Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Living In The Past (short story)

Expand Messages
  • ralphbaisley
    ... back ... disagree ... I guess we ll have to agree to disagree. I ll try to explain my logic. The problem with Metta s story is it revolves around a
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In ticket2write@yahoogroups.com, "agoodchap" <agoodchap@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > ---I saw your crit of this story and was intregued enough to go
      back
      > and read it for myself. So thanks for that. But I have to
      disagree
      > with some of your comments, so I thought to add a few pennies worth
      > myself.
      >
      > In ticket2write@yahoogroups.com, "ralphbaisley" <ralphbaisley@>
      > wrote:
      > >Hi Alison,

      I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'll try to explain my
      logic. The problem with Metta's story is it revolves around a murder
      in a very vague way. Who was murdered? Some man. Giving a brief
      description, making him a bit human, helps the reader feel sympathy
      for his loss. Why should he be kind? Because he's the victim and
      knowing something positive about helps the reader identify with him
      and feel a greater loss. Why should the old lady be nice? Because
      it creates conflict. She's a murderer after all. Wouldn't she be
      more interesting if she was conflicted or mournful about her loss?
      This has nothing to do with stereotypes of sweet little old ladies.
      It has to do with the writer adding levels of complexity to the
      character. This would create an inner conflict in Nora that doesn't
      exist in the story as it's now written. How could this kind old
      woman do such a heinous act? Why is she crying in room at night? A
      character who's mean, forces labor from this girl, growls about not
      talking etc. seems far more like an evil stereotype to me. I believe
      Nora should be a relative of this woman. Then she could give
      background about her eccentric old aunt. This would tie in nicely
      with Queenie making lots of socks which seems to be just an odd bit
      of information without any background to tie it to.
      Why would I include the graphic details of parts floating in the
      well? Because this is essentially a horror story. It certainly
      isn't a murder mystery or whodunit. Go back to your basics. Who,
      what, where, when, why and how. Who? Some guy from a town. What?
      He was murdered. (Maybe or maybe not) By whom? Queenie (Maybe)
      Where? Somewhere on the farm? Maybe. When? Unknow. Why? No
      information. How? No information. There is too much missing here
      for this to be a puzzler, so I assume it's a horror story. You'd put
      horror into a horror story, wouldn't you. To me, this story screams
      to be written in first-person. Also, this throwing the body down the
      well has to make more sense. This has to be a choice of last
      resort. It reminds me of a recent CSI episode. A man killed some
      woman and then hauled the body to his attic and built a fake chimney
      around her. Besides the obvious problem of the rafters holding a
      half-ton of bricks it went against all reason. I screamed at the
      t.v., why did he go to all the bother. Theres a thousand square
      miles of desert around Vegas. Instead of taking her upstairs and
      blocking her inside your own property, why not drive to the desert
      and dump her in a shallow grave? Because the writers wanted to catch
      him in this fashion. Still, it makes no sense!!!!! Let's do
      something a hundred times harder that ties the killer to the body.
      The same illogic is true here. The body could've been buried on the
      farm. So why did she pitch it in a well? There has to be an
      absolutely logical reason Queenie did such an illogical thing.

