Precious Fate--new romantic story

[mythrender]

Hi all writers and readers,

I submitted a story that was just posted. The story is called Precious Fate Ch1 and Ch2 and can be found in the "New" and in the "Romance" catagories. It is long (2 chapters with 3 parts each) but I've gotten good feedback and the voting score is high so far. Beware that the length of it may be daunting to those who do not have the patience for the developement of plot, setting, characterization and mood. I, however, believe that as these are essential elements in the writing of any literature, they must also be present in erotic literature. If you just want a "Fuck" story, this is not the story for you.

Please be sure you read both chapters as it was written as one continuous story rather than one story and then a sequel. As such, if you read chapter one but not two you will miss most of the hotter material.

I would love to here any feedback on this story.

Thanks,
Mythrender

 

[mythrender]

Links to Precious Fate

Here are links to both chapters of Precious Fate :

Chapter 1: http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=110056

Chapter 2: http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=110058

Enjoy,
Mythrender

 

[Rainbow Skin]

Well I haven't read all of it but I'm interested in literacy, lyricism, balance, and beauty, so your invitation was appealing.

You write well. Essentially, you've got it. Please don't be downcast by what I say. But there's something continually worrying me as I read: something not quite right, something detracting from the enjoyment. It's hard to pinpoint. After a while I came up with two things you might want to polish a bit.

Firstly it sounds just a bit too formal. This story is narrated by some kind of clinician, or someone who is familiar with the rather leaden writing of the social sciences. It comes out: as if he's a bit more used to writing up cases than spinning tales. It's not quite pompous, I wouldn't go that far, but it's a little bit stiff.

Let's start back at the first paragraph for examples:

Her husband stood next to her exuding an aura of arrogance and antipathy, his eyes like chips of ice.

Individually, each of 'exuding', 'aura', 'arrogance', and 'antipathy' is a good word, but packed so closely they bog it down in long words. Is the alliteration intentional?

Then there's the visualization. I suppose you can exude (sweat out) an aura, and I suppose there can be an aura of arrogance rather than just, say, an impression of arrogance, or a picture or attitude of arrogance, but with all these unfamiliar collocations put together I have to stop and think whether it's quite what you mean. Further, we can metaphorically describe eyes as cold, or even as 'as cold as ice', but can an eye be like a chip of ice, even metaphorically?

That detailed picking-apart of one sentence illustrates my faint disquiet all the way through. There's nothing that's definitely wrong. It's just a faint sense of doubt that you actually visualized these things rather than just choosing long words.

I'm now going to pick on a few phrases that raise the same kind of doubt, with less commentary:

Her paperwork painted a picture of a woman who,

Something can metaphorically paint a picture, but I think paperwork can't be quite that picturesque. Her paperwork told a story of..., perhaps.

There was no deceptive, acquired front cover with this one either.

A deceptive front; an acquired front. But a front cover is something literally on the front of a magazine. You've used 'front cover' as a more varied way of saying 'front', but you can't actually substitute it wherever 'front' is used: not in 'deceptive front'.

No facade of toughness or duplicity

What would a facade of duplicity be? You've created this expression out of three faults: toughness; duplicity; and having a false front or face. The third applies to toughness, but it doesn't make sense with the other. (You're fooled by the fact that facade and duplicity both imply doubleness.) You mean something like: no facade, no false toughness, no duplicity; or: no facade of toughness, no duplicity.

the kind of love that is based on empathy and an honest desire to help those afflicted with the disease of addiction.

The clinician speaking again. The clinician in the narrator has added the words 'afflicted' and 'disease'. This is spoken (or written) by someone who has read a lot of social work, and is at the moment speaking more from that than from his own heart.

and I would not allow myself to drop into that pitfall

You don't (normally) drop into a pit. You fall into a pit. But you've already decided that 'pitfall' is a good word to use, so you've baulked at writing 'fall into that pitfall'. The solution is not to use the unnatural 'drop' but to (reluctantly) give up your good word 'pitfall'.

I think this is symptomatic. You decide you want to use a word that seems right: 'duplicity', 'pitfall', 'afflicted'. Unfortunately the most natural sentence construction doesn't allow it, so you twist the sentence slightly to squeeze it in.

As I implied at the start, basically you know what you're doing and have no big problems with either words or constructions. This is polishing I'm advising on now.

 

[Rainbow Skin]

Word choice

Hang on, I said there were two things I'd identified, and then didn't mention the other one. It's word choice. I think occasionally you have slightly the wrong word.

Pitfall is one. I don't think we ever do talk of falling (or dropping) into a pitfall. We just say something is a pitfall. Or: 'One of the pitfalls of this approach is...' -- That is, in practice, 'pitfall' is really just a kind of problem, not a kind of pit. Possibly it would work better with just 'pit'.

