GLOAT: I got picked for Edittorrent comments!

[shalanna]

Yes! I may have cut in line somehow by posting my opening on a comment thread (because I didn't think my e-mail had gotten through), but anyhow I got the opening to my Pundit novel looked at by the editors on Edittorrent. Or at least by one of them, Alicia Rasley. I've taken a couple of online courses from her (some time ago), and she has published a bunch of romance novels. I like her style.

Now, I don't know whether she's right about my "flip-flopping tenses" in that sentence. I don't think the tense is muddled at all:

A few are sure they've barely missed out--having heard a rustled drapery or caught a flash of light just as the save took place, but being otherwise too occupied with the crisis as it happened to watch closely until it was too late and the angel had flown.

I think that's a perfectly normal sentence (although I think "but *having been* otherwise too occupied" would be technically correct, but I knew that would REALLY freak people out and make them say it was confusing, so I fudged that.) I don't want to get into a bunch of controversy about whether it's grammatically correct and so forth. I think she's focused on worrying about the way readers may or may not understand what I'm saying, which is good. I like to give readers a little more credit, though. I think they can comprehend what I am saying. (Though I might change it to "a rustle OF drapery," which sounds better.) We're talking about how someone might miss something that is happening while something more riveting is going on, and that's all I wanted to convey. Will muse on tweaking it further.

It's kind of cool to get some actual feedback from a pro so I can better understand what people are thinking when they read my work. I never have thoughts like this (thoughts like the type of stuff pros come up with when they analyze text on this blog or on other blogs, I mean); this highlights for me again how different my thought processes are from editors' and agents' thought processes. Unless I actually cannot understand a sentence, I never get upset when there's a lot going on. Maybe it's the difference between having a modernist mind and a post-modernist mind. Perhaps I actually have more of a 17th century mind . . . or even worse, a sixties-consciousness mind. It's *something* like that, no doubt. I would never think twice about reading a focus-down opening, myself. But anyhow, maybe those don't fly today.

Go see. http://edittorrent.blogspot.com/2008/03/another-opening.html

Comments

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

I think you could lose "as it happened" and I agree with your rustle of, otherwise, yep!

[shalanna.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

I remember when I went back and put in "as it happened" because a couple of beta readers said that would help them understand WHEN the people were distracted . . . it's a bit too much for those who are actually following along, though. Always tough to write for a varied audience (people who are really good readers, people who read sometimes, people who might have different ways of reading, etc.) and not have some of them feel it's overkill, while some still feel you haven't put in enough. *Ack*

With a rustle of the curtains . . . she vanished!

[faerieem.livejournal.com]

I think if I were you & I'm not, nor did you ask, but I would maybe change it this way?

A few are sure they've barely missed out--hearing a rustled drapery or catching a flash of light just as the save takes place, but being otherwise too occupied with the crisis as it happens to watch closely until it is too late and the angel has flown.

[shalanna.livejournal.com]

(I'm asking by implication, simply by posting, so you did a mitzvah by offering!)

This version takes out the stuff that bothered the editors, so it might just fly. I always feel I should indicate when something's happened in the past, but maybe they'll "get" that just from the context. I shall definitely consider doing this, as it doesn't change my tone and still keeps the sense of the sentence! (Lots of people have suggested good versions that actually say something different, and I'm reluctant to go THAT far.)

Thank you!

[asterling.livejournal.com]

This looks pretty cool! I never heard of this, so I'm going to go check it out. I don't think that sentence is bad. It's evocative.

[shalanna.livejournal.com]

Thank you and consider yourself heaped with praise . . . *sob* You're one of the few who agrees that it's evocative. *rejoices* I suspect it's because you're a writer and not an editor who is trying to pick out a problem with anything he/she sees, though.