      All my best,
      Da Baiz

      > >
      > > >Hi Metta,
      > >
      > > I like the overall idea, but I thought it needs quite a bit of
      > work.
      > > Queenie seems a bit cartoonish to me. I believe it would be far
      > > better to make her sympathetic or even nice.
      >
      > Why? Why should her charactor be nice? I write about older
      > unpleasent women all the time as I hate the idea of pushing the
      > common stereotype of sweet little old ladies. Many many little old
      > ladies are not sweet by a long chalk.
      >
      > A mean, black-and-white
      > > character has no depth.
      >
      > I almost agree, Nora and Queenie could be fleshed out more.
      >
      > This man in the well is also very vague.
      > > Give him a name and a brief desciption. Give your protagonist a
      > > name, too. Could she overhear people talking about the missing
      > man's
      > > kind acts and wonder why he went missing?
      >
      > Again why should the man be kind? It enough that he was a missing
      > man. He could be fleshed out more too, but its not nessessary to
      > give him a 'nice' charactor, just a fuller one. And its enough that
      > Nora read about him being missing after all in the story most of
      the
      > town people weren't talking to her, they're hardly likely to talk
      > about Queenie within her hearing, remembering Nora would be close
      by.
      >
      > Perhaps your character
      > > could discover a news clipping that describes a dispute between
      > > Queenie and him. They might have fought over land or water
      > rights.
      > > If Queenie is outwardly kind and is only secretive about the
      well,
      > > then her behavior becomes all the more suspicious. Why is this
      > nice
      > > woman acting so strange when it comes to this one subject?
      >
      > Err because she isn't nice and she has got something to hide. This
      > ties in with the the desparate need for Nora to escape later.
      >
      >
      > Perhaps a
      > > broken gun, bloodstains or a bullet lodged in a wall could be
      > > discovered to give clues to what occurred.
      > > There is also a fundamental gap in logic here. Why would a woman
      > > throw a dead body down her closest and best well? In the
      country,
      > > water is her lifeline. It would be absurd for Queenie to poison
      > her
      > > own water. This doesn't make sense.
      >
      > Good point. Queenie would need another water source to make that
      > possible.
      >
      >
      > If she had arthritis, or if
      > > this killing were done on the spur of the moment, then maybe this
      > was
      > > the only spot she could manage to drag it to. This might explain
      > > such an unusual move. Trying to cover the crime yelling "none of
      > > your business" etc. would only make people suspicious. She
      > shouldn't
      > > be so stupid that she wouldn't know this.
      >
      > She might be that stupid, real life criminals often are. She might
      > be insane, even more of a reason for Nora to 'leg it'.
      >
      >
      > Also, I'd like the smell
      > > of the decomposing body to be a bit more subtle and the body's
      > > discovery to be more concrete. Could Queenie still be using the
      > > well? Does she insist that our protagonist strain and boil the
      > > water? Could our character discover lumps of flesh, fingernails,
      > > hairs etc. floating in the brew? Now that's horrific.
      >
      > EEEWwwww! shades of Steven king there methinks, and unnessesary
      the
      > smell of decomposing should be suffient, if anything else was
      needed
      > perhaps a peak under the cover of the well (I'm assuming it was
      > capped) to see a hand or something.
      >
      >
      > I think the
      > > bones of a good story are all here. This is definitely a
      keeper.
      > > Your sentence structure is sound, but you need to flesh out the
      > > details more. If someone's using a hand crank to start their
      car,
      > > roughly what year is this? It's past the Victorian era, but not
      > > quite modern.
      >
      > Sounds like the time between 1900 - 1930's to me. It has that feel
      > to it, and remote farming people of that time wouldn't have been
      > brought up on crime novels and TV to know the best place to hide a
      > body or what behaviour would give the game away.
      >
      > Sputtering or spluttering? Eeeeek! Try making some
      > > changes and reposting. I'll look forward to it.
      >
      > Lol go with spluttering!
      >
      > Alison
      > >
      > >
      >
    • Jillian Gomez
      I kind of agree with Alison. I don t think it s necessary for Queenie (or the murder victim) to be nice. For one thing, making her nice would change the whole
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        I kind of agree with Alison. I don't think it's necessary for Queenie (or the murder victim) to be nice. For one thing, making her nice would change the whole story. The conflicts you're suggesting are good ideas, and would make an interesting story, but a totally different story. It's not the only way to make it work. What if Queenie is mean? Heck, what if the murder victim was mean, too? Maybe he was a crotchety old man just as evil as her. Maybe they both grew up in this town and have been bitter rivals since childhood, always plotting evil things against each other, and finally one night the lifetime of hatred finally boiled over and she ended up killing him. Maybe the well has some sort of significance to their past, like it could be the site where something terrible happened between them in their youth, some nasty event that the locals still whisper about years later, so that there's some irony or poetic justice when she kills him by throwing him in the well. Wouldn't that make for some interesting conflicts and background stories and fleshed-out characters? But it's not the only way to tell this story. There's no right way or wrong way, it just depends on what the writer wants to say and what direction they want to take it in. For me, I'd rather just have a little more character development and the answers to some of those "Why, how, who" questions. I though the story ended too abruptly, without enough explanation of what was going on. But that's just my 2 cents. 

        Jill G.

        On Jun 1, 2006, at 9:37 AM, ralphbaisley wrote:

        --- In ticket2write@yahoogroups.com, "agoodchap" <agoodchap@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > ---I saw your crit of this story and was intregued enough to go
        back
        > and read it for myself.  So thanks for that.  But I have to
        disagree
        > with some of your comments, so I thought to add a few pennies worth
        > myself.
        >
        >  In ticket2write@yahoogroups.com, "ralphbaisley" <ralphbaisley@>
        > wrote:
        > >Hi Alison,