Perhaps he held some redeemable qualities that were hidden from me.

If he had some redeeming qualities then he was redeemable (able to be redeemed).

Actually this isn't a recurring fault. You mistakenly used 'plutonic' for 'platonic', and I was going to quibble with 'luminescence', but it's not a recurring fault.

Okay, but while I'm here I'm going to return to the previous problem. You take a certain form of words -- not exactly a cliche, but an established form -- and use them in a way that isn't quite right, which is subtly inappropriate. Here's a sentence with two such in it:

Tears brimmed on the edges of her eyelashes as she tumbled head long into the story of her doomed marriage.

'On the edges of her eyelashes' -- as opposed to where else on her eyelashes? Tears on her eyelashes is already an edge-like variation from tears in her eyes. Adding 'edges of' makes it uncomfortably physical and the reader wonders (well I do) whether tears really well up on the edges of eyelashes. Did you actually visualize this, or did you just think the word 'edges' added a nice, tender distancing effect? And after that, she tumbled headlong into a story -- as opposed to tumbling into it but tumbling in some less dramatic way? 'Tumbling' sounds good; 'headlong' sounds good; but resist the urge to pile one on top of the other. Do it if she's falling down a mineshaft, but not where the one is merely a metaphor for hurrying to speak.

 

[mythrender]

Re:feedback

Rainbow skin,

I do thank you for the feedback. Much of it I took to heart, however, some of it I would dispute.

First off, I agree with many of the problems you found in terms of word choice. I think if I would have edited better I might have caught some of these.

For example, the use of the word "redeemable" instead of "redeeming" was syntactically incorrect. People as a whole are redeemable (or not), where as a persons qualities are redeeming. I also did not like the sentece with the word "pitfalls." You were right on the money! I so badly wanted to use the word that I demolished the rest of the sentence to work it in.

I do also take your point about the "...eyes like chips of ice" phrase but I think I like the similie too much to let it go. I was thinking of going with a metaphor (eg. "eyes were chips of ice") but after hearing your feedback I am glad I didn't.

I had trouble digesting some of the things you stated about my lack of visualization. Indeed I found it hard not to be insulted especially when you make reference to it being unbelievable.

First of all, I do realize that the beginning of my story sounded a bit "clinical" as if written by a "clinician." But did you fail to note that the narrator was, indeed, a clinician. The fact of the matter is that I quite literally am that narrator and I do indeed work as a clinician at a drug and alcohol facility. I did indeed do this woman's admission and did indeed note the "aura of arrogance and antipathy" in her huband. Exude, by the way, means, not only to "ooze", as you seem to think, but also "to display conspicuously or abundantly"--Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition. If fact, my dictionary does not even mention anything about sweating.

Many persons in recovery would find your criticism of the phrase, "afflicted with the disease of addiction," highly insulting. I may be a clinician, but am also a proud recovering person of 12 years. I have never even cracked the binding on a social work book and long before I ever started working at the treatment center I knew that I was afflicted with a disease. The fact of the matter is, addiction is indeed a disease and, thus, addicts are afflicted with it. To even imply otherwise is to suggest that we are morally deficient or deviant.

I do thank you for your feedback Rainbow. Again, much of it I took to heart. I invite you to read the rest of the story which strays away from recovery issues and focuses more on the relationship between me and this woman. Starting from the point where I arrive at the Convention, the story becomes pure fantasy with no true to life basis.

In addition to the things that I do wrong it would be good to hear what I am doing right. Contrary to popular belief, there is learning to be done in response to our successes as well as our shortcomings.

Thanks again,
Mythrender

 

[CWatson]

Originally posted by mythrender
First of all, I do realize that the beginning of my story sounded a bit "clinical" as if written by a "clinician." But did you fail to note that the narrator was, indeed, a clinician. The fact of the matter is that I quite literally am that narrator and I do indeed work as a clinician at a drug and alcohol facility.

All right, but you don't have to write like one, do you?

Clinical or factual analysis has its place in any story; personally, I use it quite a bit, because I think (hope) it adds that touch of veracity that makes a story really believable. But it shouldn't be the overall tone of the story. Right now your work has overtones of a textbook. If we wanted that, we would take PSYC 304 Psychology Of Attraction or something. We don't. We want a love story, and that means abandoning the clinical and diving straight into the illogical, tempestuous emotions that really make it work.

We want to get INTO the story (he said, with a sudden burst of inspiration): and clinical observation requires viewing it from the OUTSIDE. That's where your problem is.

