Board Thread:Writer's Workshop/@comment-26537256-20160716142055/@comment-28266772-20160716162440

A brusk voice rose above the murmur. [New Speaker, New line] "Mr Speaker, how would one come to such a preposterous idea? Any discussion of this tradition, let alone action, questions the very foundation upon which this society stands. In all respects, your excellency, [Your excellency usually refers to a high ranking state official, and is not the sort of title that would be given to a Speaker in a parliament or any other tribunal. Speakers given respect, but are not necessarily the subjects of projected power like a monarch, president, prime minister, diplomat, ambassador etc.]  please consider overhauling this proposal." Mr Redford took his moment with perfect assertiveness ''[so he’s taking a moment – a passive action – assertively? This description is not clear], the abrupt silence providing unexpected clarity [what has become clear?]''. From this, an expression of withheld satisfaction clutched his face [How can an expression be withheld and still shown on the face?], and in accordance [to?], he sat back down.

The Speaker, acknowledging Mr Redford in earnest [are these two different people?], continued his address. [so I can assume this person speaking now is the same as the above paragraph given that they are ‘continuing’?] "This proposal has been argued and measured by our countless predecessors for far too long. We've already considered the implications in this debate: [semicolon or capitalize ‘the’] the loss of life, the possible mass hysteria, the victims, and nearly every other factor, yet we can't fully agree on the necessary action. Thus, I have determined we must take a vote - the process begins now."

The crowd departed their seats, each attendee filing to the centre aisle [here you reference the spatial geography of a location without any prior context, or any future relevance] in an orderly fashion, silent throughout. When a line formed, the Speaker examined the various faces, painting his own to pass neutrality: [again I think this should be a semicolon] a few expressed regret, others anxious glee, two solemn anticipation. Moving in disorganised rhythm, the line shortened as electives voted, eventually disbanding following Mr Redford's "No".

After a brief recess, the board of electives flooded in hushed and dreary; the Speaker noticed a heavy air set amongst the crowd, draining the previous tension of its inherent [why is it inherent?] hostility. Succumbing to tiredness, he refused [refused what?] by commencing the vote count. "Chris Harley, elective for Canns, voted in favour. David Short, elective for Townsville, voted in favour..." The entire formality took one hour, and encountering the final slip, the Speaker read it out with a twinge of hesitation. "Mr Redford, elective for Nelson Creek, voted against."

"Forty-nine in favour, one against. The murder of this man is now legalised." ''[You’ve reached for a style of dialogue and narration that, without authenticity, fails. This line of dialogue is here the best example of how much of this story’s wording does not sound authentic.]''

-

The man before him [who?] stood shivering, the subtle drizzle collecting on the umbrella's edge as he treaded carefully along the path. Behind him, a patient coveted his target from afar, his mind a tangle of broken words and flawed logic.

The voices in the patient's head explained his surroundings quite well. [I wish they’d explain them to me]



He was the righteous hand, the key to a nation of stability and peace. Every decision laid forth was simple fact, supported by the house certified on ethics: who to torture, who to maim, who to kill. He saw no contradiction in their rulings, ascertaining that the accused were always unruly, uncouth, sour; the reasons for execution were never always clear.

The patient thought back to the time he left the asylum.

His caretaker never told him the exact condition that coursed through his skull; never told him what he did as the binds loosened in steady hands; never told him who they were as he felt a good man's essence leave in haste; never explained anything as he dragged that body away.

-

I’m not going to continue going over this but I think it’s necessary to point out two things. Why use so many words if you intend on conveying so little information? I think you’ve fundamentally mistaken obfuscation with ambiguity. Ambiguity is when something can have more than one valid interpretation – a great example is how you can watch the shining as either a slasher, or a ghost film. But for that ambiguity to exist a writer must balance the interplay of concealing and revealing information to create something new. It is not the same as stripping away contextual information until an audience is left with no valid interpretations. Ambiguity needs a healthy dose of coherence and will usually present one straight forward plot line for it to be examined so that it remains accessible to those who do not wish to take it further. For example, consider Hamlet – it follows the template of a classic tragedy quite closely, and you can just sit and watch/read it with no excessive analysis and enjoy a solid tale of betrayal, corruption and murder. But even for stories that do not take this approach and instead present a tangle of possibilities – pretty much anything by David Lynch – there’s still more than one valid interpretation of events. That is fundamentally distinct from having none.

In your last story – amnesia – this obtuse and overly awkward style at least served to reflect the mental state of the main character. As such it was somewhat justifiable. But here I cannot find a reason for everything to be so needlessly convoluted. Sometimes this lack of accessibility can be justified if the authenticity of the story is strict, consider the movie Primer as a fantastic example of an inaccessible movie that can be justified given its rigid adherence to the principles of Physics and its refusal to make the science simpler, but as I mention above much of this story’s style and dialogue does not feel authentic. Nor is it fantastic enough to instil in the audience an immediate recognition that this story is not based in the modern day real world. It just hovers between being recognizable, and being strange.

And as for the second half I literally could not tell you what is happening. I gave up. So I guess that brings me to my second point – you fail to convey a clear sequence of events. I cannot recommend you go over the following rules put forward by Kurt Vonnegut and take their underlying message to heart – you have an extremely brief window of time to convince someone your story is worth the time and effort.

<p class="MsoNormal">

<p class="MsoNormal">Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted.

<p class="MsoNormal">Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.

<p class="MsoNormal">Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.

<p class="MsoNormal">Every sentence must do one of two things—reveal character or advance the action.

<p class="MsoNormal">Start as close to the end as possible.

<p class="MsoNormal">Be a sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them—in order that the reader may see what they are made of.

<p class="MsoNormal">Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia.

<p class="MsoNormal">Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible. To heck with suspense. Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story themselves, should cockroaches eat the last few pages.