        I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  I'll try to explain my
        logic.  The problem with Metta's story is it revolves around a murder
        in a very vague way.  Who was murdered?  Some man.  Giving a brief
        description, making him a bit human, helps the reader feel sympathy
        for his loss.  Why should he be kind?  Because he's the victim and
        knowing something positive about helps the reader identify with him
        and feel a greater loss.  Why should the old lady be nice?  Because
        it creates conflict.  She's a murderer after all.  Wouldn't she be
        more interesting if she was conflicted or mournful about her loss? 
        This has nothing to do with stereotypes of sweet little old ladies. 
        It has to do with the writer adding levels of complexity to the
        character.  This would create an inner conflict in Nora that doesn't
        exist in the story as it's now written.  How could this kind old
        woman do such a heinous act?  Why is she crying in room at night?  A
        character who's mean, forces labor from this girl, growls about not
        talking etc. seems far more like an evil stereotype to me.  I believe
        Nora should be a relative of this woman.  Then she could give
        background about her eccentric old aunt.  This would tie in nicely
        with Queenie making lots of socks which seems to be just an odd bit
        of information without any background to tie it to.
        Why would I include the graphic details of parts floating in the
        well?  Because this is essentially a horror story.  It certainly
        isn't a murder mystery or whodunit.  Go back to your basics.  Who,
        what, where, when, why and how.  Who?  Some guy from a town.  What? 
        He was murdered.  (Maybe or maybe not)  By whom?  Queenie (Maybe) 
        Where?  Somewhere on the farm?  Maybe.  When?  Unknow.  Why?  No
        information.  How?  No information.  There is too much missing here
        for this to be a puzzler, so I assume it's a horror story.  You'd put
        horror into a horror story, wouldn't you.  To me, this story screams
        to be written in first-person.  Also, this throwing the body down the
        well has to make more sense.  This has to be a choice of last
        resort.  It reminds me of a recent CSI episode.  A man killed some
        woman and then hauled the body to his attic and built a fake chimney
        around her.  Besides the obvious problem of the rafters holding a
        half-ton of bricks it went against all reason.  I screamed at the
        t.v., why did he go to all the bother.  Theres a thousand square
        miles of desert around Vegas.  Instead of taking her upstairs and
        blocking her inside your own property, why not drive to the desert
        and dump her in a shallow grave?  Because the writers wanted to catch
        him in this fashion.  Still, it makes no sense!!!!!  Let's do
        something a hundred times harder that ties the killer to the body. 
        The same illogic is true here.  The body could've been buried on the
        farm.  So why did she pitch it in a well?  There has to be an
        absolutely logical reason Queenie did such an illogical thing.

        All my best,
        Da Baiz

        > >
        > > >Hi Metta,
        > >
        > > I like the overall idea, but I thought it needs quite a bit of
        > work. 
        > > Queenie seems a bit cartoonish to me.  I believe it would be far
        > > better to make her sympathetic or even nice. 
        >
        > Why?  Why should her charactor be nice? I write about older
        > unpleasent women all the time as I hate the idea of pushing the
        > common stereotype of sweet little old ladies.  Many many little old
        > ladies are not sweet by a long chalk.
        >
        > A mean, black-and-white
        > > character has no depth. 
        >
        > I almost agree, Nora and Queenie could be fleshed out more.
        >
        > This man in the well is also very vague. 
        > > Give him a name and a brief desciption.  Give your protagonist a
