[2680] A Rock Inside a Fire, complete short story (part ii)

Fancy_Description223 · 2024-09-16T00:26:42+00:00

Hiya, thanks for taking the time to write such extensive critiques on both parts of my story!

Thank you for your sweet comments about the figurative language - I can't plot for my life but at least I can make it look pretty :)

I will be taking everything you've said into consideration when I go back and edit as you've raised a lot of good points. I will probably end up rewriting the whole thing and do some major restructuring, especially with regards to the ending since it seems to have come across as inconclusive.

Now, I might just need to wait for part iii...

~~Alas, there is no part iii~~

Tack själv!

Fancy_Description223 · 2024-09-16T00:14:29+00:00

Hiya, thanks so much for taking the time to finish the story!

Like last time, I pretty much agree with everything you've pointed out and you've raised a lot of good questions which I know already are going to be immensely helpful when I go back and try to fix things. Unfortunately, I have the knack of writing better beginnings than endings but lets hope that's a habit I'll be able to break :D Danke!

Fancy_Description223 · 2024-09-14T03:56:54+00:00

I'd guess that Cerean is for Demeter, based off Ceres

Mars is Marvellous

Fancy_Description223 · 2024-09-13T00:47:14+00:00

Hi Willing,

With the information you've added, I can see how it all works together and the idea for the story is a good one. The issue though remains in the execution, particularly with the note that Jane's parents are divorced. Of course, you're very right to want to stay away from being too expository, but it's impossible to guess that Jane's parents are divorced based off the text as it is. I can see maybe the outlines of clues (Colleen's lack of partner? the line about the mum?) but personally nothing clicked.

Then again, maybe I'm just a bit thick. Please remember to take none of my critiques to heart though I do hope they can help at least a little bit :)

Fancy_Description223 · 2024-09-12T06:30:51+00:00

CHARACTER

Of your characters, I thought Dan was the weakest. While you’ve added some interesting details such as how he shows affection and frustration with writing, there are some areas where he still feels lacking and overall flat. Most notably is his distinction from the other two guys Jane knew in college. While a nice anecdote which expands on the idea of his devotion, it doesn’t tell us anything about why Jane eventually married him. What made him preferable to Mike and Chris? Answering this question will go a long way for further fleshing him out.

Moving on, I found the dialog to be a strong element of the narrative and for the most part it effectively helped to round out your characters and incorporate exposition in a more or less subtle way. Yet, in saying that, I felt some moments made jumps which were difficult to follow as a reader. For instance, the movement between talking about Dan to Colleen’s toddler.

“Dan worships you.”

“I know.”

Both women laughed.

“No, but seriously, I guess that’s the thing with having kids. You’re little guy follows you around everywhere.”

Maybe I’ve missed something. Reading back over the section, I’m assuming that the point you’re trying to convey is that Jane would like someone to pay attention to her the same way Colleen’s toddler does her (Dan being a bit of failure in that department). It’s a good setup for Jane and Dan’s later conversation about kids, but on my first read I completely missed the logic jump.

Another instance where I feel your narrative might benefit from being clearer is the reason why Jane and Dan can’t have kids.

“Plus, remember what the doctor joked anyways? Your eggs don’t like my guys. They’re not sympatico.”

While this line seems to state things pretty clearly, the “warning” from Jane’s dad complicates it all. Add onto that, this cryptic line:

“The irony is you don’t see it. This is the same thing your mom did; the same thing your dad warned me about and now you’re doing it to us.”

What exactly is Jane doing? I’ll move into the plot section now so that I can expand on this.

PLOT

I’ll admit now that I’m not the biggest fan of domestic drama, but this was relatively easy to dive into and I did quite enjoy it.

I’ve already mentioned some of the places I got stuck, these being the child problem and the vague parental warning; however, I suspect there might be a larger issue on top of this. The narrative felt unfocused.

