[Valentine 2014] The Aristocrat, The Peasant and The City
2
gave this a read one more time, and this time I'll just try to take it easy. it appears verbosity wasn't the matter in this one, albeit it's not an easy read whatsoever. prolly because of the way it was written without dialogues and such, roughly a full exposition from the start to finish. still, when I didn't really pay any mind to whatever bugs me, I find it to be quite easy to understood as I just tried getting out the general idea.
a decently written narrative so to speak. though by the next attempt, I reckon you could do much better, especially if you tried to made it much pleasurable to read by adding your own peculiar comedic touch I thoroughly enjoyed.
now let me make this clear. I think in stories, there's two things I can count of in general: making the stories clear, and making them entertaining so people would read it from the start to finish without boring themselves to death. sure it's a matter of subjectivity which people might find entertaining or not, or easy to understand. I'll leave this up to another matter since I kind of enjoyed your entry.
well done.
a decently written narrative so to speak. though by the next attempt, I reckon you could do much better, especially if you tried to made it much pleasurable to read by adding your own peculiar comedic touch I thoroughly enjoyed.
now let me make this clear. I think in stories, there's two things I can count of in general: making the stories clear, and making them entertaining so people would read it from the start to finish without boring themselves to death. sure it's a matter of subjectivity which people might find entertaining or not, or easy to understand. I'll leave this up to another matter since I kind of enjoyed your entry.
well done.
0
leonard267
FAKKU Non-Writer
d(^_^)(^_^)d wrote...
I have so much more to talk about my entry, especially what inspired me to parody xnine's characters in that way. I was wondering if you felt the same for yours. I will post a question on your thread soon.
I will check those out and wait to hear what you have to say about your inspiration.
I will reproduce my remarks to xnine. I will say again that it was inspired from his entry and I thought that this is how I would have his characters behave. It is made in another ending that I have written for this story but I think it still applies:
In this story, it is impossible for Elizabeth to marry David due to the many prejudices inherent in the society and culture of which they belonged to, a point I think you grasped. In fact I was entertaining the idea that David's family wanted to kill off Elizabeth by demanding that she fight an impossible battle before they could consider having her as a member of their clan as I wrote this.
I intended to make this story anticlimactic by deviating from how most people would react in such a situation. I think most writers would have David become angry and bitter with his family for laying those dreadful conditions in front of Elizabeth. Elizabeth might have made some protest or suggested eloping with David.
What happened instead was quite the opposite; they accepted those conditions rather stoically. I envisioned them as people from a bygone age who are more concerned about duty and responsibility rather than their wants and desires. They accepted the demands imposed on them by their traditions and culture. You could say that these are what I expect from proper heroes and heroines.
I thought Elizabeth went down fighting more because of love of others and a sense of duty. I didn't make it obvious but Elizabeth's family must be filthy rich and powerful after the end of that war thanks to her dying (in this case, permanently injured) at the battlefield! I believe she thought that whether she survived the battle or otherwise, the people she loved would stand to benefit.
I made Elizabeth ugly and vulgar, I made her fight for the love of her life when what other writers of romance would do is make Elizabeth dazzlingly beautiful and refined, and have David be the lowly peasant that braved death in order to marry the princess Elizabeth. My attempt at playing the contrarian once more. I wrote Elizabeth thinking that she is a model woman that I would want to be with.
It is also a love letter how I admire the virtues of those at the bottom rungs of a hierarchical society as well as how I admire the virtues of those at the top. As for those in between, I would reserve pillorying them somewhere else, probably in a satirical fashion.
And again, it is my attempt in writing a proper romance story. Not the shallow harlequin romance where it seems that real world considerations do not matter and the couples are isolated from the rest of the universe. (They do not)
It's not that I dislike it. What I don't like is the extent to which you used it in your story. You have what amounts to 10+ pages of third person narration with no breaks from it.
Second_Prototype wrote...
BUT reading this thing feels like squeezing bricks into my eye sockets. It reads more like a lore dump in a game rule book than an actual story.
I believe what you meant by breaks is the complete absence dialogue in this entry, yes? Contrary to one of my posts in the Cesspit, I do enjoy documentaries and listening to someone drone on and on about a subject. I also enjoy reading the Lord of the Rings Appendices and Prologues. All of them lack dialogue and they are mainly exposition, exposition and more exposition. This is where I draw my inspiration in this writing style.
Second_Prototype's remark that it reads like a lore book is therefore very much intentional. This is precisely what I was going for, a third person narration of a story. I refrain from using dialogue because not only are they harder to write, I am not very fond of reading dialogue.
Second_Prototype wrote...
