockefeller on Nov 24, 2022 15:11:50 GMT
Okay, I've got three subs festering in my FIFO queue. Currently on deck is Hanson's "The Price" which I read on the weekend during a lull in the dish pit. Some fine description. Seemed well edited. Didn't like it. Some inexplicably obsessed, rich and powerful dude has gone to great lengths to track down some mutant cross between a beautiful woman and a bunch of disgusting sea creatures in order to hear her (its?) disgusting story of an evil priest and some zombie-esque woman, all in exchange for one of his arms (though it only cost me about 15 minutes of my life). It's chock full of gross, albeit well penned, mutilations and ickiness, which appear to be its sole raison d'etre. For, to my mind, it had no metaphorical or literal depth. It was just a creepy tale for the sake of creepiness. Meaningless, thoughtless, idealess, but for its apt description. A hard pass. Into the Porthole and all that.
Contrast that now with a novel entitled "The F. U. Kid" written by our very own Ted Rorschalk. Got it via Amazon yesterday and began reading it last night. Just so no one accuses me of ass-kissing the boss, I'll mention that I read another book of his and, while I found it intelligent and voicey, didn't like it. Plus we don't get paid here. For context, I want to say it's been a long time since I really enjoyed a novel. I'm also currently reading "The Algebraist" by Iaian Banks, a long, galaxy spanning SF by an author who seems to crank these things out fairly routinely. Starts okay... but then bores. Too many weird species and proper nouns. Plot, such as it is, lost in way too much chitchat. Cliche tropes. Dubious science, even by SF (though maybe not today's covid) standards. Really more a work of fantasy, which, like Hanson's cap, has no prognostic cautionings or symbolic layer. Imaginative, okay, maybe. But essentially the work of an unnaturally erudite and articulate child. Two pages is more than enough to knock me out cold.
So it was easy to take a break from it in order to taste Rorschalk's latest work. A dozen chapters in and I had to force myself to stop. The voice is simple but intense. I found myself reading way too many passages aloud to Mrs. Rocks, who, surprisingly, never complained. Even though I read "Catcher in the Rye" almost 60 years ago. This fucked up, fuck-you kid reminded me immediately of Holden Caulfield, which I'll assume was intentional, since he then alludes Salinger's novel (which he doesn't like) at least a few times. In addition to being a credible, engaging character, he says a lot of things that dearly need saying today, pontificates on everything from covid bullshit to white privilege to divisive racial hyphenation to wokeness to evolution. Doesn't hold back or mollycoddle, lets it all hang out. It probably helps that I mostly strongly agree. Not hard to see the whole rona fiasco as just spent old fucks like me whizzing out past our best-before dates, desperately clinging to a few more precious minutes of our demises by throwing our progeny under the bus. If it were a subbed cap, regardless of the word count, I'd totally send it up (not bad, but still deserves an editorial scrape). It needed writing. And Ted was the one to do it. Now it needs reading.
I dipped into Ron Sanders' submission "The Empire" a couple weeks ago. Only a paragraph or so. Forget what it was all about. Only remember that it was hard to stop, that it had potential. Then it's Camden's "The Game." So it'll be a while, and probably not be worth the wait.
|
|
|
|
WK34
Nov 28, 2022 14:41:17 GMT
Post by rorschalk on Nov 28, 2022 14:41:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
WK34
Dec 12, 2022 14:34:30 GMT
Post by rockefeller on Dec 12, 2022 14:34:30 GMT
Finally got around to Sanders' Empire cap the other day, which is, in my subjective view, a winner. The sort of thing that's fun to read, was probably fun to write, and, more importantly, has something to say. The abundance of humor tempers what I felt to be an angry work, a snicker of hopelessness.
Or maybe it's just that, personally, I've all but had it with our politicians, and even our species. We are all either great usurpers or greatly usurped, or some admixture thereof. But I don't think we're any worse or better than we ever were. The native Americans, with their zillion "nations" and whom Sanders' story metaphorically references, were not (to say the least) nice to each other. Those enslaved here, had long enslaved others. But the world is smaller now, and bullshit is not just more readily disseminated, but also exposed.
The cap is rife with hilarious allusions to popular SF. The description and world building are excellent. Initially, I disliked the ending. The Grey elder suggested unimagined powers to resist Earth's imperialism, a narrative promise that seemed never kept. But on further reflection, it was the only true ending. The poor, beautiful, projectile-lactating sheep got what they deserved.
Was it too heavy handed in its mockeries? I wondered, but then thought, no, it's hysterical. Send it up. All the way up.
|
|