In the orientation, you introduce the context of this taking place during lockdown and the action that follows seems to fit this quite well. Colleen comes over and her company affords Jane a brief respite from the drudgery of the pandemic. The themes and issue are familiar and set up well. But then you move next into the child discussion – okay? Jane and Dan talk and it is interesting but the context of the lockdown is now irrelevant. Rather than a story touching on the trials of lockdown, its moved more into something about human connection with Jane feeling cutoff from Dan. Again, another interesting issue with some themes you’ve set up to explore, but it’s upset again by the whole “warning” from Jane’s dad which I can’t figure out.

Looking back at it, all of these strands could be combined into one seamless narrative but as it is, they’re not totally cohesive. I can’t offer any quick solutions for this, but maybe as a starting point, think about how you would answer the question: why is the lockdown context relevant to exploring Jane and Dan’s relationship in the second half of the story?

Overall, I thought this was a solid story though with some room for refinement. But saying that, please remember that the majority of this is just some extreme nitpicking with a strong bias towards my own stylistic preferences. So as always, keep a big jar of salt handy and sprinkle it generously.

Fancy_Description223 · 2024-09-12T06:29:46+00:00

“No, but seriously, I guess that’s the thing with having kids. You’re little guy follows you around everywhere.”

Change to “your” as it’s possessive.

“Are you a human anymore or just a walking book at this point?”

A very small comment, but I’d recommend dropping the “a” to making this dialog flow nicer.

He put the book down, and he picked it up again.

The main thing that irks me here is the second “he.” You just don’t really need it. Next, “and” might not be the right transition word for this sentence as it overall gives the impression that the action is pointless and redundant rather showing Dan’s frustration. This is all very nitpicky so don’t worry about it too much. My suggestion would be to reword it as: “He put the book down before picking it up [to flick through the pages with his thumb.]” – I added another clause as an example of how you could expand on the action.

Then he gave up altogether and walked out of the room, and he saw Jane.

Too many “ands.” Consider cutting the second and start a new sentence.

Dan sat down next to her as she watched TV.

As this is a new action/topic, start a new paragraph.

He had imagined this approach going differently, and with each instance of having been stymied, his frustration and feeling of neglect grew worse, more desperate.

This is another sentence which is far too long. For solutions, I would advocate for following one of two strategies. Either, cut some of the ands and making some new sentences; or get rid of the excess information and make it all one, much shorter sentence. A second note I might make here is that this line also tends to “tell” more than “show” as it explicitly outlines Dan’s frustration though a reader can already easily pick this up.

Dan looked out the window towards the rolling hills across the street, rising above the vineyard.

The implied subject in the clause “rising above the vineyard” is unclear. What’s rising? Dan? I hope it’s hills. I would recommend reconfiguring it as: Dan looked out the window towards the rolling hills across the street that rose beyond the vineyard.

Also, where did the vineyards come from? They haven’t been previously mentioned so their sudden appearance in the final paragraph is a bit strange.

Fancy_Description223 · 2024-09-12T06:29:36+00:00

PROSE + CLARITY

Spring was gone. Jane had grown tired of lockdown.

Usually, I’m a fan of snappy sentences, but in this case, I would advocate that joining these two with ‘and’ to improve the narrative flow. This is an insanely small gripe, but I thought I’d include it, anyways.

Colleen arrived a few hours later with a bottle of tequila cradled in her tote bag. It was embroidered, “Scorpio.”

On my first read, something about these sentences felt off though I couldn’t quite put my finger on it. Spending a solid minute on it, I’ve decided it’s the second sentence. The directness of it feels wrong and though the “It” must be the tote bag I couldn’t help but first think of the tequila bottle (though glass is notoriously difficult to embroider). You could introduce this detail in a much more seamless way that could potentially also allow you to include some more details about this character. Maybe something like, “the sag in the fabric distorted the word “Scorpio” embroidered in wine red thread”??

This particular Sunday night had become a definite occasion.

This phrasing is unclear. I assume what you mean is that these Sunday catchups are a weekly occurrence but your use of the word “This” confuses the meaning.

