The Ice Exposition

[PorlNecklace]

There is a period of overwhelming, existential euphoria that men of exceptional intellect or ego enter at some interval in their lives. Unsure exactly into which division I fit, I can assure you, however, of the fact that the sin of excessive sloth was responsible, for undermining all inductive efforts on my part during such stages of self-enlightenment. Thus, with my teenage years entirely wasted, I, Dante Borghese, self-fancied scholar and philosopher, found myself spending my ascending years of adulthood as a lowly journalist.

Unhappy with, and unenthusiastic about these prospects, as one might expect of an exceedingly ambitious individual, I took leave of my home in New York to report on an Ice Show scheduled to take place in the northernmost region of Norway. Concerning which event, I was told to expect a most macabre exhibition; but what I saw instead was something so grotesque, I fear for my life even to write down the name of the town in which these ensuing events transpired.

Upon my arrival, I made the acquaintance of a man whom I shall refer to as Jan Magnusson. Courteously, he led me to an expansive gallery constructed entirely out of ice; and for some time afterwards it seemed that, aside from the unbearable cold, there were no morbid displeasures for me to endure.

Behind wide glass screens were displayed a plethora of life-like statues, constructed not of stone but of something which made the wax figures at Madame Tussauds back in New York appear laughably abstract. Caesar, Capone, Poe, and even Penda (the seventh-century Mercian warlord) were among many represented with breathtaking realism. So greatly was I engrossed that it required a man wearing a thin spandex Superman costume in sub-zero temperatures to direct my attention away from the exhibit.

After we watched this strange fellow disappear behind a door from which a white mist escaped, Jan turned to me and explained that this person who had perplexed me so greatly just before, was in actuality modeling for a new installation, then offering I an opportunity as well to participate in creating another addition to the exhibition.
There being a particular Polar explorer of the Russian Empire by the name of Bellingshausen whom I would have been delighted to portray. But given that the “Polar Explorers” section, with its fur-laden figures, had already been completed, I found the prospect of modeling for the museum too chilly for my tastes. Therefore, respectfully declining Jan’s offer and trying to escape his resultant gaze of disappointment, I moved along a hallway set aside for new installations.

And here, to my extreme surprise, a heroically-posed Superman stood exposed before me. Astounded by the rapidity of the artist’s work, I pressed my hand in amazement against the glass display case, only to realize that it was in fact a block of solid ice, encompassing a costumed corpse, freshly-frozen.

[PorlNecklace]

I first wrote this story nearly 4 years ago, and hypothesize that DoubleK will come all over it with input from no one else.

[Underwater Ophelia]

There are several good things about this.

It is 100% predictable from the beginning, but I didn't believe myself. Surely, this wasn't about freezing people and putting them on show. That's so obvious. Despite being right, I was still surprised. That's impressive.

In addition, I went through a range of emotions and curiosities in only a few paragraphs. This too is impressive. How can it progress so slowly and yet reach it's conclusion in so little words? That's interesting to me. You cut out a lot of bullshit text that I think most writers would leave in.

Lastly, referring to wax figures as "abstract" is pretty brilliant.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Also, Lovecraft much?

[PorlNecklace]

Thanks for the critical input thus far, both of you. When I originally wrote this four years ago it was for an Edgar Allen Poe competition actually, with a 500 word limit, and wouldn't have been composed to begin with if not for the possibility of winning some $$$. Hence its brevity and predictability not being intentional, though I'm happy to hear it left a positive affect on Underwater Ophelia nonetheless, and shall keep this factor in mind for the future. The original idea coming from a series of nightmares I had in 4th grade also, and though I currently do love, well, Lovecraft, at that time I actually had no clue of his existence or affection for Victorianism. But even so, still agree with your sentiments DoubleK; and dropped this style about a year and a half ago for fear of coming across as some pompous, superficial pseudo-intellectual. And as for my "lowly journalist" comment, I suppose that reflects the angst of my then 15 year old mentality, without making as much sense in a contemporaneous context. While as for right here in the present, I'm writing a new piece titled "Desperate Hell" which shall be longer, more disturbing and done in our modern American vernacular.

[Despanan]

Interesting start. I'll say it's a damn sight better than the usual fair that's brought here.

You wrote this when you were fifteen? Impressive (what are you now, 19? 20?)

Here are my notes:

1) You clearly have a good command of the English Language, and you know the style you're aping. The problem is that I'm seeing TOO much aping in this. If you were fifteen this is understandable, and even exceptional work for that age...now, I'd tell you to quit fellating Lovecraft and come up with your own style.

2) The biggest problem with this so far is that you're putting detail in all the wrong places. You spend paragraphs waxing poetic with the worst kind of purple prose, but then our main character lives in "New York" (where in New York? New York City? Which borough? What street? Does he live in a tiny apartment on Bleeker street? Does he live in a studio on Amsterdam avenue, or is he a Brooklynite? What does he WEAR? What does he want? Why is he unhappy with being a journalist.