Also I'm not sure how this story fits with the theme of fairy tales. Granted how well a story fits the event's themes is open to interpretation but I'm really not seeing where I can draw the connection.
A commoner marries a noble, the stuff of fairy tales and it is quite laughable a notion really. I am suggesting that this fairy tale ending of the peasant marrying the prince was a result of a tortuous and bloody chain of events. Give it a more realistic spin.
high_time wrote...
a decently written narrative so to speak. though by the next attempt, I reckon you could do much better, especially if you tried to made it much pleasurable to read by adding your own peculiar comedic touch I thoroughly enjoyed.
No, no high. This story is simply not to your taste, it is not supposed to be humorous and it is supposed to be a parody of xnine's entry which we do not really take to! I don't think it is to anyone's taste except for mine! I don't think there will be a next time though.
It does address my pet peeve when reading someone's story. Who are the characters? What are their motivations? Is it clear?
0
leonard267 wrote...
I believe what you meant by breaks is the complete absence dialogue in this entry, yes? Contrary to one of my posts in the Cesspit, I do enjoy documentaries and listening to someone drone on and on about a subject. I also enjoy reading the Lord of the Rings Appendices and Prologues. All of them lack dialogue and they are mainly exposition, exposition and more exposition. This is where I draw my inspiration in this writing style.
Second_Prototype's remark that it reads like a lore book is therefore very much intentional. This is precisely what I was going for, a third person narration of a story. I refrain from using dialogue because not only are they harder to write, I am not very fond of reading dialogue.
Well good for you if that's what you want. I don't deduct points for something doing exactly what it set out to do even if it's not to my tastes.
leonard267 wrote...
A commoner marries a noble, the stuff of fairy tales and it is quite laughable a notion really. I am suggesting that this fairy tale ending of the peasant marrying a commoner was a result of a tortuous and bloody chain of events. Give it a more realistic spin.
Oh I get it now. Thanks for clearing that up.
0
I will reproduce my remarks to xnine. I will say again that it was inspired from his entry and I thought that this is how I would have his characters behave. It is made in another ending that I have written for this story but I think it still applies:
In this story, it is impossible for Elizabeth to marry David due to the many prejudices inherent in the society and culture of which they belonged to, a point I think you grasped. In fact I was entertaining the idea that David's family wanted to kill off Elizabeth by demanding that she fight an impossible battle before they could consider having her as a member of their clan as I wrote this.
I intended to make this story anticlimactic by deviating from how most people would react in such a situation. I think most writers would have David become angry and bitter with his family for laying those dreadful conditions in front of Elizabeth. Elizabeth might have made some protest or suggested eloping with David.
What happened instead was quite the opposite; they accepted those conditions rather stoically. I envisioned them as people from a bygone age who are more concerned about duty and responsibility rather than their wants and desires. They accepted the demands imposed on them by their traditions and culture. You could say that these are what I expect from proper heroes and heroines.
I thought Elizabeth went down fighting more because of love of others and a sense of duty. I didn't make it obvious but Elizabeth's family must be filthy rich and powerful after the end of that war thanks to her dying (in this case, permanently injured) at the battlefield! I believe she thought that whether she survived the battle or otherwise, the people she loved would stand to benefit.
I made Elizabeth ugly and vulgar, I made her fight for the love of her life when what other writers of romance would do is make Elizabeth dazzlingly beautiful and refined, and have David be the lowly peasant that braved death in order to marry the princess Elizabeth. My attempt at playing the contrarian once more. I wrote Elizabeth thinking that she is a model woman that I would want to be with.
It is also a love letter how I admire the virtues of those at the bottom rungs of a hierarchical society as well as how I admire the virtues of those at the top. As for those in between, I would reserve pillorying them somewhere else, probably in a satirical fashion.
And again, it is my attempt in writing a proper romance story. Not the shallow harlequin romance where it seems that real world considerations do not matter and the couples are isolated from the rest of the universe. (They do not)
In this story, it is impossible for Elizabeth to marry David due to the many prejudices inherent in the society and culture of which they belonged to, a point I think you grasped. In fact I was entertaining the idea that David's family wanted to kill off Elizabeth by demanding that she fight an impossible battle before they could consider having her as a member of their clan as I wrote this.
I intended to make this story anticlimactic by deviating from how most people would react in such a situation. I think most writers would have David become angry and bitter with his family for laying those dreadful conditions in front of Elizabeth. Elizabeth might have made some protest or suggested eloping with David.
What happened instead was quite the opposite; they accepted those conditions rather stoically. I envisioned them as people from a bygone age who are more concerned about duty and responsibility rather than their wants and desires. They accepted the demands imposed on them by their traditions and culture. You could say that these are what I expect from proper heroes and heroines.