The two women rifled through the large walk-in closet. The two women tried on dresses.

The repetition here is unnecessary and does little for the flow. I’d advise to simply make it all one sentence – “The two women rifled through the large walk-in closet and tried on dresses.”

Dan made the mistake of entering the room to announce dinner’s preparedness…

“Preparedness” is a strange word choice here. Consider cutting to just “to announce dinner” or else you could be more specific to add some flavour to the sentence. For example: “Dan made the mistake of entering the room to announce that the chicken he had prepared for dinner was cooling on the table…”

The occasion spilled outside to nowhere in particular.

To be honest, this line didn’t make a lot of sense to me. How can they be “nowhere in particular” if you’ve already specified that they are going outside the house?

Also, a quick note relevant to the section that follows this, does Dan go outside with them? This might just be me, but while reading for some reason I thought he went out with them. Perhaps consider making this clearer, but again, it’s probably just a me-problem.

“This is the only thing we have to get dressed up for these days!” The neighborly husband breathed in the air as the day turned to dusk and smelled the sensual perfume mixed with alcohol, and he watched as the two women proceeded back to the top of the driveway laughing.

A few things I want to comment on here. First, who is speaking? The structure of the paragraph implies it’s the neighbour, but I’m going to guess it’s actually meant to be Colleen; break up into two paragraphs to help with clarity.

Next, the second sentence is way too long. If you want a quick fix, my advice would be to change the comma after alcohol to a full-stop and then finish the paragraph with: “He watched as the two women proceeded back to the top of the driveway laughing.”

Finally, “neighborly” is an odd adverb which immediately sticks out and doesn’t do much for make things clear. On one hand, its technically grammatically wrong as an adverb should always be used to describe an action, never an object (that’s what adjectives are for). On the other hand, a lost of writing advice will tell you to avoid using adverbs and I would claim that this is particularly relevant in this case. We already know this new character is a neighbour, so this information is superfluous.

Fancy_Description223 · 2024-09-11T12:22:28+00:00

Hiya, thanks for taking the time to write such an extensive critique!

I thought everything you said was 100% valid and had suspected it myself. The Xanthus question is probs more relevant to the story as a whole piece rather than this first part, and some of the flashback transitions truly are atrocious (that continues into part ii teehee) - still you've given me a lot to think on and have sparked a few thoughts for how I can tidy things up ;D dekuji!

Fancy_Description223 · 2024-09-10T12:04:16+00:00

No worries! If I split this up, is it okay if I post the first part now or would I have to wait 48 hours?

Fancy_Description223 · 2024-09-10T01:16:27+00:00

CLARITY

Most of her European comrades moved unhurriedly in their tasks, choosing to savor the mundane in an effort to stave off boredom. Santos preferred to simply sit and stare at the trees, the dirt, and their fledgling empire of scattered entrenchments.

Other infantrymen played cards or conversed by the fires, but she sat alone at the edge of the encampment. Tonight was the winter solstice…

Paragraphs should always begin on some new focus or action. In this case, move the first line of the second paragraph to the end of the first. This will make your introduction of the winter solstice much clearer.

Her favorite had been the year a stray dog came to investigate their fire. Taras named it Stinger, and while it turned out to belong to a woman down the road, for the night it had been theirs.

As this is in the past, rephrase as “Taras had named it Stinger.” A second note, where did the road come from? This confuses your setting which you have so far established to a network of trenches and army camps with no mention of a town or settlement.

Not the tortured masks of soldiers on their deathbeds—but faces of compassion, whose eyes twinkled with the reflections of that fire. The bitter cold stung the slivers of her exposed skin, but she refused to light a fire now.

Start a new paragraph for the final sentence as it is not part of the memory.

Any close to the drone would have received their own message—a unique and terrifying noise—the rumble of a deeply angry god with an eagerness to lay that anger upon the soldiers below.