        > > name, too.  Could she overhear people talking about the missing
        > man's
        > > kind acts and wonder why he went missing?
        >
        > Again why should the man be kind?  It enough that he was a missing
        > man.  He could be fleshed out more too, but its not nessessary to
        > give him a 'nice' charactor, just a fuller one. And its enough that
        > Nora read about him being missing after all in the story most of
        the
        > town people weren't talking to her, they're hardly likely to talk
        > about Queenie within her hearing, remembering Nora would be close
        by.
        >
        > Perhaps your character
        > > could discover a news clipping that describes a dispute between
        > > Queenie and him.  They might have fought over land or water
        > rights. 
        > > If Queenie is outwardly kind and is only secretive about the
        well,
        > > then her behavior becomes all the more suspicious.  Why is this
        > nice
        > > woman acting so strange when it comes to this one subject?
        >
        > Err because she isn't nice and she has got something to hide.  This
        > ties in with the the desparate need for Nora to escape later.
        >
        >
        >  Perhaps a
        > > broken gun, bloodstains or a bullet lodged in a wall could be
        > > discovered to give clues to what occurred.
        > > There is also a fundamental gap in logic here.  Why would a woman
        > > throw a dead body down her closest and best well?  In the
        country,
        > > water is her lifeline.  It would be absurd for Queenie to poison
        > her
        > > own water.  This doesn't make sense. 
        >
        > Good point.  Queenie would need another water source to make that
        > possible.
        >
        >
        > If she had arthritis, or if
        > > this killing were done on the spur of the moment, then maybe this
        > was
        > > the only spot she could manage to drag it to.  This might explain
        > > such an unusual move.  Trying to cover the crime yelling "none of
        > > your business" etc. would only make people suspicious.  She
        > shouldn't
        > > be so stupid that she wouldn't know this.
        >
        > She might be that stupid, real life criminals often are.  She might
        > be insane, even more of a reason for Nora to 'leg it'.
        >
        >
        >  Also, I'd like the smell
        > > of the decomposing body to be a bit more subtle and the body's
        > > discovery to be more concrete.  Could Queenie still be using the
        > > well?  Does she insist that our protagonist strain and boil the
        > > water?  Could our character discover lumps of flesh, fingernails,
        > > hairs etc. floating in the brew?  Now that's horrific. 
        >
        > EEEWwwww!  shades of Steven king there methinks, and unnessesary
        the
        > smell of decomposing should be suffient, if anything else was
        needed
        > perhaps a peak under the cover of the well (I'm assuming it was
        > capped) to see a hand or something. 
        >
        >
        > I think the
        > > bones of a good story are all here.  This is definitely a
        keeper. 
        > > Your sentence structure is sound, but you need to flesh out the
        > > details more.  If someone's using a hand crank to start their
        car,
        > > roughly what year is this?  It's past the Victorian era, but not
        > > quite modern. 
        >
        > Sounds like the time between 1900 - 1930's to me.  It has that feel
        > to it, and remote farming people of that time wouldn't have been
        > brought up on crime novels and TV to know the best place to hide a
        > body or what behaviour would give the game away.
        >
        > Sputtering or spluttering?  Eeeeek!  Try making some
        > > changes and reposting.  I'll look forward to it.
        >
        > Lol go with spluttering!
        >
        > Alison
        > >
        > >
        >