You've done a good job with setting the mood via diction, but you have completely glossed over any sort of character development beyond "Victorian" and wasted words on stuff that really doesn't say anything, for instance here:

There is a period of overwhelming, existential euphoria that men of exceptional intellect or ego enter at some interval in their lives. Unsure exactly into which division I fit, I can assure you, however, of the fact that the sin of excessive sloth was responsible, for undermining all inductive efforts on my part during such stages of self-enlightenment.

What is this? Why is it important to note that he was "slothful" as a teenager? how does this inform his character now? How does this feed into the story? Is it important to note that he is either brilliant, and egotist, or a brilliant egotist?

Also: you blow your load early. The second I saw the figures in ice I knew what this story was about, so why should I keep reading? I need something to keep me interested, either a good character (and as of now Dante ain't doin it for me) or a compelling plot (pretty straight forward at this point) You need to BUILD the tension, you need to let us SLOWLY realize what's going on, and let the reader draw the conclusion.

Also, we need to see who this superman guy is. We need to hate him, like him or at least be intrigued by him in order to have his death mean something (for instance, what if the superman guy was a brainless male model who had no idea what was going on, OR what if he was completely aware of it, and so dedicated to this cult of art that he was willing to die for it? That's horror.)

Overall, you're a good writer, and you clearly have some talent. You need to develop your own voice, and you need to work on character and plot and worry less about the window-dressing. Writing is about the implicit not the explicit, and the mark of a good writer is to be able to say a great deal with only a few simple words, as opposed to having the ability to throw a bunch of multi-syllabic prose at the reader.

All in all, keep it up dude. This isn't a bad start, but you have a long way to go.

[PorlNecklace]

Your critique, Despanan, is without exaggeration one of the best I've ever received. Though at the moment I am going to bed and shall reply in full tomorrow however, given a current illness. But thanks again guys, to everyone who read my story It has been a pleasing and productive pleasure reading all of your inputs.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by PorlNecklace

Your critique, Despanan, is without exaggeration one of the best I've ever received. Though at the moment I am going to bed and shall reply in full tomorrow however, given a current illness. But thanks again guys, to everyone who read my story It has been a pleasing and productive pleasure reading all of your inputs.

I think he's wrong, honestly. Despanan and I have different ideas about writing, however.
I don't think it matters what street the guy lives on, considering there are frozen corpses. Don't get hung up on details that don't matter.

Also...I'm confused about why we'd need to hate Superman. The story is more odd and disturbing because they're taking random people and freezing them. I don't want a connection to the man, I want a connection to the act.

Naturally, though, we don't know the purpose of your writing, so it's hard to give meaningful critique at all.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

I think he's wrong, honestly. Despanan and I have different ideas about writing, however.
I don't think it matters what street the guy lives on, considering there are frozen corpses. Don't get hung up on details that don't matter.

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion Underwear. However, I think you're misunderstanding my notes. The thing is, these are the details that round out a character, and give a story depth. As is, Dante is simply a device in order for the reader to experience the story, and the story really ain't that much to begin with. Dante has no personality other than "Victorian" and really, you could replace that diction with anything and have little no effect whatsoever on the story, he could be southern, he could French, he could be Mexican, it doesn't matter.

You see what I'm getting at here? If you strip the Victorian diction away from this story, what do you have? You have some faceless guy going overseas to watch another faceless guy, put a bunch of other faceless people in ice. RIVITING.

Now if we KNOW who Dante is, if he is a real person to us, if he has these wonderful little details and quirks, this act will have context, this act will have meaning, and this act will emotionally effect the reader.

For instance, here are the first three sentences from American Gods:

Originally Posted by Neil Gaiman

Shadow had done three years in prison. He was big enough and looked Don't-fuck-with-me enough that his biggest problem was killing time. So he kept himself in shape, and taught himself coin tricks, and thought a lot about how much he loved his wife...

Right there we learn a TON about Shadow. His past, how he looks, his personality, and what he wants. We can infer what he doesn't like, We create a mental picture of him, we CARE about him. Conversely, we know nothing about Dante besides the fact that he's pretentious, thinks wasted his youth, and hates his job. We don't know why he hates his job, and we know nothing about his personality. This is a problem.

Also...I'm confused about why we'd need to hate Superman. The story is more odd and disturbing because they're taking random people and freezing them. I don't want a connection to the man, I want a connection to the act.

How can you possibly have a connection to the act if it has no context? It doesn't matter if we hate, love, or are confused by the superman guy, but we need to have SOME emotional connection to him for his death to affect us in any meaningful sense. Violence, or death, or sex without context, without humanity, is as meaningless as brushing your teeth. You may personally just like the idea of a person being frozen in a block of ice and put on display, but I'm trying to help Porl become a better writer, and what you're saying is not helpful.

You may get wet for simple Victorian diction and a unique way of murdering people, but this isn't about what plays into Ophelia's particular fetishes, this is about storytelling.