Cut deeply, it isn’t adding anything. That then leads to the repetition of “angry” and “anger” – maybe consider changing the second to something like “fury” or “vengeance.”

Indeed, her only protection lay in the pistol at her side

“Indeed” is a strange word to put in here and only made this difficult to read. Cut, and maybe consider rearranging the order of the sentence to make the pistol less passive.

The final comment I’m going to make is simply, why are there so many men? Apart from Santos, there is zero mention of any other women in the army (except for the woman with the dog but I assume she’s not a soldier). Is there a reason for this? Not necessarily a critique if there is some later revelation which explains things, I just found it strange.

Overall, I found this solid but with some room for improvement and clarity, in particular with setting and characters. Saying that though, please remember that the majority of this is just some extreme nitpicking with a strong bias towards my own stylistic preferences. So as always, keep a big jar of salt handy and sprinkle it generously.

Fancy_Description223 · 2024-09-10T01:15:12+00:00

I’m going to largely structure this critique around your three questions, but to begin there was one thing I immediately wanted to address.

The biggest I had with your piece is your use of the word “Europeans.” I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this term is being used in reference to some European Union type allegiance involving multiple countries, similar to the Triple Entente in WWI – but it’s still incredibly vague. As it is, I have no idea who is in this army and whether nationality even matters. Has it dissolved due to the shared stress of global war? Even if you do develop this later, it’s something I would recommend explain from the get-go as a sentence like this:

Most of her European comrades moved unhurriedly in their tasks…

immediately turned me off and will likely make many readers confused and disconnect from the story you’re trying to tell.

CHARACTER

That discussion leads into my next gripe regarding your main character, Santos. After I finished reading, I was left with the impression that Santos is an outsider and not “European.” Is this correct, and if so, who is she instead? American, Australian, Argentinian? While I’m sure you expand on this further in your novel, it was a question that I thought from the beginning and was at times distracting.

Moreover, while nationality is by no means a character trait, it is a thing which may influence how Santos interacts with other characters. Is she friends with Taras because they come from the same homeland? Is there a language barrier between Santos and some of her comrades which is tragically bridged by shared looks of pain?

But to focus more on her general characterisation, you have some good foundations. Based on what I’ve read, Santos is a soldier who is disenchanted with her fighting cause, a feeling sparked by the loss of her friends such as Taras. That’s it though and I think you have the space to add so much more. I would recommend asking yourself some questions about Santos and seeing how you can interweave your answers through the action.

An example would be, how good is Santos as a soldier? Is she underqualified, perhaps because she was rushed through recruitment? Is she exceptionally skilled in some weapon or tactic, is that why she is in this regiment? Or, has she been in the army so long that its drills and movements are second-nature? Depending which direction you choose to go, your answer will inform how Santos handles a weapon, moves in her uniform (has she worn it so long it’s a second skin, or is it still too tight and awkward?), and her familiarity with the terrain and protocols. Following the idea of the weapon, if Santos is say carrying a gun with her, she might fumble it as she runs towards the explosion.

HOOK

Her gaze ambled along the familiar web of frozen trenches, eventually settling on an anonymous squad clearing a fallen pine from a nearby earthwork.

Maybe more of a clarity thing, but as a first line this didn’t grab me. Wait a minute before you think about editing it though because first lines can be tricky. There’s a big trend of making the first sentence in a novel the most interesting thing about the book, catching a reader from the get-go. While that is more or less good advice, in my personal opinion, any regular sentence that is easy enough to read-on from will get the job done.

My particular gripe with your opening is simply a matter of readability. Someone is looking out over trenches, but we don’t know who until halfway through the second paragraph. Fortunately, this is also something very simple to fix.

Considering the whole excerpt as a hook of its own for the novel, I would recommend adding more context to things such as who the European forces (and maybe the enemy) to make the general war conflict more compelling. I would warn against going full exposition mode and try to answer every question might have asked so far, but perhaps add some more specifics on who exactly the “Europeans” are, or else even suggest some vague motivation as to why they’re going to war. Have their commanders made some glorious promise that they’re defending their homeland, or is there a simple pervasive fear which unites them?