        Learn more about ticket2wite at http://ticket2write.tripod.com



        SPONSORED LINKS
        Creative writing Creative writing book Creative writing camp
        Creative writing help Creative writing online Creative writing school


        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS





      • ralphbaisley
        ... I like your idea of the well having significance. Although this scenario is now starting to sound a lot like The Ring. Still, it s a time-tested device
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In ticket2write@yahoogroups.com, Jillian Gomez <cockatiel.bz@...>
          wrote:
          >Yes Jill,

          I like your idea of the well having significance. Although this
          scenario is now starting to sound a lot like The Ring. Still, it's a
          time-tested device and a real nice tie to justify the act. It would
          make going to a more distant water source worth the effort in her
          rotten, crazy, sick, twisted, warped, demented, addled and completely
          evil mind. Ahhh! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! (evil laughter) Ahhh! Ha! Ha!
          Ha! Ha! (100% evil stereotype free)

          All my best,
          Da Baiz




          > I kind of agree with Alison. I don't think it's necessary for
          Queenie
          > (or the murder victim) to be nice. For one thing, making her nice
          > would change the whole story. The conflicts you're suggesting are
          > good ideas, and would make an interesting story, but a totally
          > different story. It's not the only way to make it work. What if
          > Queenie is mean? Heck, what if the murder victim was mean, too?
          Maybe
          > he was a crotchety old man just as evil as her. Maybe they both
          grew
          > up in this town and have been bitter rivals since childhood,
          always
          > plotting evil things against each other, and finally one night the
          > lifetime of hatred finally boiled over and she ended up killing
          him.
          > Maybe the well has some sort of significance to their past, like
          it
          > could be the site where something terrible happened between them
          in
          > their youth, some nasty event that the locals still whisper about
          > years later, so that there's some irony or poetic justice when she
          > kills him by throwing him in the well. Wouldn't that make for some
          > interesting conflicts and background stories and fleshed-out
          > characters? But it's not the only way to tell this story. There's
          no
          > right way or wrong way, it just depends on what the writer wants
          to
          > say and what direction they want to take it in. For me, I'd rather
          > just have a little more character development and the answers to
          some
          > of those "Why, how, who" questions. I though the story ended too
          > abruptly, without enough explanation of what was going on. But
          that's
          > just my 2 cents.
          >
          > Jill G.
          >
          > On Jun 1, 2006, at 9:37 AM, ralphbaisley wrote:
          >
          > > --- In ticket2write@yahoogroups.com, "agoodchap" <agoodchap@>
          > > wrote:
          > > >
          > > > ---I saw your crit of this story and was intregued enough to go
          > > back
          > > > and read it for myself. So thanks for that. But I have to
          > > disagree
          > > > with some of your comments, so I thought to add a few pennies
          worth
          > > > myself.
          > > >
          > > > In ticket2write@yahoogroups.com, "ralphbaisley" <ralphbaisley@>
          > > > wrote:
          > > > >Hi Alison,
          > >
          > > I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'll try to explain my
          > > logic. The problem with Metta's story is it revolves around a
          murder
          > > in a very vague way. Who was murdered? Some man. Giving a brief
          > > description, making him a bit human, helps the reader feel
          sympathy
          > > for his loss. Why should he be kind? Because he's the victim and
          > > knowing something positive about helps the reader identify with
          him
          > > and feel a greater loss. Why should the old lady be nice?
          Because
          > > it creates conflict. She's a murderer after all. Wouldn't she be
          > > more interesting if she was conflicted or mournful about her loss?
          > > This has nothing to do with stereotypes of sweet little old
          ladies.
          > > It has to do with the writer adding levels of complexity to the
          > > character. This would create an inner conflict in Nora that
          doesn't
          > > exist in the story as it's now written. How could this kind old
          > > woman do such a heinous act? Why is she crying in room at
          night? A
          > > character who's mean, forces labor from this girl, growls about
          not
          > > talking etc. seems far more like an evil stereotype to me. I
          believe
          > > Nora should be a relative of this woman. Then she could give
          > > background about her eccentric old aunt. This would tie in nicely
          > > with Queenie making lots of socks which seems to be just an odd
          bit
          > > of information without any background to tie it to.
          > > Why would I include the graphic details of parts floating in the
          > > well? Because this is essentially a horror story. It certainly
          > > isn't a murder mystery or whodunit. Go back to your basics. Who,
          > > what, where, when, why and how. Who? Some guy from a town.
          What?
          > > He was murdered. (Maybe or maybe not) By whom? Queenie (Maybe)
          > > Where? Somewhere on the farm? Maybe. When? Unknow. Why? No
          > > information. How? No information. There is too much missing
          here
          > > for this to be a puzzler, so I assume it's a horror story. You'd
          put
          > > horror into a horror story, wouldn't you. To me, this story
          screams
          > > to be written in first-person. Also, this throwing the body down
          the
          > > well has to make more sense. This has to be a choice of last
          > > resort. It reminds me of a recent CSI episode. A man killed some
          > > woman and then hauled the body to his attic and built a fake
          chimney
          > > around her. Besides the obvious problem of the rafters holding a
          > > half-ton of bricks it went against all reason. I screamed at the
          > > t.v., why did he go to all the bother. Theres a thousand square
          > > miles of desert around Vegas. Instead of taking her upstairs and
          > > blocking her inside your own property, why not drive to the desert
          > > and dump her in a shallow grave? Because the writers wanted to
          catch
          > > him in this fashion. Still, it makes no sense!!!!! Let's do
