Story Discussion: June 21, 2007 'Suzanne by the Sea' by drksideofthemoon

[drksideofthemoon]

This is my second go at the SDC.

Suzanne by the Sea is one of my lesser read stories, but it's my personal favorite.

Some of my mother's family came from Ireland, and I've always been quite proud of my Irish heritage. Suzanne is a real person, and lives in Ireland. The character in the story was based on my perception of her from our emails. She also wrote the poem in the story.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

Here is the link to Suzanne by the Sea

In a cruel twist of irony, a few days after this story came out, a severe storm struck the south coast of Ireland. Two fishing vessels, and their crews were lost to the sea. One of the fishermen had lost his father and grandfather to the same fate.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

I want to know if the story works. I tried something a bit different, at least for me, I went back and forth in time throughout the story.

So, just give me your general thoughts and impressions of the story.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

It's Wonderful

I have voted, quite favorably. As for my comment, I'l post it here. It's indeed a beautiful and timeless story, well thought out and masterfully constructed. Hat's off from a fellow writer!

I have a personal complaint with the rating system, placing "heat" over "literary skill". Yet such is the innate nature of the beast.

 

[angelicminx]

I want to know if the story works. I tried something a bit different, at least for me, I went back and forth in time throughout the story.

So, just give me your general thoughts and impressions of the story.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

I should be able to get to this by Monday, Drk. Meanwhile, I'm subscribing to the thread.

 

[ninefe2dg]

Not sure since this is on the discussion board...

...if you want feedback or discussion? So I'll try to give a little of both.

I've read your story twice. I very much enjoyed the vivid images you created, re the setting, the sea, the village, the life there. As I read more of people's stories, I'm getting a better sense of painting pictures with words rather than just saying what happened.

If going back and forth in time for you is something new, I thought it worked very well, and I hope you continue. While this is more "flashbacky" (which is just fine, I'd challenge you to perhaps experiment a bit more (as in the Tarantino movies where he'll just tell the story but take chronological liberties--different from a flashback). I quite like that, I like time travel dilemmas. So to me playing with time is always good, and your flashbacks worked quite well.

I wanted much more from the characters. I don't want to say "I didn't care about them". It was more that I wanted to care about them more than I did. In some ways I thought all the characters were a bit ordinary and predictable...they aren't bad characters at all, but perhaps not as interesting as they could be.

I thought Sean won Suzanne over a little too easily. Other than being "cheeky", which to me is a fairly common Irish trait, what were his distinguishing characteristics (yes he's also confident and has integrity) that really set him apart? Or was his timing good since Suzanne could easily contrast him with the SOB English lord. Again, I wanted to be a bit more convinced he was "good enough", if you will, for Suzanne.

By the way, and this is an honest and ignorant question. What would the "king's men" have done? What exactly are the king's men, and what do they do when they're not busy trying to reconstruct Humpty Dumpty?

I didn't think the story was long enough for you to refer to the sea as a "cruel mistress" twice, even when you qualify the second mention with "indeed".

While it may be the way in Ireland at the time, I get put off by overusing people referring to each other by their full names. In the last few seasons of Dawson's Creek (yes you're getting feedback from a Dawson's Creek fan, so take this with a grain of salt)...every man who had the slightest interest in Joey would refer to her by her full name. "You're amazing, Joey Potter", "You never cease to amaze me, Joey Potter", etc. At some point, just let Sean Mulroney be "Sean".

Another personal preference. I'm of the mind, that with some exceptions, the only three words you ever need for penis are "dick", "cock", and "penis", and that others, especially when used repeatedly, tend to sound a little funny. I got a little tired of "member". But that's just me. Maybe, since you do in your narration use some Irish colloquialisms ("wee" in the beginning), perhaps you think about using whatever the Irish call "it", since in Suzanne's mind that's what she'd be calling it. Would she really use "member"? (Yes, I know she's not narrating)

Enough dick talk. Overall, I wanted more. I wanted to cry, I wanted to be turned on. I wanted to feel shivers as she realized Sean was alive. (By the way do you think the memorial was a bit premature? It didn't occur to me Sean and the crew could have been picked up by another boat, would that not have occurred to the people in the village, enough where they might have held off on presuming them dead at least a little while longer?)

I'd challenge you to dig to even deeper emotional depths. This story obviously means a lot to you. Make me feel what you feel when you write it. As I think about it, perhaps the story is bigger than the space you've allowed for it. Maybe it's a novel. I want to see her father's ship go down in horrific detail. I want to know about the economy of a fishing village, and what people do when prices fluctuate, or when there are disputes over fishing boundaries. I want more colorful characters that don't appear in this story. I want drunks. I want to know more about English/Irish tensions. I want to know more about Sean. I want to know why Suzanne had sex with Sean when she did. Had she already made up her mind and it was a good opportunity because of the squall? Or was it simply because it was a good opportunity? Why would she be just then thinking about her awkward chats with her mother about the facts of life. Surely if she were a virgin, she would have thought through the hows and whens of giving herself to Sean.

That's my feedback. And maybe there's some discussion in there, too. The only other point for debate, perhaps, is, how necessary IS the sex scene anyway? Not that I'm objecting to it. But by being as explicit as it is, does that actually detract from the story? Can it be R-rated rather than X-rated and the story is just as good? I think there's a delicate balance between integrating sex into the story, and having it overtake the story. I don't think the sex scenes overwhelms in the least, but does it take away from the rest of the story just a little?