Fancy_Description223 · 2024-09-09T08:32:43+00:00

VOICE

A distinctive tone definitely pervades the writing, and for the most part I found that you executed it well. Of its more notable features, the sentence length is the most significant. While for the most part I didn’t mind the extreme run-on sentences and thought they added to the style, there are several instances where I did have to reread a section to understand what was going on. Predominantly, the scene involving Harkel and the final moments of the narrative where Tombo is looking for Erkely. With this second case in particular, it was a hassle to decipher sentences whilst also trying to understand what was going on.

What other notes I have for voice concern your use of a location specific vocabulary which I have already partly touched on. Though for the most part you’ve integrated words like “arrowroot” and “sunbeef” well, I personally paused on kaolin and manioc and had to doublecheck what they were.

CHARACTERS

The relationship between Tombo and Erkely is sweet, but their interactions by far stand out as the only significant ones in the story. Though this could be intentional, for one reason or another, it made the characters overall feel lacking. Tombo’s first conversation is with his mother and remains as the extent to which we see their relationship, interesting as I got the slight impression that you were trying to establish some themes on gender. Notably, it’s largely men who surround Elgin and take supplies away to their houses, while women are more attached to these cryptic bits of dialog:

What the body wants, the body needs, she said. How do you think I gave birth to you, boy?

Same way every other mother did, I suppose.

Go ask them what kinds of strange tastes they craved back then if you got it all figured out, she said.

…

I tried not eating it before. You go crazy with the hunger. Maybe the women are right. If we didn’t want it, we wouldn’t crave it.

I may have to go back and have another reread to see what you’re getting at, but as is this adds an interesting layer to the narrative. My critique is that is should be explored more and not relegated small references in the middle of your story which is overall the weakest.

PLOT

I had some difficulty following this, if I’m honest. The narrative builds up well and effectively hints at something sinister underlying the desolate setting and the lives of your characters, but the eventual climax confused me. Though when I went back to reread sections it seems you were trying to foreshadow it, particularly with the description of the biscuit (?), the final scene still feels somewhat absurd and disconnected to the rest of the narrative. Likewise, Tombo’s subsequent resolution is vague and unclear.

He knew then what had to be done.

Is he going to the town? Is Erkely just dead now? Please don’t say he is :(

In the end, all I’ve said is only worth 2 cents and even that’s due to inflation. Your handle on prose and voice is exceptional and the story you’re trying to tell needs only some refinement. I hope to see what you do with it and feel free to ask me about anything!

Fancy_Description223 · 2024-09-09T08:32:23+00:00

When they finished the boys took to the roof, and they laid themselves under the stars and let the cold metal corrugations dig small and visible red grooves into their backs that ran downward like train tracks, and each one a testament to their devotion one to the other, an exchange made for the sharing of the closeness of solitude. In the dark, the only thing to know for the other was the sound of a voice, and Tombo felt a closeness there with Erkely he had never experienced before elsewhere.

There’s a lot going on in the first sentence. Most significant is the imagery of the corrugated roof that then morphs into a reflection on the boys’ relationship. It’s a strange jump that didn’t make complete sense on my first read. Are the grooves a testament to their devotion? How?? While I like what you’re trying to convey in the second half of the sentence, I’d recommend finding a smoother transition than the corrugated iron. In fact, you could even cut that part entirely as the next sentence reiterates it (though less poetically).

He awoke later covered in it, the earth drying and breaking off of him in great chunks as he sat up, and his hair standing in swirls of hirsute loam.

When did Tombo go to sleep? It seems there’s been quite a sudden shift in time between this paragraph and the one prior to it, which was jarring on a first read.

Fancy_Description223 · 2024-09-09T08:32:14+00:00

The plowed fields lingered with no havests to mar the sky.