          > > something a hundred times harder that ties the killer to the body.
          > > The same illogic is true here. The body could've been buried on
          the
          > > farm. So why did she pitch it in a well? There has to be an
          > > absolutely logical reason Queenie did such an illogical thing.
          > >
          > > All my best,
          > > Da Baiz
          > >
          > > > >
          > > > > >Hi Metta,
          > > > >
          > > > > I like the overall idea, but I thought it needs quite a bit of
          > > > work.
          > > > > Queenie seems a bit cartoonish to me. I believe it would be
          far
          > > > > better to make her sympathetic or even nice.
          > > >
          > > > Why? Why should her charactor be nice? I write about older
          > > > unpleasent women all the time as I hate the idea of pushing the
          > > > common stereotype of sweet little old ladies. Many many little
          old
          > > > ladies are not sweet by a long chalk.
          > > >
          > > > A mean, black-and-white
          > > > > character has no depth.
          > > >
          > > > I almost agree, Nora and Queenie could be fleshed out more.
          > > >
          > > > This man in the well is also very vague.
          > > > > Give him a name and a brief desciption. Give your
          protagonist a
          > > > > name, too. Could she overhear people talking about the
          missing
          > > > man's
          > > > > kind acts and wonder why he went missing?
          > > >
          > > > Again why should the man be kind? It enough that he was a
          missing
          > > > man. He could be fleshed out more too, but its not nessessary
          to
          > > > give him a 'nice' charactor, just a fuller one. And its enough
          that
          > > > Nora read about him being missing after all in the story most of
          > > the
          > > > town people weren't talking to her, they're hardly likely to
          talk
          > > > about Queenie within her hearing, remembering Nora would be
          close
          > > by.
          > > >
          > > > Perhaps your character
          > > > > could discover a news clipping that describes a dispute
          between
          > > > > Queenie and him. They might have fought over land or water
          > > > rights.
          > > > > If Queenie is outwardly kind and is only secretive about the
          > > well,
          > > > > then her behavior becomes all the more suspicious. Why is
          this
          > > > nice
          > > > > woman acting so strange when it comes to this one subject?
          > > >
          > > > Err because she isn't nice and she has got something to hide.
          This
          > > > ties in with the the desparate need for Nora to escape later.
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Perhaps a
          > > > > broken gun, bloodstains or a bullet lodged in a wall could be
          > > > > discovered to give clues to what occurred.
          > > > > There is also a fundamental gap in logic here. Why would a
          woman
          > > > > throw a dead body down her closest and best well? In the
          > > country,
          > > > > water is her lifeline. It would be absurd for Queenie to
          poison
          > > > her
          > > > > own water. This doesn't make sense.
          > > >
          > > > Good point. Queenie would need another water source to make
          that
          > > > possible.
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > If she had arthritis, or if
          > > > > this killing were done on the spur of the moment, then maybe
          this
          > > > was
          > > > > the only spot she could manage to drag it to. This might
          explain
          > > > > such an unusual move. Trying to cover the crime
          yelling "none of
          > > > > your business" etc. would only make people suspicious. She
          > > > shouldn't
          > > > > be so stupid that she wouldn't know this.
          > > >
          > > > She might be that stupid, real life criminals often are. She
          might
          > > > be insane, even more of a reason for Nora to 'leg it'.
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Also, I'd like the smell
          > > > > of the decomposing body to be a bit more subtle and the body's
          > > > > discovery to be more concrete. Could Queenie still be using
          the
          > > > > well? Does she insist that our protagonist strain and boil
          the
          > > > > water? Could our character discover lumps of flesh,
          fingernails,
          > > > > hairs etc. floating in the brew? Now that's horrific.
          > > >
          > > > EEEWwwww! shades of Steven king there methinks, and unnessesary
          > > the
          > > > smell of decomposing should be suffient, if anything else was
          > > needed
          > > > perhaps a peak under the cover of the well (I'm assuming it was
          > > > capped) to see a hand or something.
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > I think the
          > > > > bones of a good story are all here. This is definitely a
          > > keeper.
          > > > > Your sentence structure is sound, but you need to flesh out
          the
          > > > > details more. If someone's using a hand crank to start their
          > > car,
          > > > > roughly what year is this? It's past the Victorian era, but
          not
          > > > > quite modern.
          > > >
          > > > Sounds like the time between 1900 - 1930's to me. It has that
          feel
          > > > to it, and remote farming people of that time wouldn't have been
          > > > brought up on crime novels and TV to know the best place to
          hide a
          > > > body or what behaviour would give the game away.
          > > >
          > > > Sputtering or spluttering? Eeeeek! Try making some
          > > > > changes and reposting. I'll look forward to it.
          > > >
          > > > Lol go with spluttering!
          > > >
          > > > Alison
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Learn more about ticket2wite at http://ticket2write.tripod.com
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > SPONSORED LINKS
          > > Creative writing Creative writing book Creative writing camp
          > > Creative writing help Creative writing online Creative
          writing school
          > >
          > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
          > >
          > > Visit your group "ticket2write" on the web.
          > >
          > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > > ticket2write-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > >
          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          Service.
          > >
          > >
          >
        • Jillian Gomez
          ... Really? I ve never seen that movie. Horror gives me nightmares. ... Riiiiight. (Backs away slowly) Jill G.
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 3, 2006
          • 0 Attachment