I hope these comments are useful. Again, thanks for sharing a story that you clearly take a great deal of personal pride in.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

By the way, and this is an honest and ignorant question. What would the "king's men" have done? What exactly are the king's men, and what do they do when they're not busy trying to reconstruct Humpty Dumpty?

I'll answer this one first, as I have to run out. At that time in Ireland, it was occupied by the English, much of the land had been confiscated by the English, and the Irish forced to pay rent to the English landlords.

The King's men would refer to the British Army that occupied the land at the time. In reality they would have done nothing, it was a bluff, and an idol threat.

 

[tickledkitty]

I want to know if the story works. I tried something a bit different, at least for me, I went back and forth in time throughout the story.

So, just give me your general thoughts and impressions of the story.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

You already know this worked for me. I loved it. If you would like, I will read it again with a more critical eye and give you me two cents.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

You already know this worked for me. I loved it. If you would like, I will read it again with a more critical eye and give you me two cents.

Yes, I would like you to do that.

 

[Varian P]

I thoroughly enjoyed this story—thanks for sharing it.

The opening is wonderfully atmospheric, and throughout you did a lovely job entwining the weather with the actions and emotions of the story.

As the story progresses, you succeed in increasing the suspense. By the time Suzanne goes down to watch the men pull the wreckage from the sea I'm dying to know what happens. The line about many men having perished on the rocks within sight of their homes and safety is wrenching and poignant.

Your characters are delightfully voiced, I thought, and the dialogue was fun to read, and gave the story a texture of authenticity. I agree with ninefe2dg, though, that the characters could have been fleshed out and individualized a bit more. Both Suzanne and Sean felt a tad shallow and stereotyped, to me—she's a sassy spitfire, he's cheeky and playful, but ultimately respectful and loving. They never quite become unique, memorable people, for me.

I thought you handled the shifts back and forth in Suzanne's life well, but early on, I found myself wondering what time-frame we're in: the nature of Suzanne's position in the Lord's house made me think of the nineteenth century, but from your introductory comments, I gather that Suzanne is still living.

I'm no expert, but I found myself doubting elements of the lascivious lord subplot. She gets away with adding locks to her bedroom door and slapping his face, but the lord feels he has the right and the power to order her back to the mansion and his employ? My understanding is that in a certain historical period in many European countries the wealthy nobility basically raped their inferiors with impunity, but in that period, couldn't the lord just have Suzanne locked up for assaulting him? I guess what I really want is enough detail to convince me the Lord/servant relationship is depicted realistically for some concrete era.

As it is, the ending is honest; many people lose their lives and loved ones, but some are spared. From the perspective of telling a story, though, I felt that the ending was a tad anti-climactic, or perhaps just a little too pat. I find myself wanting there to be some meaning in his return--how will it change their lives? When he comes back to her, does Suzanne wonder if a month or a year from then, she'll really lose him? Will her unborn child suffer the same fate?

"It's a free country Mr. Mulroney," she answered. "I think you are free to walk where you wish."

I have no idea if this is an Irish saying, as it is a saying in the U.S. Just letting you know that line made me stop to ponder the question. (Now that I see your reply to the other post, that the English were occupying Ireland at the time, I doubt she'd use that expression).

"What prospects do you have to offer her?" Jack's face was stern, but inside he was enjoying questioning the young man. It reminded him of when Suzanne's father sat in this same parlor and was asked the same questions.

“...was asked the same questions” is so passive. The grandfather is a pretty wry, colorful character, and I think you have an opportunity, there, to let him characterize how he was asking those questions.

I noticed a few typos and small, nitpicky details that caught me up:

The wind tossed her wavy auburn hair

I think because this was preceded by several lines anthropomorphizing the weather, I tripped over this phrase, at first, thinking you were describing the wind.

Her long, dark green skirt snapped and blew like an untrimmed sail. Her white blouse billowed out like a spinnaker as she held her dark, fringed shawl tight around her shoulders.

The metaphors are apt enough, but in close succession like this, they feel so writerly, so self-conscious, they pull me out of the story and make me aware of someone crafting the prose.

A little typo here—you're missing an “a”:

The Three Sisters were trio of jagged, granite spires

"I've not known a man to ever get his self cleaned up every Sunday morn to sit beside the same girl week after week if wasn't sweet on her

I think you're missing "he."

Inside her heart pounded with excitement.

The “inside” seems superfluous.

Suzanne was flustered a little inside at his amusement

Again, “inside” strikes me as superfluous.

Suzanne shook her head, "No, you stay here. I'll be fine; there will some of the other women down there."

I think you want “...there will be some of...”

Suddenly, she understood at what her mother had been trying to tell her

I think you want to get rid of “at.”

Again, thanks for sharing this touching story.

-Varian

 

[Varian P]

...how necessary IS the sex scene anyway? Not that I'm objecting to it. But by being as explicit as it is, does that actually detract from the story? Can it be R-rated rather than X-rated and the story is just as good? I think there's a delicate balance between integrating sex into the story, and having it overtake the story. I don't think the sex scenes overwhelms in the least, but does it take away from the rest of the story just a little?