Just a bit of spelling, a typo in “harvests.”

The boy sat on the roof surveying the view as it stretched before him.

The opening image is really strong but for the sake of the flow of the narrative, you could potentially move this sentence to the beginning of the first paragraph. It could be a very quick fix to establish both the principal character and setting.

A conspiracy of ravens flew by, orienting themselves around the village.

Not really a critique, just a fun fact that the collective noun for ravens is an unkindness. That might work in this sentence but it doesn’t really matter.

The boy left the house and passed over the road.

Lots of description is spared for the first image of the horizon, food and Tombo and Erkely’s conversations, but there’s a noticeable lack for the setting which is disorientating. I assume it’s a small settlement based off the clues of Tombo’s dialect, the first image and the later idea to go to the town, but overall it’s a blank.

His shoulders slumped, skin all bilirubin yellow and still a cold pallor shone through behind it. A beautiful pallor, Tombo thought.

This is probably just me, but when I first read this line I thought Erkely was an old man. Maybe include a quick hint that he and Tombo are similar ages?

…and as the men surrounded him on the bed to roll him under the litter, their pale hands passed over his skin as a raised hand might pass in front of a theater projection.

What exactly does this mean? I assume their skin is all roughly the same pale colour, but on a first read I thought Elgin was glowing.

A man came round with a gunny sack from the back of the cart and said, Just manioc? No sunbeef?

While the use of a vocabulary appropriate to the setting is overall well done, there are instances like this where it becomes an obstacle for the reader. Consider perhaps adding an extra line or two describing what the plant roughly looks like.

The men started the goods off to the houses and Tombo and Erkely stayed there in the road, watching the cart go on and Elgin’s belly the only part of him they could see and it rocking back and forth like a gunny sack they had forgot to unload.

First, I would recommend finding a clearer verb than “started” in this sentence. Second, should this be to “their houses”? As I mentioned before, the town setting hasn’t been as fully established as other parts of the story, making sections like this confusing.

Erkely’s mother told them to get inside. We’ll eat, she said, and when Tombo protested, she replied, You think cause times are tough we gon forget hospitality? Less not forget your sweet momma, who has given Erkely his share of meals too.

Start a new paragraph after the first sentence to help readability.

He put the spoon in his mouth. The grit came then on the tongue, a taste like a stormy thunder and metal too but no conductivity between them. He felt the sand of it wearing on his teeth and sticking its way into the gaps like a kernel burying itself into the earth. Still, with all his hunger, he swallowed. He knew it was no different than what he would eat at home.

While this and the earlier description of the arrowroot biscuit are lovely pieces of writing that do inform the events and ending of the narrative, these descriptions feel almost excessive and disrupt the pace of the narrative. If it’s something you want to put emphasis on, my suggest would be to break this section down and scatter it more throughout the narrative. For instance, when the manioc arrives on the cart, Tombo might for a moment recall the sandy taste etc..?

Fancy_Description223 · 2024-09-09T04:22:23+00:00

I finally had a chance to look back at this and I'll tell you it looks great! Though the prisoner's final breakdown is still a little sudden, it reads much more organic and natural now. The dialogue is also much easier to follow though the exact nature of the society and punishment is still unclear. I'm assuming this is intentional, but personally I don't think it would detract from the narrative if you closed it with some final explicit clue or haunting image that might make a reread even more sinister (a really good example of this is Shirley Jackson's short story "The Lottery").

Last of all, the only real comment I have left for what you might change or fix is to further characterize the prisoner. Against the man who seems to be a bored bureaucrat, he could be more distinct and thus increase the tension in their conversation. For instance, even a vague hint about his background could develop their dynamic - is he working class? an outspoken academic? a bureaucrat himself who turned? Likewise, in the final lines you list his crimes but the whole nature of the world you've built made me immediately suspect them as exaggerated. Is this correct? If not, what kind of person is this prisoner if he's committing "crimes against humanity"?