            On Jun 2, 2006, at 11:18 AM, ralphbaisley wrote:

            --- In ticket2write@yahoogroups.com, Jillian Gomez <cockatiel.bz@...>
            wrote:
            >Yes Jill,

            I like your idea of the well having significance.  Although this
            scenario is now starting to sound a lot like The Ring. 

            Really? I've never seen that movie. Horror gives me nightmares. 

            Still, it's a
            time-tested device and a real nice tie to justify the act.  It would
            make going to a more distant water source worth the effort in her
            rotten, crazy, sick, twisted, warped, demented, addled and completely
            evil mind.  Ahhh!  Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! (evil laughter)  Ahhh!  Ha! Ha!
            Ha! Ha!  (100% evil stereotype free)

            Riiiiight. (Backs away slowly)

            Jill G.




            All my best,
            Da Baiz




            > I kind of agree with Alison. I don't think it's necessary for
            Queenie 
            > (or the murder victim) to be nice. For one thing, making her nice 
            > would change the whole story. The conflicts you're suggesting are 
            > good ideas, and would make an interesting story, but a totally 
            > different story. It's not the only way to make it work. What if 
            > Queenie is mean? Heck, what if the murder victim was mean, too?
            Maybe 
            > he was a crotchety old man just as evil as her. Maybe they both
            grew 
            > up in this town and have been bitter rivals since childhood,
            always 
            > plotting evil things against each other, and finally one night the 
            > lifetime of hatred finally boiled over and she ended up killing
            him. 
            > Maybe the well has some sort of significance to their past, like
            it 
            > could be the site where something terrible happened between them
            in 
            > their youth, some nasty event that the locals still whisper about 
            > years later, so that there's some irony or poetic justice when she 
            > kills him by throwing him in the well. Wouldn't that make for some 
            > interesting conflicts and background stories and fleshed-out 
            > characters? But it's not the only way to tell this story. There's
            no 
            > right way or wrong way, it just depends on what the writer wants
            to 
            > say and what direction they want to take it in. For me, I'd rather 
            > just have a little more character development and the answers to
            some 
            > of those "Why, how, who" questions. I though the story ended too 
            > abruptly, without enough explanation of what was going on. But
            that's 
            > just my 2 cents.
            >
            > Jill G.
            >
            > On Jun 1, 2006, at 9:37 AM, ralphbaisley wrote:
            >
            > > --- In ticket2write@yahoogroups.com, "agoodchap" <agoodchap@>
            > > wrote:
            > > >
            > > > ---I saw your crit of this story and was intregued enough to go
            > > back
            > > > and read it for myself.  So thanks for that.  But I have to
            > > disagree
            > > > with some of your comments, so I thought to add a few pennies
            worth
            > > > myself.
            > > >
            > > >  In ticket2write@yahoogroups.com, "ralphbaisley" <ralphbaisley@>
            > > > wrote:
            > > > >Hi Alison,
            > >
            > > I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  I'll try to explain my
            > > logic.  The problem with Metta's story is it revolves around a
            murder
            > > in a very vague way.  Who was murdered?  Some man.  Giving a brief
            > > description, making him a bit human, helps the reader feel
            sympathy
            > > for his loss.  Why should he be kind?  Because he's the victim and
            > > knowing something positive about helps the reader identify with
            him
            > > and feel a greater loss.  Why should the old lady be nice? 
            Because
            > > it creates conflict.  She's a murderer after all.  Wouldn't she be
            > > more interesting if she was conflicted or mournful about her loss?
            > > This has nothing to do with stereotypes of sweet little old
            ladies.
            > > It has to do with the writer adding levels of complexity to the
            > > character.  This would create an inner conflict in Nora that
            doesn't
            > > exist in the story as it's now written.  How could this kind old
            > > woman do such a heinous act?  Why is she crying in room at
            night?  A
            > > character who's mean, forces labor from this girl, growls about
            not
            > > talking etc. seems far more like an evil stereotype to me.  I
            believe
            > > Nora should be a relative of this woman.  Then she could give
            > > background about her eccentric old aunt.  This would tie in nicely
            > > with Queenie making lots of socks which seems to be just an odd
            bit
            > > of information without any background to tie it to.
            > > Why would I include the graphic details of parts floating in the
            > > well?  Because this is essentially a horror story.  It certainly
            > > isn't a murder mystery or whodunit.  Go back to your basics.  Who,
            > > what, where, when, why and how.  Who?  Some guy from a town. 
            What?
            > > He was murdered.  (Maybe or maybe not)  By whom?  Queenie (Maybe)
            > > Where?  Somewhere on the farm?  Maybe.  When?  Unknow.  Why?  No
            > > information.  How?  No information.  There is too much missing
            here
            > > for this to be a puzzler, so I assume it's a horror story.  You'd
            put
            > > horror into a horror story, wouldn't you.  To me, this story
            screams
            > > to be written in first-person.  Also, this throwing the body down
            the
            > > well has to make more sense.  This has to be a choice of last
            > > resort.  It reminds me of a recent CSI episode.  A man killed some
            > > woman and then hauled the body to his attic and built a fake
            chimney
            > > around her.  Besides the obvious problem of the rafters holding a
            > > half-ton of bricks it went against all reason.  I screamed at the
            > > t.v., why did he go to all the bother.  Theres a thousand square
            > > miles of desert around Vegas.  Instead of taking her upstairs and
            > > blocking her inside your own property, why not drive to the desert
            > > and dump her in a shallow grave?  Because the writers wanted to
            catch
            > > him in this fashion.  Still, it makes no sense!!!!!  Let's do
            > > something a hundred times harder that ties the killer to the body.
            > > The same illogic is true here.  The body could've been buried on
            the
            > > farm.  So why did she pitch it in a well?  There has to be an