This is one of my favorite points for discussion, in the realm of what I'll call literary erotica--stories with substance and depth, as opposed to those written solely for titilation.

Personally, I wish stories and films weren't segregated into "legitimate" and "erotic" categories, and I wish I could easily find "good" literature that had frank depictions of sex in them, because I do enjoy reading explicit sex scenes, but most stories written to be 'porn' don't have enough going on to keep me interested long enough to get to the sex.

It seems symptomatic of a kind of cultural psychosis that it's expected that serious art explore all aspects of the human condition, but carefully shy away from depictions of sexuality.

I read a funny quote a while back, I think it was from the guy who directed "Hedwig and the Angry Inch" and also "Shortbus." Alright, I just went and looked it up again:

In the old days, when you couldn't show sex on film, directors like Hitchcock had metaphors for sex (trains going into tunnels, etc). When you can show more realistic sex, the sex itself can be a metaphor for other parts of the character's lives. The way people express themselves sexually can tell you a lot about who they are. Some people ask me, 'Couldn't you have told the same story without the explicitness?'. They don't ask whether I could've done Hedwig without the songs. Why not be allowed to use every paint in the paintbox?

 

[drksideofthemoon]

I wanted much more from the characters. I don't want to say "I didn't care about them". It was more that I wanted to care about them more than I did. In some ways I thought all the characters were a bit ordinary and predictable...they aren't bad characters at all, but perhaps not as interesting as they could be.

Really, there was only one character main character in the story. This was the first time I tried to write a character based on my impressions of a real person.

I thought Sean won Suzanne over a little too easily. Other than being "cheeky", which to me is a fairly common Irish trait, what were his distinguishing characteristics (yes he's also confident and has integrity) that really set him apart? Or was his timing good since Suzanne could easily contrast him with the SOB English lord. Again, I wanted to be a bit more convinced he was "good enough", if you will, for Suzanne.

Good point here. I could have done a little more work on their courtship, and for Suzanne's reasons for falling in love with him.

While it may be the way in Ireland at the time, I get put off by overusing people referring to each other by their full names. In the last few seasons of Dawson's Creek (yes you're getting feedback from a Dawson's Creek fan, so take this with a grain of salt)...every man who had the slightest interest in Joey would refer to her by her full name. "You're amazing, Joey Potter", "You never cease to amaze me, Joey Potter", etc. At some point, just let Sean Mulroney be "Sean".

I take it that Dawson's Creek was a TV show. I have never seen it. Even in my own family, it happens that they will refer to someone by their given and family names in certain situations. Odd as it may seem, it's a more personal way of addressing someone.

Another personal preference. I'm of the mind, that with some exceptions, the only three words you ever need for penis are "dick", "cock", and "penis", and that others, especially when used repeatedly, tend to sound a little funny. I got a little tired of "member". But that's just me. Maybe, since you do in your narration use some Irish colloquialisms ("wee" in the beginning), perhaps you think about using whatever the Irish call "it", since in Suzanne's mind that's what she'd be calling it. Would she really use "member"? (Yes, I know she's not narrating)

I was trying to tone down the erotic portions of this story.

Enough dick talk. Overall, I wanted more. I wanted to cry, I wanted to be turned on. I wanted to feel shivers as she realized Sean was alive. (By the way do you think the memorial was a bit premature? It didn't occur to me Sean and the crew could have been picked up by another boat, would that not have occurred to the people in the village, enough where they might have held off on presuming them dead at least a little while longer?)

The memorial service, maybe that was the wrong term to use. After all, the wreckage of his ship had been found, and with no signs of survivors.

I'd challenge you to dig to even deeper emotional depths. This story obviously means a lot to you. Make me feel what you feel when you write it. As I think about it, perhaps the story is bigger than the space you've allowed for it. Maybe it's a novel. I want to see her father's ship go down in horrific detail. I want to know about the economy of a fishing village, and what people do when prices fluctuate, or when there are disputes over fishing boundaries. I want more colorful characters that don't appear in this story. I want drunks. I want to know more about English/Irish tensions. I want to know more about Sean. I want to know why Suzanne had sex with Sean when she did. Had she already made up her mind and it was a good opportunity because of the squall? Or was it simply because it was a good opportunity? Why would she be just then thinking about her awkward chats with her mother about the facts of life. Surely if she were a virgin, she would have thought through the hows and whens of giving herself to Sean.

That's my feedback. And maybe there's some discussion in there, too. The only other point for debate, perhaps, is, how necessary IS the sex scene anyway? Not that I'm objecting to it. But by being as explicit as it is, does that actually detract from the story? Can it be R-rated rather than X-rated and the story is just as good? I think there's a delicate balance between integrating sex into the story, and having it overtake the story. I don't think the sex scenes overwhelms in the least, but does it take away from the rest of the story just a little?[/Quote]

I think the sex scene was necessary for one reason only. It was to show that she had decided that Sean was the man for her.

I hope these comments are useful. Again, thanks for sharing a story that you clearly take a great deal of personal pride in.

Thanks for your comments. And yes I found them very useful.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

I thoroughly enjoyed this story—thanks for sharing it.

Thanks for taking the time to leave me your comments.

The opening is wonderfully atmospheric, and throughout you did a lovely job entwining the weather with the actions and emotions of the story.