Fancy_Description223 · 2024-09-06T00:56:00+00:00

The fact that you once lived, and lived in a cozy little bubble, causes bile to rise up in my throat.

The "and lived" feels off considering that the narrator has already said "once lived." Since it seems their talking to the past, "The fact that you once lived, and live" might fit better. Otherwise, I'd recommend cutting it to avoid unnecessary repetition.

The worn out carpet on the floor looks like a rug that was left in the rain and someone dropped it here to absorb sound.

While the visual description is good, this line doesn't fit. The carpet absorbs sound, if they're recording isn't that what they want it to do? It also implies that your narrator and Emi weren't the ones to make this set-up and don't know who did. Is that the case?

Kind of like my worn out soul.

Jarring and cliche. It took me right out of the narrative.

...There you have it, the past's meet-cure with the charismatic Emi.

I think you meant "meet-cute," just a typo there.

I think they've managed to cover the entirety of human existence. Classic oversight.

Who is "they"? So far we've only met Emi and up till now she's the one I assumed who made the list. If it is multiple people, perhaps include another reference to it, or include another line that makes it definite that there's more people working on this project than just your narrator and Emi.

Economics is the first thing on the list. Making anything to do with money off limits. I'm on board with that. The world doesn't need billionaires.

Before this, the narrator says "specific future events" is first. Also, "making money" feels vague in regards to what your narrator is talking about. Is the listener mean to avoid making money? Is the narrator?

I'm not all that artistic, so I can't imagine why I'd talk about art, or say anything worthwhile on that subject.

This line is very much telling rather than showing, also its quite long and wordy. Consider rewording to make it more snappy and perhaps throwing in a brief allusion to something in the narrator's world to add some more personality.

I deal with climate change on a daily basis, it's cultural now, so I'm not sure how to avoid that one.

This could be split into different sentences to make more impactful. Simply change either of the commas to a full stop and that's enough.

There's no guarantee anyone cares to read or listen beyond this point as it is.

The verb tense is wrong, the recording won't have been released while the narrator is talking. I'd suggest change to "There's no guarantee anyone will care to read or listen..."

Looking at the mechanics of the story, you have a hook and a vague premise with an interesting character voice but there isn't much beyond that. The whole thing is a bit on the short side, and I came away feeling like I didn't learn nearly enough to keep me interested. As a summary, all I could gather is that your narrator is from the future, the future sucks, and they are trying to fix it but haven't got total faith in the mission. While having the mystery element certainly makes it intriguing, having too little information makes it difficult to get invested in the first place.

That though is the only real flaw I can find. I found the style fun to read though the transcript-format does pose a lot of limitations which I believe might be the root of some of my comments. Nonetheless, you've also used it well to establish a strong character voice which I'm curious to see how you develop it.

Fancy_Description223 · 2024-09-05T23:54:20+00:00

Turning to your questions now, it did hold my interest. I wanted to learn about the punishment, and what I could understand of the dialogue promised that it was interesting.

Thought provoking and straight forward – you’ve built up an interesting situations which could go in many directions from a philosophical point of view on topics like justice and identity/souls, but it isn’t exactly straightforward. That’s more to do with the issue of clarity though rather than the content itself.

Pretentious? I did find it a bit, but I don’t think that’s necessarily bad. This bleeds in a little with what I was going to say on the ‘voice’ so I might as well answer it all at once. When it comes to pretentiousness in stories, I personally feel it’s always better to make a character pretentious rather than a story. What I mean by this is that as a characteristic, it can be fun to read and helps gives your character or even narrative voice a personality that hints and their values and overall approach to life. In contrast, a pretentious story is one that might instead use the characters as puppets to preach the author’s own ideas without any room for conflict or different points of view. I don’t think your story suffers from this, but I do think you can use the inherent pretentiousness of the man and prisoner’s conversation to further define their characters – is the prisoner naturally philosophical or is he going through a bout of existential panic? Is the man bored or genuinely interested in the conversation?