This is not to say that there isn't room for your psychological observations. Absolutely not. They're part of what MAKES the story, or at least makes it UNIQUE--your particular perspective, which includes your knowledge of people's behaviors and why they behave that way. If people like your story (as I do), your observations and in-the-head understanding are going to be a big part of WHY they like it.

But, as Tabby King once said (and I've already misquoted), "You don't have to bore me with it, do you?"

One book on How To Write describes the story's language--diction, word choice, tone, etc--as the window or lens through which we view the story. The language should be transparent, allowing us to see the story through it and, in fact, forget it's there. Your language is not transparent. The clinical tone, some of your dialogue, and (as RS has already pointed out) sometimes your word choice, conspire to grime the glass and, if not obscure the story (the story comes across VERY well), won't let us forget about the glass. If you WANT us to be aware of that--well, fine, you've done it well, I congratulate you. But most readers don't like it.

Finally, one misspelling RS didn't catch: at one point in Ch 1, while retelling your counseling sessions with your beloved, you describe yourself as having a "plutonic" relationship with her. I think you meant "Platonic." At least I hope you did. Sort of a big difference between Plato and Pluto.

 

[Rainbow Skin]

You don't have to agree with any of my criticisms: no particular one stuck out blatantly as needing correction. It was a disquiet with the overall tone rather than a listing of mistakes.

However, CWatson is right. My complaint is not of your adding clinical detail, but in writing in an inappropriate style. You do it again in your reply. You can't see the difference between the content (the fact that addiction is an affliction) and the style (saying so in so many words, at a place in the story that doesn't need it).

I had already gone and checked another story of yours to see if it was free of this -- to see whether you were deliberately using stuffy language because of who your narrator was. But the other story showed much the same style.

If that dictionary you used doesn't give etymology, I think you need a better dictionary. I am rather sensitive to etymologies: so exude means literally 'sweat out' (ex-sudare) and other meanings derive from it by extension. Perhaps to me it's a clash of visual metaphors, but if you're not aware of the literal meaning you won't see the clash. Probably most people won't, so it's not an important point.

when you make reference to it being unbelievable

I don't think I did. I can't find any reference to believability in what I said. On the contrary, it was very believable: it was clearly realistic, and overall it was well conveyed. I can readily believe that any or every little aspect of what you describe was what you actually saw or experienced.

Perhaps you're thinking I was doubting what you saw. I wasn't: I was doubting what you visualized. Visualization is the process when you're alone at your desk chewing the top of your biro trying to work out what words to use to convey your memory accurately. You call up what she looked like: the slight tears, the fluttering of her eyelashes, the feeling of tenderness that surged up in you. You are looking for which words will best express this far too complex picture.

I suggested that perhaps in a few cases you picked up on words that sounded right, and put them down without noticing that they don't quite work together. On her eyelashes -- good. On the edges of her eyes -- good. So on the edges of her eyelashes must also be good -- well, not necessarily. Here is where you should be thinking not of that scene that you remember (and of which your memory is perfectly clear) but of the more general question of whether the complex expression 'edges of her eyelashes' does in fact correspond to what you remember.

 

[mythrender]

RS and CW feedback

Thank you both for your patience with me,

I get a bit hung up on pride sometimes and I'm sorry that I got defensive. My problem is that when ever I write or indeed even speak to persons other than my closest friend's I do so in a formal manner. Perhaps I do this in an unconcious effort to contrast myself from the way I spoke and acted back in the bad old days.

At any rate, I thank you both sincerely and ask that you forgive my attitude. Please, if you have not already done so, read the rest of the story and tell me what you think. I'd be particularly interested to see if you think that the clinical/overly formal tone becomes less apparent as the story moves progressively into the relationship and subsequent sexual encounters. My geuss is that you will still find it there (as it seems deeply engrained in my style) but will see that it decreases in severity and frequency.

I am going to edit this story with some of your changes in mind. Especially those that involve blatant word choice or word usage errors such as the redeemable/redeeming and the plutonic/platonic problems...the ones where the meaning or usage are at direct odds with proper english.

I'll also evaluate some of the other issues. I think I will change the "pitfall" sentence and I'll tone down the "afflicted with the disease of addiction" phrase. I'll look at changing many of the others as well.

I fear, however, that these changes will appear a bit cosmetic and will not do a whole lot to alter the overall tone which really seems to be my problem. I'm not sure if a change on that level will come so easily. Perhaps if I could just tone it down a bit. I realize that there are times when using larger more formal words is not neccessarily better. In short, why use a 50 cent word when a 10 cent word works well. Perhaps simply not trying so hard to find a perfect powerful descriptor and just using the word that is already in my mind will help.

Perhaps you can be the judge! That is if you care to be. I don't think I'll bother posting the edited version on the main cite but I will attach it in this thread.

I thank you and apologize again,

Mythrender.