As the story progresses, you succeed in increasing the suspense. By the time Suzanne goes down to watch the men pull the wreckage from the sea I'm dying to know what happens. The line about many men having perished on the rocks within sight of their homes and safety is wrenching and poignant.

Your characters are delightfully voiced, I thought, and the dialogue was fun to read, and gave the story a texture of authenticity. I agree with ninefe2dg, though, that the characters could have been fleshed out and individualized a bit more. Both Suzanne and Sean felt a tad shallow and stereotyped, to me—she's a sassy spitfire, he's cheeky and playful, but ultimately respectful and loving. They never quite become unique, memorable people, for me.

After re-reading it. I can see now where I could have done more for the characters. Maybe it's something I will undertake, do a major rewriting of the story.

I thought you handled the shifts back and forth in Suzanne's life well, but early on, I found myself wondering what time-frame we're in: the nature of Suzanne's position in the Lord's house made me think of the nineteenth century, but from your introductory comments, I gather that Suzanne is still living.

Yes, the story took place in mid 19th century Ireland, and the real Suzanne is alive and well.

I'm no expert, but I found myself doubting elements of the lascivious lord subplot. She gets away with adding locks to her bedroom door and slapping his face, but the lord feels he has the right and the power to order her back to the mansion and his employ? My understanding is that in a certain historical period in many European countries the wealthy nobility basically raped their inferiors with impunity, but in that period, couldn't the lord just have Suzanne locked up for assaulting him? I guess what I really want is enough detail to convince me the Lord/servant relationship is depicted realistically for some concrete era.

Good point.

As it is, the ending is honest; many people lose their lives and loved ones, but some are spared. From the perspective of telling a story, though, I felt that the ending was a tad anti-climactic, or perhaps just a little too pat. I find myself wanting there to be some meaning in his return--how will it change their lives? When he comes back to her, does Suzanne wonder if a month or a year from then, she'll really lose him? Will her unborn child suffer the same fate?

This is what I wanted. I wanted to make the reader wonder, make them think of their own future for them.

Here's how I see it. His return means that the child will have a father, and life will go on. It was a hard life, the future often only went as far as tomorrow. Maybe this will spark them to emigrate to the US or Canada, as so many in that day did.

"It's a free country Mr. Mulroney," she answered. "I think you are free to walk where you wish."

I have no idea if this is an Irish saying, as it is a saying in the U.S. Just letting you know that line made me stop to ponder the question. (Now that I see your reply to the other post, that the English were occupying Ireland at the time, I doubt she'd use that expression).

Although the English occupied the country, I think the common person life was affected very little. The Irish were free to come and go as they pleased, and even emigrate.

"What prospects do you have to offer her?" Jack's face was stern, but inside he was enjoying questioning the young man. It reminded him of when Suzanne's father sat in this same parlor and was asked the same questions.

“...was asked the same questions” is so passive. The grandfather is a pretty wry, colorful character, and I think you have an opportunity, there, to let him characterize how he was asking those questions.

Another good point.

I noticed a few typos and small, nitpicky details that caught me up:

The wind tossed her wavy auburn hair

I think because this was preceded by several lines anthropomorphizing the weather, I tripped over this phrase, at first, thinking you were describing the wind.

Her long, dark green skirt snapped and blew like an untrimmed sail. Her white blouse billowed out like a spinnaker as she held her dark, fringed shawl tight around her shoulders.

The metaphors are apt enough, but in close succession like this, they feel so writerly, so self-conscious, they pull me out of the story and make me aware of someone crafting the prose.

A little typo here—you're missing an “a”:

The Three Sisters were trio of jagged, granite spires

"I've not known a man to ever get his self cleaned up every Sunday morn to sit beside the same girl week after week if wasn't sweet on her

I think you're missing "he."

Inside her heart pounded with excitement.

The “inside” seems superfluous.

Suzanne was flustered a little inside at his amusement

Again, “inside” strikes me as superfluous.

Suzanne shook her head, "No, you stay here. I'll be fine; there will some of the other women down there."

I think you want “...there will be some of...”

Suddenly, she understood at what her mother had been trying to tell her

I think you want to get rid of “at.”

Again, thanks for sharing this touching story.

-Varian

Ugh on the errors...LOL...

And thank you for taking the time to read it, and offer me your comments.

 

[ninefe2dg]

This is one of my favorite points for discussion, in the realm of what I'll call literary erotica--stories with substance and depth, as opposed to those written solely for titilation.

Personally, I wish stories and films weren't segregated into "legitimate" and "erotic" categories, and I wish I could easily find "good" literature that had frank depictions of sex in them, because I do enjoy reading explicit sex scenes, but most stories written to be 'porn' don't have enough going on to keep me interested long enough to get to the sex.

It seems symptomatic of a kind of cultural psychosis that it's expected that serious art explore all aspects of the human condition, but carefully shy away from depictions of sexuality.

I read a funny quote a while back, I think it was from the guy who directed "Hedwig and the Angry Inch" and also "Shortbus." Alright, I just went and looked it up again:

In the old days, when you couldn't show sex on film, directors like Hitchcock had metaphors for sex (trains going into tunnels, etc). When you can show more realistic sex, the sex itself can be a metaphor for other parts of the character's lives. The way people express themselves sexually can tell you a lot about who they are. Some people ask me, 'Couldn't you have told the same story without the explicitness?'. They don't ask whether I could've done Hedwig without the songs. Why not be allowed to use every paint in the paintbox?