I thought Elizabeth went down fighting more because of love of others and a sense of duty. I didn't make it obvious but Elizabeth's family must be filthy rich and powerful after the end of that war thanks to her dying (in this case, permanently injured) at the battlefield! I believe she thought that whether she survived the battle or otherwise, the people she loved would stand to benefit.
I made Elizabeth ugly and vulgar, I made her fight for the love of her life when what other writers of romance would do is make Elizabeth dazzlingly beautiful and refined, and have David be the lowly peasant that braved death in order to marry the princess Elizabeth. My attempt at playing the contrarian once more. I wrote Elizabeth thinking that she is a model woman that I would want to be with.
It is also a love letter how I admire the virtues of those at the bottom rungs of a hierarchical society as well as how I admire the virtues of those at the top. As for those in between, I would reserve pillorying them somewhere else, probably in a satirical fashion.
And again, it is my attempt in writing a proper romance story. Not the shallow harlequin romance where it seems that real world considerations do not matter and the couples are isolated from the rest of the universe. (They do not)
You're inspiration sounds a lot cooler than mine. I hope you weren't expecting something similar from me . . .
I don't know why you'd intentionally make it anti-climatic though. Actually, I don't think anti-climatic is the word you want to use. What you've done is change what the climax is. Rather than having David leave his family, you make the climax the outcome of the battle. Does Elizabeth live or die?
I did notice that you were moving against the grain so to speak on this.
0
leonard267
FAKKU Non-Writer
d(^_^)(^_^)d wrote...
I will reproduce my remarks to xnine. I will say again that it was inspired from his entry and I thought that this is how I would have his characters behave. It is made in another ending that I have written for this story but I think it still applies:
In this story, it is impossible for Elizabeth to marry David due to the many prejudices inherent in the society and culture of which they belonged to, a point I think you grasped. In fact I was entertaining the idea that David's family wanted to kill off Elizabeth by demanding that she fight an impossible battle before they could consider having her as a member of their clan as I wrote this.
I intended to make this story anticlimactic by deviating from how most people would react in such a situation. I think most writers would have David become angry and bitter with his family for laying those dreadful conditions in front of Elizabeth. Elizabeth might have made some protest or suggested eloping with David.
What happened instead was quite the opposite; they accepted those conditions rather stoically. I envisioned them as people from a bygone age who are more concerned about duty and responsibility rather than their wants and desires. They accepted the demands imposed on them by their traditions and culture. You could say that these are what I expect from proper heroes and heroines.
I thought Elizabeth went down fighting more because of love of others and a sense of duty. I didn't make it obvious but Elizabeth's family must be filthy rich and powerful after the end of that war thanks to her dying (in this case, permanently injured) at the battlefield! I believe she thought that whether she survived the battle or otherwise, the people she loved would stand to benefit.
I made Elizabeth ugly and vulgar, I made her fight for the love of her life when what other writers of romance would do is make Elizabeth dazzlingly beautiful and refined, and have David be the lowly peasant that braved death in order to marry the princess Elizabeth. My attempt at playing the contrarian once more. I wrote Elizabeth thinking that she is a model woman that I would want to be with.
It is also a love letter how I admire the virtues of those at the bottom rungs of a hierarchical society as well as how I admire the virtues of those at the top. As for those in between, I would reserve pillorying them somewhere else, probably in a satirical fashion.
And again, it is my attempt in writing a proper romance story. Not the shallow harlequin romance where it seems that real world considerations do not matter and the couples are isolated from the rest of the universe. (They do not)
In this story, it is impossible for Elizabeth to marry David due to the many prejudices inherent in the society and culture of which they belonged to, a point I think you grasped. In fact I was entertaining the idea that David's family wanted to kill off Elizabeth by demanding that she fight an impossible battle before they could consider having her as a member of their clan as I wrote this.
I intended to make this story anticlimactic by deviating from how most people would react in such a situation. I think most writers would have David become angry and bitter with his family for laying those dreadful conditions in front of Elizabeth. Elizabeth might have made some protest or suggested eloping with David.
What happened instead was quite the opposite; they accepted those conditions rather stoically. I envisioned them as people from a bygone age who are more concerned about duty and responsibility rather than their wants and desires. They accepted the demands imposed on them by their traditions and culture. You could say that these are what I expect from proper heroes and heroines.
I thought Elizabeth went down fighting more because of love of others and a sense of duty. I didn't make it obvious but Elizabeth's family must be filthy rich and powerful after the end of that war thanks to her dying (in this case, permanently injured) at the battlefield! I believe she thought that whether she survived the battle or otherwise, the people she loved would stand to benefit.