            > > absolutely logical reason Queenie did such an illogical thing.
            > >
            > > All my best,
            > > Da Baiz
            > >
            > > > >
            > > > > >Hi Metta,
            > > > >
            > > > > I like the overall idea, but I thought it needs quite a bit of
            > > > work.
            > > > > Queenie seems a bit cartoonish to me.  I believe it would be
            far
            > > > > better to make her sympathetic or even nice.
            > > >
            > > > Why?  Why should her charactor be nice? I write about older
            > > > unpleasent women all the time as I hate the idea of pushing the
            > > > common stereotype of sweet little old ladies.  Many many little
            old
            > > > ladies are not sweet by a long chalk.
            > > >
            > > > A mean, black-and-white
            > > > > character has no depth.
            > > >
            > > > I almost agree, Nora and Queenie could be fleshed out more.
            > > >
            > > > This man in the well is also very vague.
            > > > > Give him a name and a brief desciption.  Give your
            protagonist a
            > > > > name, too.  Could she overhear people talking about the
            missing
            > > > man's
            > > > > kind acts and wonder why he went missing?
            > > >
            > > > Again why should the man be kind?  It enough that he was a
            missing
            > > > man.  He could be fleshed out more too, but its not nessessary
            to
            > > > give him a 'nice' charactor, just a fuller one. And its enough
            that
            > > > Nora read about him being missing after all in the story most of
            > > the
            > > > town people weren't talking to her, they're hardly likely to
            talk
            > > > about Queenie within her hearing, remembering Nora would be
            close
            > > by.
            > > >
            > > > Perhaps your character
            > > > > could discover a news clipping that describes a dispute
            between
            > > > > Queenie and him.  They might have fought over land or water
            > > > rights.
            > > > > If Queenie is outwardly kind and is only secretive about the
            > > well,
            > > > > then her behavior becomes all the more suspicious.  Why is
            this
            > > > nice
            > > > > woman acting so strange when it comes to this one subject?
            > > >
            > > > Err because she isn't nice and she has got something to hide. 
            This
            > > > ties in with the the desparate need for Nora to escape later.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >  Perhaps a
            > > > > broken gun, bloodstains or a bullet lodged in a wall could be
            > > > > discovered to give clues to what occurred.
            > > > > There is also a fundamental gap in logic here.  Why would a
            woman
            > > > > throw a dead body down her closest and best well?  In the
            > > country,
            > > > > water is her lifeline.  It would be absurd for Queenie to
            poison
            > > > her
            > > > > own water.  This doesn't make sense.
            > > >
            > > > Good point.  Queenie would need another water source to make
            that
            > > > possible.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > If she had arthritis, or if
            > > > > this killing were done on the spur of the moment, then maybe
            this
            > > > was
            > > > > the only spot she could manage to drag it to.  This might
            explain
            > > > > such an unusual move.  Trying to cover the crime
            yelling "none of
            > > > > your business" etc. would only make people suspicious.  She
            > > > shouldn't
            > > > > be so stupid that she wouldn't know this.
            > > >
            > > > She might be that stupid, real life criminals often are.  She
            might
            > > > be insane, even more of a reason for Nora to 'leg it'.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >  Also, I'd like the smell
            > > > > of the decomposing body to be a bit more subtle and the body's
            > > > > discovery to be more concrete.  Could Queenie still be using
            the
            > > > > well?  Does she insist that our protagonist strain and boil
            the
            > > > > water?  Could our character discover lumps of flesh,
            fingernails,
            > > > > hairs etc. floating in the brew?  Now that's horrific.
            > > >
            > > > EEEWwwww!  shades of Steven king there methinks, and unnessesary
            > > the
            > > > smell of decomposing should be suffient, if anything else was
            > > needed
            > > > perhaps a peak under the cover of the well (I'm assuming it was
            > > > capped) to see a hand or something.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > I think the
            > > > > bones of a good story are all here.  This is definitely a
            > > keeper.
            > > > > Your sentence structure is sound, but you need to flesh out
            the
            > > > > details more.  If someone's using a hand crank to start their
            > > car,
            > > > > roughly what year is this?  It's past the Victorian era, but
            not
            > > > > quite modern.
            > > >
            > > > Sounds like the time between 1900 - 1930's to me.  It has that
            feel
            > > > to it, and remote farming people of that time wouldn't have been
            > > > brought up on crime novels and TV to know the best place to
            hide a
            > > > body or what behaviour would give the game away.
            > > >
            > > > Sputtering or spluttering?  Eeeeek!  Try making some
            > > > > changes and reposting.  I'll look forward to it.
            > > >
            > > > Lol go with spluttering!
            > > >
            > > > Alison
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Learn more about ticket2wite at http://ticket2write.tripod.com
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > SPONSORED LINKS
            > > Creative writing      Creative writing book      Creative writing camp
            > > Creative writing help      Creative writing online      Creative
            writing school
            > >
            > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
            > >
            > >  Visit your group "ticket2write" on the web.
            > >
            > >  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > >  ticket2write-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > >
            > >  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
            Service.
            > >
            > >
            >








            Learn more about ticket2wite at http://ticket2write.tripod.com



            SPONSORED LINKS
            Creative writing Creative writing book Creative writing camp
            Creative writing help Creative writing online Creative writing school


            YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS





          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.