Interesting post, and I certainly buy the argument. To be clear, I wasn't taking one side or the other, just tossing it out there for discussion. I'm with you, re explicit sex. I also don't mind violence and bad words. Samuel L Jackson set the personal "motherfucker" record in Pulp Fiction, and I loved every one of them. Some called it over the top. I called it perfectly in character and Oscar nominee worthy.

Drkside, you mentioned that you toned down the sex, presumably after previous passes at it. I do think the sex fits, and exactly in the context you intended. Upon further thought, as I at first objected to Suzanne perhaps giving herself to Sean spur of the moment (my evidence was her thinking about the awkward chats with her mother)...that it was her first experience with an erection up close and personal that brought her back to her chats with mother, NOT her mulling over "should I or shouldn't I" right then and there. My impression of Suzanne was that she'd made the conscious decision to do so ahead of time, and that the storm presented a good opportunity. (Though had it not rained, perhaps she'd have directed them to the cottage anyway). So, if that was obvious to everyone else, put me down for "gets it".

 

[ninefe2dg]

Really, there was only one character main character in the story. This was the first time I tried to write a character based on my impressions of a real person.

There really IS a Mad Mike??

Aahh, the plot thickens! I hope if she's aware of this story, that she's flattered. I would have been.

Good point here. I could have done a little more work on their courtship, and for Suzanne's reasons for falling in love with him.

Yes, and the depths of the characters in general. Again, it wasn't not caring about them, if anything, it was intruiged enough to want to know more, would like to see it...

I take it that Dawson's Creek was a TV show. I have never seen it. Even in my own family, it happens that they will refer to someone by their given and family names in certain situations. Odd as it may seem, it's a more personal way of addressing someone.

Yes, Joey Potter was played by Katie Holmes of TomKat fame. I agree with you. How many times did we know we were in deep doo-doo when our mothers called us by all three names (worse if we were a Jr.)...I just thought you dipped into that well a little too often, again, personal preference...

I was trying to tone down the erotic portions of this story.

See my other post, I'm on board!

The memorial service, maybe that was the wrong term to use. After all, the wreckage of his ship had been found, and with no signs of survivors.

True, and here's where I likely misuse a literary phrase...the English boat that rescues them has a deus ex machina quality about it. At least to me. I'd argue the villagers would have held out that hope a little while longer, as for them a rescue would have been a possible eventuality. Instead I felt like it was sprung on me a bit. It's a small point at worst...

I think the sex scene was necessary for one reason only. It was to show that she had decided that Sean was the man for her.

Yep, with you on that...

Thanks for your comments. And yes I found them very useful.

I'll reiterate this story could be a lot bigger than it is. By that I'm not saying better. I think you could take it as far as you like. I hope you do undertake a rewrite at some point, and see what else you reveal about these characters.

I think you can do more with Mad Mike without him being a scene stealer.

 

[tickledkitty]

Hmm. Okay, I still love it. I could see the characters and the places, even with very little description. I could feel the wind and the mist and smell the salty tang of the sea air. I liked the sex scene. Really, I liked all of it.

I did find some picky little typos and grammatical errors, but as they have already been pointed out, I won't bother with them.

I, too, had a bit of a problem with Suzanne saying, "It's a free country..." when you clearly said that it was not, in fact, a free country. It just didn't ring right with me. As someone else already said, it sounded like something an American would say. I think if she had only said it once, it wouldn't be quite so bothersome.

Another thing that didn't ring true with me is the use of "okay." I'm not sure, but I think people didn't start using that term until later. I could be wrong, so if I am, please forgive me. I also believe that I read or heard somewhere that it is also American in origin. Either way, it just didn't ring true, and, again, you used it more than once.

I thought that Suzanne kind of knew how to give Sean a hand job a little too quickly. She was a virgin and had never even seen a penis before. I don't know about others, but speaking for myself, I needed a little instruction the first time. I don't know if it would have occurred to me to stroke in the typical fashion.

I might have liked more dialogue, as well. I think this could have gone a ways toward developing the characters, making them more interesting.

The only other picky point I have is about the song lyrics. Those were lyrics, right? I think they should have been italicized and put into verses.

I can see this as a full size romance novel. I thought that the first time I read it. Again, I loved it, Brian.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

I'll reiterate this story could be a lot bigger than it is. By that I'm not saying better. I think you could take it as far as you like. I hope you do undertake a rewrite at some point, and see what else you reveal about these characters.

I think you can do more with Mad Mike without him being a scene stealer.

Yes, Suzanne is very aware of the story, she does like it a lot. And no, Mad Mike is a figment of my imagination.

I think I will at least try to expand on this story, and bring the characters out more.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

Hmm. Okay, I still love it. I could see the characters and the places, even with very little description. I could feel the wind and the mist and smell the salty tang of the sea air. I liked the sex scene. Really, I liked all of it.

I did find some picky little typos and grammatical errors, but as they have already been pointed out, I won't bother with them.

I, too, had a bit of a problem with Suzanne saying, "It's a free country..." when you clearly said that it was not, in fact, a free country. It just didn't ring right with me. As someone else already said, it sounded like something an American would say. I think if she had only said it once, it wouldn't be quite so bothersome.