I made Elizabeth ugly and vulgar, I made her fight for the love of her life when what other writers of romance would do is make Elizabeth dazzlingly beautiful and refined, and have David be the lowly peasant that braved death in order to marry the princess Elizabeth. My attempt at playing the contrarian once more. I wrote Elizabeth thinking that she is a model woman that I would want to be with.
It is also a love letter how I admire the virtues of those at the bottom rungs of a hierarchical society as well as how I admire the virtues of those at the top. As for those in between, I would reserve pillorying them somewhere else, probably in a satirical fashion.
And again, it is my attempt in writing a proper romance story. Not the shallow harlequin romance where it seems that real world considerations do not matter and the couples are isolated from the rest of the universe. (They do not)
You're inspiration sounds a lot cooler than mine. I hope you weren't expecting something similar from me . . .
I don't know why you'd intentionally make it anti-climatic though. Actually, I don't think anti-climatic is the word you want to use. What you've done is change what the climax is. Rather than having David leave his family, you make the climax the outcome of the battle. Does Elizabeth live or die?
I did notice that you were moving against the grain so to speak on this.
You are right. Going against expectation is the more proper phrase. The climax of the story is not what I think most would have expected. The climax of the story in my opinion was: Instead of rejecting an unacceptable demand, Elizabeth went along with it. I've always thought that an anticlimax betrays expectations and disappoints the reader. I believed the lack of a protest from both the characters could be an anticlimax.
While this would be one of my few articles that high was not happy with and it is very different from what I usually write, I feel that it is still consistent with my insistence in going against the norm.
Inspiration wise, I would say that one thought came after another. David and Elizabeth were inspired from xnine's entry. I wanted to show how the female lead was important and I want the male lead to have a stake in the city he visited. I also wanted the main characters to have virtues that I really admire.
0
You are right. Going against expectation is the more proper phrase. The climax of the story is not what I think most would have expected. The climax of the story in my opinion was: Instead of rejecting an unacceptable demand, Elizabeth went along with it. I've always thought that an anticlimax betrays expectations and disappoints the reader. I believed the lack of a protest from both the characters could be an anticlimax.
It could end up anti-climatic depending on how you handle it, but betraying expectations or rather, playing on expectations, isn't enough.
Inspiration wise, I would say that one thought came after another. David and Elizabeth were inspired from xnine's entry. I wanted to show how the female lead was important and I want the male lead to have a stake in the city he visited. I also wanted the main characters to have virtues that I really admire.
All ideas start from somewhere. I would think that they rarely if ever pop into one's head fully formed. Sometimes all it takes is one stray thought.
0
leonard267
FAKKU Non-Writer
[quote="d(^_^)(^_^)d"]
It could end up anti-climatic depending on how you handle it, but betraying expectations or rather, playing on expectations, isn't enough.
That is what is by definition. All anticlimaxes disappoint and so betray expectations. You needn't dislike an anticlimax though. I enjoy writing anticlimactically to humour myself and others.
It could end up anti-climatic depending on how you handle it, but betraying expectations or rather, playing on expectations, isn't enough.
That is what is by definition. All anticlimaxes disappoint and so betray expectations. You needn't dislike an anticlimax though. I enjoy writing anticlimactically to humour myself and others.
0
leonard267 wrote...
[quote="d(^_^)(^_^)d"]It could end up anti-climatic depending on how you handle it, but betraying expectations or rather, playing on expectations, isn't enough.
That is what is by definition. All anticlimaxes disappoint and so betray expectations. You needn't dislike an anticlimax though. I enjoy writing anticlimactically to humour myself and others.
No. I'd say a climax is only anti-climatic if it disappoints.
0
leonard267
FAKKU Non-Writer
d(^_^)(^_^)d wrote...
leonard267 wrote...
[quote="d(^_^)(^_^)d"]It could end up anti-climatic depending on how you handle it, but betraying expectations or rather, playing on expectations, isn't enough.
That is what is by definition. All anticlimaxes disappoint and so betray expectations. You needn't dislike an anticlimax though. I enjoy writing anticlimactically to humour myself and others.
No. I'd say a climax is only anti-climatic if it disappoints.
Yes. If it disappoints, it betrays expectations. (And I know that the reverse is not necessarily true) I am humoured when I see disappointment.
1
speaking of anti-climatic things, I kind of like them. it also reminds me that many happenings in real life are also anti-climatic.
one example of it :
yeah
one example of it :
Spoiler:
yeah
1
leonard267
FAKKU Non-Writer
high_time wrote...
speaking of anti-climatic things, I kind of like them. it also reminds me that many happenings in real life are also anti-climatic.one example of it :
Spoiler:
yeah
That is precisely what I like!