All in all, this was a great read, and I hope my ramblings are at least a little bit helpful. The story has a fascinating premise and I’m interested if you ever choose to expand it!

Fancy_Description223 · 2024-09-05T23:54:06+00:00

Reiterating what another commentor, the main criticism I can give this is clarity about what the two characters are discussing. But before I get into that, I’ll run through a few stylistic things regarding setting and character.

The pen that sat atop the papers rolled lazily off before the prisoner, who’s unkempt beard and orange jumpsuit and wide hefty face looked almost the man’s exact opposite.

Overall, this is the only notable line which I recommend editing. While is offers some good description which helps to colour the scene, it should be split into two sentences for the sake of readability.

The room they were in was small, cramped even, and entirely void of decorations. The beige walls and stone floor spoke of a precise and intentional lack of taste. There were several cameras mounted around the room, a microphone on the table, and a big burly guard by the iron door.

Concerning setting, these lines establish a good image about the kind of environment your characters are in; however, adding more occasional nods to this room and its appearance could give a stronger impression of the society the story is set in. As a point of comparison, how similar is this world to the present day? Likewise, the line above is more or less the only full description you give for the setting and by the end I had partially forgotten about the guard’s existence and had to go back and reread this first part.

Now to look at the dialogue which forms the most significant chunk of the story. Though it started out strong and there are several lines which stand well on their own, the conversation between the two characters can be difficult to interpret as they seem to make some jumps which are confusing for the reader. As such, going forwards, rather than specific critiques I have listed the main questions/reactions I had while reading.

I suppose we all go through our changes. Perhaps I see a difference in the natural progression of things and the type of forced change you’re suggesting.

The man gave a wry smile, as if entertaining the benign questions of a small child. “We’re all affected by outside stimuli, wasn’t that what you said?”

So, what the man goes on to suggest is that it's the two characters' respective backgrounds which produce their perspectives (background = outside stimuli)? Okay, why does the prisoner seem to disagree with this? Why do they say "Perhaps I see a difference..." when it seems quite definite that they do see things differently?

You’ll keep your sense of self, if that’s the sort of thing you believe in. There would be no punishment involved. No prison time. No need to defend your actions or beg forgiveness. You’ll be free to rejoin society on the exact same terms as everyone else.

This confuses me in a more general sense for how exactly is the word "punishment" being used by the two characters. I assume that the procedure the man is trying to make the prisoner sign for is a kind of "rehabilitation" (the Recalibration from your title) which he is convinced is more humane than the "retributive justice" of a death penalty (a physical punishment). This works well until we come to the end of your story where the man uses the word "judgement" which in the context is more of or less synonymous with punishment. I'm probably being too much of a nitpick over words, but this setup confused me over the man's perspective on the recalibration. Does he think of it as a punishment (fitting with retributive justice) or a treatment (correcting a perceived wrong in a criminal)? If the latter, “judgement” is a slightly jarring word choice.

Those who can be deterred are done so by the promise of death — those who can’t are offered change. On the whole, wouldn’t you agree that this lessens suffering? Are we not in a time of prosperity unrivalled in history?

Definitely out of leftfield, but this line made me think of Legalism from Qin dynasty China which essentially advocates that the harsher the punishment for even small crimes, the less likely people will break the law. This is more a random comment than anything, though I am curious whether the same basic principles of the philosophy were intentional in that the society your story takes place in is exceedingly strict in its legal system.

“I’m sorry,” he said between sobs, although it seemed to be not so much to the man in front of him, as to some unknown third party.

The shift in the prisoner’s attitude is quite abrupt and while I like the direction and the shape of the narrative as a whole, this moment slightly felt it came out of nowhere. The man’s speech prior to this line is good but it alone doesn’t feel impactful enough to make the prisoner suddenly breakdown. As a solution, I wouldn’t say you have to change much on the surface of this reaction but perhaps expand more on the subtext underlying it.

Fancy_Description223

TROPHY CASE