Another thing that didn't ring true with me is the use of "okay." I'm not sure, but I think people didn't start using that term until later. I could be wrong, so if I am, please forgive me. I also believe that I read or heard somewhere that it is also American in origin. Either way, it just didn't ring true, and, again, you used it more than once.

I thought that Suzanne kind of knew how to give Sean a hand job a little too quickly. She was a virgin and had never even seen a penis before. I don't know about others, but speaking for myself, I needed a little instruction the first time. I don't know if it would have occurred to me to stroke in the typical fashion.

I might have liked more dialogue, as well. I think this could have gone a ways toward developing the characters, making them more interesting.

The only other picky point I have is about the song lyrics. Those were lyrics, right? I think they should have been italicized and put into verses.

I can see this as a full size romance novel. I thought that the first time I read it. Again, I loved it, Brian.

Thanks for taking the time to give me your comments, I do appreciate them. I'll have to talk to Suzanne about the "Free country, and okay" and see if I can't come up with something more Irish...

Yes, I screwed up the formatting of the lyrics...it's something I need to fix.

 

[Penelope Street]

While the story is certainly well-written, I didn't find it exactly riveting. Maybe I just had my hopes set way too high, but after I heard it was the author's favorite I was expecting a better story than 'Cheechako'. 'Suzanne by the Sea' has some good moments- but I guess I was looking forward to great moments.

By far the most serious issue I had with 'Suzanne' is not feeling any real suspense regarding the relationship between Suzanne and Sean. Some of this may be because I didn't find Sean attractive and I don't know why she does either- but I believe the more serious issue is that the couple has nothing to overcome in order to be together. Ok, Sean has to return from the sea in order for them to be reunited, but the tale is primarily told from Suzanne's perspective. What does she have to do?

Wait. Cry. Wait some more.

Sure, that's what real persons do and it's agonizing if not heartwrenching- but we've all waited for news of a loved one. I want the protagonists to do something I haven't done! That Sean is picked up by another boat doesn't help; he really didn't have to do much either. This is one of those cases where I think a story may be too lifelike. A tale is usually more satisfying, even if less realistic, when the characters succeed or fail due to their own merits.

The mention of the potato famine places the story in the mid nineteen century, but I'm not sure what else the mention of this catastrophe does. It seems like a token inclusion- much like the lecherous lord. Both of these dangers (starvation and rape) were very real in this time period, and most before, but I never really felt that the heroine was in peril of suffering either. The erotic scene felt gratuitous too and didn't interest me in any way.

Choosing to tell the story in an asynchronous manner seems to have lead to a dry and, at times, confusing narrative. I fail to see any advantage in this choice other than just being different.

A really, really minor note- one of my editors has fits with characters in the story having names starting with the same letter. I don't find it confusing, but he certainly does.

I think there are some great characters here waiting to get out and strut their stuff! I liked the dialog and wanted more. Lots more. These were places in the story where the characters really came alive. More characterization with less subplots (e.g. lecherous lord) and extraneous information (e.g. Mad Mike) would have worked better for me.

But more than any of this, I think the couple needs obstacles. A family member against the marriage? Other suitors taking a more active interest in the prettiest girl in town?

If the sea is meant to be the obstacle- then the characters should overcome the sea with their own initiative. If Suzanne wasn't pregnant, maybe she could steal a boat and go to sea herself? That would totally work for me- even if she fails to find Sean. What then if he returns to find she is now missing? Or maybe that lecherous lord has a large boat at his disposal and could go out and search for survivors- would Suzanne consider trading her virtue for a greater chance that Sean would live? Just about anything would work better than she waits and he's rescued.

Thanks for sharing your story. Even though I didn't think it as good as the previous one, I still liked it. And I loved the poem.

Take Care,
Penny

 

[Penelope Street]

I wanted much more from the characters. I don't want to say "I didn't care about them". It was more that I wanted to care about them more than I did.

Oh- you said that so much better than I did!

This is one of my favorite points for discussion, in the realm of what I'll call literary erotica--stories with substance and depth, as opposed to those written solely for titilation.

Personally, I wish stories and films weren't segregated into "legitimate" and "erotic" categories, and I wish I could easily find "good" literature that had frank depictions of sex in them, because I do enjoy reading explicit sex scenes, but most stories written to be 'porn' don't have enough going on to keep me interested long enough to get to the sex.

I am so with you! There are some really hot R-rated movies, way hotter than any X-rated one I've ever seen.

Another personal preference. I'm of the mind, that with some exceptions, the only three words you ever need for penis are "dick", "cock", and "penis", and that others, especially when used repeatedly, tend to sound a little funny.

Well, this isn’t my preference. Maybe I read too many silly romances in my twenties, but member and manhood and all that work just fine for me. How a character thinks of her partner's genitalia can say something about her, right?

My personal preference for naming body parts is to not name them at all. Consider his penis is in my vagina or his cock is in my pussy. I much prefer the simpler, and to me much sexier, he is in me. After all, it's not really about the body parts- is it?

I want to see her father's ship go down in horrific detail.

What I wanted was for Suzanne to ask her mother about how she copes- does she have nightmares too, that sort of thing. Hearing the mother describe in horrific detail how she imagines her husband died- I think that could have been powerful.