Their blog is much more useful than MOST of the agent blogs, methinks. (There I go with the archaic language again.) Most of the agent blogs are there to promote their authors' books and to find talent without having to handle all that snailmail/email. They don't really analyze the way these editors do. That said, I think they take the analysis to a ridiculous level . . . no reader is going to worry about all of that. But it's fun to see someone deconstruct it and pay that much attention. I can always learn something from ANY kind of discussion of my work (and, for that matter, of others' work.)

Now, if only I knew an editor out there who LIKES this kind of book! *GRIN*

[pameladean]

Unsurprisingly, I like the sentence just fine, and it's the kind of opening I like too.

I wouldn't necessarily object to the rewrite above, either, but I am unreasonably fond of complicated verb tenses and therefore prefer the original.

P.

[shalanna.livejournal.com]

((((hugs you))) Another grammar maven likes it!

But we're weird.

I think everyone else just goes around trying to find something wrong and prove something by picking everything apart. It must be a symptom of this post-postmodern age. But I figured what the heck and sent my piece in anyway. It's really eye-opening to see the kinds of things that various agents/editors come up with to pick on, in fact! If they are really doing this kind of picking at everything that comes across the desk, no wonder I see such simplistic, style-free writing in the books at the bookstore. They're so bland I can rarely relate. Weird!

(At least these two don't outlaw simile and metaphor!)

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

I think everyone else just goes around trying to find something wrong and prove something by picking everything apart.

Not at all. That'd be too easy, and pretty pointless besides, and I hope you didn't take my comment in that manner.

And I don't want your opening to be blander; I want it to have _more_ telling detail. It's not the cadence or the style I object to; it's the choice of words - I think they can work harder.

[coneycat.livejournal.com]

I think everyone else just goes around trying to find something wrong and prove something by picking everything apart.

Look, Shalanna, I hate to be cranky but you might want to be a little more careful with your words. If you ask people for feedback and then spend more time explaining why the feedback is misguided and silly than you do considering it, at a minimum people will stop offering. Worse, you may end up alienating people who want to be on your side. I read the comments at the other blog and it sounds like people who read very well, and read a lot, and read a lot of different things, agree that the opening needs work. That's not their fault as readers, and as the writer it's pointless and frustrating to try to make it so. They're trying to help, because they thought you asked for help.

If you don't want other people to have opinions on your writing, there is one way to ensure that. But if you ask readers to read, do have the courtesy to assume they're not stupid or illiterate.

I don't think you mean for your entries to read as if you think the only problem you have as a writer is that readers are stupid, but unfortunately, as a reader, that is how I sometimes perceive your posts. And if that isn't your intent, then you may want to consider how you express yourself in writing.

[coneycat.livejournal.com]

My only concern, after reading the comment over at the edittorrent blog, is this: the reader over there is all engaged with the idea of guardian angels, and is expecting them to be a major focus of the story. And I believe you've mentioned (and it certainly seems in the bits you've posted) that they aren't.

It just seems like this opening invited readers to look forward to a story that isn't the story you're going to give them. And I believe you've mentioned agents or editors objecting to that before, haven't you?

It's a charming opening, no question. But it might not be right for this story for just that reason.

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

I never have thoughts like this (thoughts like the type of stuff pros come up with when they analyze text on this blog or on other blogs, I mean)

I boggle at this. I find the stuff on the edittorrent blog extremely useful and very insightful, but they differ merely in quality from mine, not in character.

And I am willing to bet that a lot of readers will go through similar processes - they might not be able to formulate them, but those niggling feelings that something is not quite right are often made of this.

[rene-writer.livejournal.com]

I must say that grammar aside, her comments were very interesting. For example, she is not afraid to explain her own perceptions and does not hide them behind a cloak of "readers in general". I found the thing about the titles fascinating.

I recently had to cut 250 words out of a 915 word peice that I had written (not for editorial purposes. It was a wierd word count thing. I won't bore you with the details). I started with the attitude "I don't need to do this, but I can, so whatever." Ironically, it was actually much better in the end. It was an actions sequence and packed a much more solid punch (forgive the pun) with the 250 unnecessary words cut out.

Congratulaitons on being chosen.