Board Thread:Writer's Workshop/@comment-30307610-20170828150610/@comment-30307610-20170901014902

Magical Toddler wrote: First, we should be able to get anything you are trying to write on the first read through. Incorrect, some of the best pastas need multiple reads to determine the crux. I have linked one here.

Magical Toddler wrote:

First, it's the redundancy. Second, okay. We'll go that route. Has she been feeding him dog the entire time and only in the ending fed him bison? Or is it the other way around? I mean, if we're going to take small, random details and use them to infer, 'some of the dogs ran away' could easily imply she's been doing this regardless of how bad the harvest is, and she just lied to him about it. Well it seems like you really didn't understand the story at all so let me explain the first thing I wrote to you: "I went to dinner with my mother last night. It had been a while since I had seen her. I moved to the city a few years back and had been making some headway at the firm I worked at. We went to this place that sold Bison steaks." This at least implies he is 16, as he can work. It also states it had been a "few"(three or more) years since he moved to the city. Probably needs a job for that so were at around 19 minimum. The next part states that they went to a restaurant, so I am unsure how you are implying that the mother is feeding the son dog at the restaurant. Also I was very much implying that she has been feeding him dog the whole time regardless of the harvest after the first time because he requested it, and she didn't want to feed him something that didn't taste the same. This can be inferred by the "worried look" that she gets as she contemplates whether or not she should continue to feed her son dog.

Magical Toddler wrote:

No. I want you to clean it up so that what's been done can be inferred much more easily. Right, but you haven't actually given me any way to do that. There is your suggested line here: "His favorite dog goes missing. He doesn't have to know too much about it, just that coincidentally the day that the dog went missing they had 'bison' that night." This is suspiciously a lot like the joke paragraph I wrote, which for some reason you decided I needed to "stop". More on that later.

Magical Toddler wrote:

There are vegetables that contain protein. You never mention what vegetables there are. I suppose we're supposed to infer that too, right? Most farmers aren't out trading when the harvest is bad, especially if they have nothing to trade with. Even then, most families aren't killing their dogs if they have enough to eat vegetable-wise. It still boils down to 'she could have told him 'no'.' Yes, there are vegetables that contain protein. Correct, I never mention what vegetables they grow. Yes, you are supposed to infer that they either a)Don't grow those vegetables and usually rely on trade or b)They didn't grow enough of those vegetables that year. Again you are correct that farmers aren't trading when the harvest is bad or if there isn't enough to trade with. I don't know how this applies to my story though. You are again correct that most families aren't killing their animals if they have enough to eat. So this would imply that they didn't wouldn't it? She sure could have told him no. Again, not sure why that's important. She fed it to him once out of necessity and he liked it. She fed it to him again because she wanted to make her son happy. Could she have said no? Sure, but she didn't, and now that they are going to a restaurant that serves real bison she knows her son will find out the truth.

Magical Toddler wrote:

You're relying a lot on the reader making assumptions. Stop. If it's a plot-important detail, the reader needs to be, at least, clued-in.

There's a number of things you could do. His favorite dog goes missing. He doesn't have to know too much about it, just that coincidentally the day that the dog went missing they had 'bison' that night. You don't have to beat us over the head, but making the inference easier is a must. So ok. The little bit that you just wrote is, again, very similar to this that I wrote: "When I was a child we were always struggling for food. I grew up on a farm that had terrible soil and we barely ever grew anything. The neighbor farmers, I remember would hardly ever trade with us. Despite that we still had lots of dogs on our farm. One day I remember one of the dogs squealing like they were in pain. I never saw that dog again, I assume it must have come across a coyote or something. Mother must have done something because we started having meat again. She said it was bison. I don't know where she got it but I sure did like it a lot. Dogs went missing more and more after that. I think they ran away because we didn't have much food to begin with anyway." The difference being that I wrote this as a joke because it beats the plot over the head of the reader. Saying that the sons favorite dog goes missing then they have bison, immediately spoils the twist, especially if, as you are suggesting, I make it very clear the kind of desperate situation that the narrator is in.

Magical Toddler wrote:

This just brings up another problem that I didn't cover in the other review. They're reminiscing about her feeding him dogs. I don't know about you, but I don't reminisce with my family much on matters of them feeding me pets. It would be one thing if it was the adult narrator finding this out after all of these years, but the story implies that it's the child. See what I mean about the necessary details? I don't know what you are thinking about in regards to my story. At no point does the son reminisce about the mother feeding him dogs. He reminisces about life on the farm and about liking bison. Sure, the bison was the dogs, but at that point the son does not know that. There isn't any point in my story where the narrator says "Hey mom, remember when you killed all those dogs and I ate them, haha." As I said before the story implies that it is an adult narrator. See my second answer above. Those necessary details are explicitly stated. It seems like you just missed them.

Magical Toddler wrote:

Well, I most certainly knew when my parents weren't living great back when I was a child. It tended to affect me, too. I didn't have to be told, I simply figured it out. But, again, the problem here is that it makes your plot avoidable. You don't give a reason as to why she had to. I'm sorry for you in that regard, but that isn't the way for everyone. Additionally, I am not sure how necessity would make it avoidable. At least for the first time. Sure I don't give a reason or explicitly state that they were in a bad state, but as I have pointed out it can be inferred pretty easily. If they are at a point where they are eating their family pets, they are probably in a place where it's unavoidable.

Magical Toddler wrote:

I'm saying leave out the filler, give us the necessary details, and clue us in so that we can figure out the twist without reading through it 5 or 6 times. Your story would probably work if it was expanded with the necessary details, but not battering us over the head with repetitive stuff that we don't need to know. This kind of story is the type that meets its full potential when it's a long, drawn out road that leads the reader to a solid conclusion and has a necessity for each and every detail. You see what I'm saying? More meat, less bone. As I have shown multiple times the necessary details are there, it again seems like you missed parts of the plot. Additionally I do not want to write a long form story. This is a micro pasta. Or at least micro fiction. All the details are there. As you have pointed out there are a few things I could work on in regards to repetitiveness and I agree with you there. I don't believe it will cut me down to "one paragraph" as you stated, but if it does, then good, my story will be one paragraph long. There is no reason that the full potential would be met more with a long drawn out story.

Last thing is, if you are going to quote, please do it like I have. The way you did it just puts everything we previously said above what you actually want to highlight and then you have to highlight it again anyway. I only say this because it adds unnecessary length. You can post like you did, that works too, but just leave out quoting what I said above that. Thanks :)