It's a free country Mr. Mulroney," she answered. "I think you are free to walk where you wish."

I have no idea if this is an Irish saying, as it is a saying in the U.S. Just letting you know that line made me stop to ponder the question.

Me too! I think she said something similar in church to Sean and it just didn't feel right.

Another thing that didn't ring true with me is the use of "okay."

Good catch!

 

[ninefe2dg]

Well, this isn’t my preference. Maybe I read too many silly romances in my twenties, but member and manhood and all that work just fine for me. How a character thinks of her partner's genitalia can say something about her, right?

Upon further thought (and I promise I didn't think too much about it!), what I think might be best would be an Irish slang term, given there was some Irish words/phrases in the narration, but hey, where do you go to find what Irish girls called a penis in the 19th century?

Drkside, I think continuing your investment in this story is well worth it, all the best with it. For the next read, just make sure you make the tissues necessary! Thanks again for sharing this...

 

[drksideofthemoon]

While the story is certainly well-written, I didn't find it exactly riveting. Maybe I just had my hopes set way too high, but after I heard it was the author's favorite I was expecting a better story than 'Cheechako'. 'Suzanne by the Sea' has some good moments- but I guess I was looking forward to great moments.

Chronologically, this story was started about a year before it got submitted, and I think my writing grew over that period. and I would hope that Cheechako would be a stronger story.

By far the most serious issue I had with 'Suzanne' is not feeling any real suspense regarding the relationship between Suzanne and Sean. Some of this may be because I didn't find Sean attractive and I don't know why she does either- but I believe the more serious issue is that the couple has nothing to overcome in order to be together. Ok, Sean has to return from the sea in order for them to be reunited, but the tale is primarily told from Suzanne's perspective. What does she have to do?

The goal of this story when I first started was to take a person that I only knew from emails, and to write a story based on what I saw in that person. Originally, the story was only meant to be told from Suzanne's POV, Sean was a minor character at the time. I think my total focus was on the character of Suzanne, and not on the story. I may go back to this story and add to it. Try to bring out the characters better, and to add some of the conflict I saw in my head.

Wait. Cry. Wait some more.

Sure, that's what real persons do and it's agonizing if not heartwrenching- but we've all waited for news of a loved one. I want the protagonists to do something I haven't done! That Sean is picked up by another boat doesn't help; he really didn't have to do much either. This is one of those cases where I think a story may be too lifelike. A tale is usually more satisfying, even if less realistic, when the characters succeed or fail due to their own merits.

That could be one of my downfalls, I tend to strive for realism.

The mention of the potato famine places the story in the mid nineteen century, but I'm not sure what else the mention of this catastrophe does. It seems like a token inclusion- much like the lecherous lord. Both of these dangers (starvation and rape) were very real in this time period, and most before, but I never really felt that the heroine was in peril of suffering either. The erotic scene felt gratuitous too and didn't interest me in any way.

I think I mentioned earlier in the thread the reason for that scene, it was to show that Suzanne had decided that Sean was the person for her.

Choosing to tell the story in an asynchronous manner seems to have lead to a dry and, at times, confusing narrative. I fail to see any advantage in this choice other than just being different.

Well, it was my first try at it. I wanted to try to do something different, other than tell a story starting at point A and ending up at point F.

A really, really minor note- one of my editors has fits with characters in the story having names starting with the same letter. I don't find it confusing, but he certainly does.

LOL...I know a family, who's names all start with "B" including the dog.

I think there are some great characters here waiting to get out and strut their stuff! I liked the dialog and wanted more. Lots more. These were places in the story where the characters really came alive. More characterization with less subplots (e.g. lecherous lord) and extraneous information (e.g. Mad Mike) would have worked better for me.

I agree wholeheartedly with you on this comment.

But more than any of this, I think the couple needs obstacles. A family member against the marriage? Other suitors taking a more active interest in the prettiest girl in town?

If the sea is meant to be the obstacle- then the characters should overcome the sea with their own initiative. If Suzanne wasn't pregnant, maybe she could steal a boat and go to sea herself? That would totally work for me- even if she fails to find Sean. What then if he returns to find she is now missing? Or maybe that lecherous lord has a large boat at his disposal and could go out and search for survivors- would Suzanne consider trading her virtue for a greater chance that Sean would live? Just about anything would work better than she waits and he's rescued.

Thanks for sharing your story. Even though I didn't think it as good as the previous one, I still liked it. And I loved the poem.

As always, Penny, thanks for taking the time to read, and to give me your thoughts. I appreciate them. I can't take credit for the poem, as it was written by the real Suzanne for the story.

Overall, I'm happy with your response. You've given me a lot to think about.

Take Care,
Penny

 

[drksideofthemoon]

What I wanted was for Suzanne to ask her mother about how she copes- does she have nightmares too, that sort of thing. Hearing the mother describe in horrific detail how she imagines her husband died- I think that could have been powerful.

I didn't even think about that at the time. I can see some ideas already for that.

I'll have to ask the real Suzanne how she feels about the "Free Country" statement.

 

[Verdad]

Sorry for being so late, Darkside; it took a week till I found time to read, but I noticed your thread right away and was immediately interested in the story, as a seaside dweller myself.

