Board Thread:Writer's Workshop/@comment-30307610-20170828150610/@comment-29652084-20170831221147

Lavecki wrote: Magical Toddler wrote: Correct if I'm wrong, but the plot is as follows: "I asked my mom for bison. She fed me a dog and cried about it." Incorrect, mom never had bison for the son and is crying because he is about to find out what she did.

Magical Toddler wrote: There's a reason I say 'Correct me if I'm wrong.' The ending is a confusing mess that doesn't make sense. I guess one could infer that it was dog rather than bison. But to a person just reading your work, that's a haphazard guess at best. The ending is not a confusing mess. It's one that requires a few reads to get it maybe.

Magical Toddler wrote: You spend a good portion of the story battering us over the head about how the narrator lived on a farm, has dogs, likes bison, and grew vegetables. We get it. I find it weird that you don't want me to batter you over the head with the details that make the story. The son likes bison. They have dogs. Some of the dogs run away. There wasn't much meat around. When he eats the bison it doesn't taste like he thinks it should. Based on what I've battered you over the head with, it shouldn't be a large leap to determine what the intent of the story is.

Magical Toddler wrote: Keep K.I.S.S in mind; mentioning the same thing multiple times over gets redundant, and gets redundant quickly. Fair point, I could take out a little bit of the redundancy. But since you don't get the story I'm worried this would make you understand it even less without the redundancy.

Magical Toddler wrote: Vague writing is fine. It's not a bad thing. But when you bat us with what we can infer and then don't write what we can't, it turns your story into a confusing pile of words. If I am reading this right you want me to end the story with something like "Guess I've been eating dogs my whole life."

Magical Toddler wrote: But while we are on the plot, this is one of those stories whose biggest problem is that it could have been avoided with the word 'no.' The mother could have easily said 'Well, I can't get any bison right now. Maybe when the harvest is better.' The first time they got it was during the bad harvest and she tells him it's Bison. Considering they were struggling for meat there can be an assumption that the mother found this to be an easy protein supplement as they had dogs around. This shouldn't be too much of a leap but I am interested to know how I could improve upon this idea from your perspective.

Magical Toddler wrote: I could go on forever about the ending. It's anticlimactic, doesn't make sense, and could've easily been avoided. Yeah, harvest wasn't the greatest, but are they that starving? Are they down enough that the mother can't trade? Are their neighbors that unkind that they require something to trade, rather than helping out what is obviously a mother and her son who are in considerably bad shape? The story doesn't say what their particular circumstances are. Based on that you would have to assume they were in a position where this was a necessity wouldn't you? Do you think the story would have improved by me saying

"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."

In this instance I am beating you over the head with the climax. I am unsure how that is better than an unreliable narrator who believes his mother that she traded for food.

Magical Toddler wrote: Then we have the beginning, which doesn't help. Is the son making enough headway that he can't help his mother out? He does...but he's grown up now. Not a child like when he was thinking about his childhood...

Magical Toddler wrote: Your biggest problems are that you leave out the necessary details but bat us over the head with everything else. You haven't given us any reason as to why the two people are in the position that they're in. What you have is what I like to call the 'bare bones' of the story. There's no meat. Again, I'm not sure that I need to give you the reason they are in the position they are in. The story is mostly told by an adult remembering his childhood. When I think back to my childhood I don't remember if my family was poor or not. I've talked to many people who have had that as well, where their family was living paycheck to paycheck. Parents try to not let their children in on that. The crux of the story is that the mother was in a position where feeding her son dog was something she thought herself in and tried to hide it. She is crying because he is about to learn a secret she has been keeping from him. If I need to explain it out like this I guess I haven't done a very good job but a lot of other people who have read it unprovoked got the "meat," as you call it, of the story and enjoyed it. I want to know what specifically I need to do to get this hosted here. Should I beat the climax/twist over the readers head as I have done above, or should I believe that my reader is intelligent enough to figure out the twist? I'll do either but I think one is a better way to write than the other.

Emptyeyed wrote: And see i dont think that people understood that. I didn't get it until the third read through. Instead of ending it there why not go on with it. Good, you probably shouldn't get it on the first read through. First, we should be able to get anything you are trying to write on the first read through.

"I find it weird that you don't want me to batter you over the head with the details that make the story. The son likes bison. They have dogs. Some of the dogs run away. There wasn't much meat around. When he eats the bison it doesn't taste like he thinks it should. Based on what I've battered you over the head with, it shouldn't be a large leap to determine what the intent of the story is."

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.

"If I am reading this right you want me to end the story with something like "Guess I've been eating dogs my whole life.""

No. I want you to clean it up so that what's been done can be inferred much more easily.

"The first time they got it was during the bad harvest and she tells him it's Bison. Considering they were struggling for meat there can be an assumption that the mother found this to be an easy protein supplement as they had dogs around. This shouldn't be too much of a leap but I am interested to know how I could improve upon this idea from your perspective."

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'.'

"The story doesn't say what their particular circumstances are. Based on that you would have to assume they were in a position where this was a necessity wouldn't you? Do you think the story would have improved by me saying

"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."

In this instance I am beating you over the head with the climax. I am unsure how that is better than an unreliable narrator who believes his mother that she traded for food."

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.

"He does...but he's grown up now. Not a child like when he was thinking about his childhood..."

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?

"Again, I'm not sure that I need to give you the reason they are in the position they are in. The story is mostly told by an adult remembering his childhood. When I think back to my childhood I don't remember if my family was poor or not. I've talked to many people who have had that as well, where their family was living paycheck to paycheck. Parents try to not let their children in on that. The crux of the story is that the mother was in a position where feeding her son dog was something she thought herself in and tried to hide it. She is crying because he is about to learn a secret she has been keeping from him. If I need to explain it out like this I guess I haven't done a very good job but a lot of other people who have read it unprovoked got the "meat," as you call it, of the story and enjoyed it. I want to know what specifically I need to do to get this hosted here. Should I beat the climax/twist over the readers head as I have done above, or should I believe that my reader is intelligent enough to figure out the twist? I'll do either but I think one is a better way to write than the other."

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 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.