I'll give my impressions first and read the other critics later.

Since this is the second I've read of yours, I can say I'm detecting a laudable pattern: you have a way of choosing worthwhile stories to tell, dealing with simple yet timeless themes, and of successfully evoking life in different times and places. Emotion, too, seems to be your strong point, almost understated in depiction, all the way till it sneaks up on the reader and surprises them by getting under their skin. It was true of your gold diggers story, and it's true of this one as well.

In addition to the above, I particularly appreciated the structure you've chosen for this story, alternating between the two timelines. In subjective time, a day of waiting indeed lasts a lifetime, and the way the story imitated that was both a clever solution for dealing with the back-story and reflective of Suzanne's state of mind during the wait—synergy of form and content, indeed.

As for the imperfections, first things first, so let's start with the opening.

It could be said that the story begins where the text begins, so the half prologue, half dedication that preceded it caused me some distraction. In no way am I suggesting you shouldn't have thanked Suzanne and your editor, but maybe that the other half (the part about the plaque) could rather have been integrated somewhere inside the story. Hearing in advance the when, where, and a part of what, was somewhat of a spoiler.

Then there's the real opening, and though I'm not of the school of thought that one should never, ever open with weather, I will say that the storm from your opening lines had some unfortunate Bulwer-Lytton-ish overtones. In my opinion, this could be remedied quite easily, simply by putting Suzanne on the scene first—a sentence placing her on the shore would suffice—then describing the weather through her perception. You'd have a better chance of immediately captivating the reader that way, with minimal interventions.

Speaking of scenes, it was unclear to me throughout the first section whether we were inside a scene or not, and since I've noticed the same problem in other places in the story, as well as in your first piece, I think it's a habit to which you might want to give some attention.

You seem to take a middle road between 'now' and 'through a period of time', sometimes (or, between exposition and scene), and the result can be very disorienting for the reader. Seeking help of an editor sensitive to the subject might pay off, if only to help you locate the problem.

I do have to note that later in the story the problem disappeared and the scenes begun exchanging smoothly and with clarity, so my overall impression of the story wasn't nearly as affected as the above comment might suggest.

As to my next little quibble, it concerns the over-written and/or formulaically phrased places in the story. They're not that many, but they are noticeable, more so because bareness seems to be one of the main powers of your writing. Against it, purplish places seem to stick like sore thumbs.

By way of example, I could offer a sentence or two from more than one scene, but as not to be pointlessly nitpicky, I'll rather name the main offender. Sex scene, on the whole, suffered from this significantly.

I thought it especially unfortunate since you've laid the grounds for the scene in a way that assured all the potential for both tenderness and great eroticism. The scene didn't seem misplaced or forced into the story, either, but rather integral to its development. Some of the formulations were still hard to get past, though, and the genital nomenclature particularly.

I appreciate the difficulty of dealing with a chaste character in a period piece, but a better way out of it, in my opinion, would have been to work around the terms, instead of using so many, some of them pretty comical to a contemporary reader's ear. Your aim was realism, not impersonation of period porn, and in the sex scene I think you occassionally slipped into the latter.

Should you ever go for a rewrite, all this shouldn't be a problem. The story as a whole works well and is conceived and paced well, and you'd only have to locate these few places of lazy writing and substitute them with something more powerful.

I have one more comment, about the ending, but that one's just for the sake of sharing a completely subjective opinion:

Maybe I'm a kind who likes to be cruel toward fictional characters, but the happy-ending lessened the story's impact on me. I was prepared for the inevitability of loss from the first lines of the piece, and that's what gave it poignancy; looking back at the sweet, simple things in the past, with the "nevermore" perspective of the present. When the two timelines converged (i.e. when there was no more back-story to tell and no more hope in the present), I was ready for the story to end and leave me to a bittersweet contemplation. The happy-ending took that away from me.

Sean's miraculous return from the sea, as joyous as it must have been in reality (at least, I hope that part is reality) didn't work that well for me as a reader of fiction. It made me feel as if I'd been lied to throughout, if that makes sense, or at least it did so for moment.

Overall, though, the story moved me deeply and struck a chord close to my own sea inheritance. Once again, thank you for sharing a very fine job.


Best of luck,

Verdad

 

[Verdad]

Personally, I wish stories and films weren't segregated into "legitimate" and "erotic" categories, and I wish I could easily find "good" literature that had frank depictions of sex in them, because I do enjoy reading explicit sex scenes, but most stories written to be 'porn' don't have enough going on to keep me interested long enough to get to the sex.

It seems symptomatic of a kind of cultural psychosis that it's expected that serious art explore all aspects of the human condition, but carefully shy away from depictions of sexuality.

I read a funny quote a while back, I think it was from the guy who directed "Hedwig and the Angry Inch" and also "Shortbus." Alright, I just went and looked it up again:

In the old days, when you couldn't show sex on film, directors like Hitchcock had metaphors for sex (trains going into tunnels, etc). When you can show more realistic sex, the sex itself can be a metaphor for other parts of the character's lives. The way people express themselves sexually can tell you a lot about who they are. Some people ask me, 'Couldn't you have told the same story without the explicitness?'. They don't ask whether I could've done Hedwig without the songs. Why not be allowed to use every paint in the paintbox?

Brilliant quote. Do I ever not agree with you?