Naturally, though, we don't know the purpose of your writing, so it's hard to give meaningful critique at all.

Bullshit. One can easily critique without knowing the intention behind a piece, particularly when it's an early piece and we're giving such basic notes.

[MissCheyenne]

Hmmm, interesting. Overall, I'm quite impressed. However, I agree with Des, the main character needs work. As it is right now, he is dull and lacks the ability to pull me in, to make me care about him. With a little revision, I think you could make this story much better than it is. I just don't feel anything for any of the characters really, they lack the kind of detail that would make them interesting and allow me to connect to them, I just find them forgettable. They need to be made real, human, to really make this work, I need to be able to care about what happens to them. This is much much better than a lot of things I have read recently though, you obviously have talent

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion Underwear. However, I think you're misunderstanding my notes. The thing is, these are the details that round out a character, and give a story depth. As is, Dante is simply a device in order for the reader to experience the story, and the story really ain't that much to begin with. Dante has no personality other than "Victorian" and really, you could replace that diction with anything and have little no effect whatsoever on the story, he could be southern, he could French, he could be Mexican, it doesn't matter.

You see what I'm getting at here? If you strip the Victorian diction away from this story, what do you have? You have some faceless guy going overseas to watch another faceless guy, put a bunch of other faceless people in ice. RIVITING.

This is true....of one example. It's not really fair to apply it to all examples of writing, particularly because this is a different kind of story. I just don't think characterization of that sort in this story is necessary.

Originally Posted by Despanan

Now if we KNOW who Dante is, if he is a real person to us, if he has these wonderful little details and quirks, this act will have context, this act will have meaning, and this act will emotionally effect the reader.

How can you possibly have a connection to the act if it has no context? It doesn't matter if we hate, love, or are confused by the superman guy, but we need to have SOME emotional connection to him for his death to affect us in any meaningful sense. Violence, or death, or sex without context, without humanity, is as meaningless as brushing your teeth. You may personally just like the idea of a person being frozen in a block of ice and put on display, but I'm trying to help Porl become a better writer, and what you're saying is not helpful.

I think what I'm saying is helpful. How is what street he lives on a wonderful quirk? It's just junk detail. Besides, I don't think this story is meant to be direct like that. I took it as more abstract, and more open. I appreciated that I wasn't told things, and because this is an amateur piece of writing from a young person, I focused on devices that people trip up on MUCH more frequently than they trip up on than characterization and detail. For example, lots of writers give you a characters address, home life, blood type, pizza preference, but there is no mood, no tone, and the diction is laughable.
I'm not saying you are wrong to say fleshing out characters is the way to go, but I don't think it should be the focus in this specific case.

Originally Posted by Despanan

Bullshit. One can easily critique without knowing the intention behind a piece, particularly when it's an early piece and we're giving such basic notes.

Critiquing a persuasive essay is different from prose poetry is different from a novella is different from a short story.
And that's just when it comes to kinds of pieces. I'm all about objectivity, but I think there is wiggle room when it comes to the purpose of a given bit of writing. For example, there are certain bits people often consider necessary to a "story." Characterization is one of these. However, he may not have actually cared about the vessel at all, and cared more about practicing/showcasing the words themselves. I think that's ok.

Either way, Porl is going to benefit from being exposed to perspectives that differ as ours do, I think.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by MissCheyenne

Hmmm, interesting. Overall, I'm quite impressed. However, I agree with Des, the main character needs work. As it is right now, he is dull and lacks the ability to pull me in, to make me care about him. With a little revision, I think you could make this story much better than it is. I just don't feel anything for any of the characters really, they lack the kind of detail that would make them interesting and allow me to connect to them, I just find them forgettable. They need to be made real, human, to really make this work, I need to be able to care about what happens to them. This is much much better than a lot of things I have read recently though, you obviously have talent

I'm going to just repeat what Des and Oph said, even though they don't really mesh, because I have nothing going on in my own head!

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

This is true....of one example. It's not really fair to apply it to all examples of writing, particularly because this is a different kind of story. I just don't think characterization of that sort in this story is necessary.

Characterization is necessary in 99.9% of stories. How is this a different kind of story and why is characterization unnecessary in this particular case?

Originally Posted by Underwear

I think what I'm saying is helpful. How is what street he lives on a wonderful quirk? It's just junk detail. Besides, I don't think this story is meant to be direct like that. I took it as more abstract, and more open. I appreciated that I wasn't told things, and because this is an amateur piece of writing from a young person, I focused on devices that people trip up on MUCH more frequently than they trip up on than characterization and detail. For example, lots of writers give you a characters address, home life, blood type, pizza preference, but there is no mood, no tone, and the diction is laughable.
I'm not saying you are wrong to say fleshing out characters is the way to go, but I don't think it should be the focus in this specific case.

What you are bitching about is unskilled writers attempting to ape professional writers, but not knowing how, and thus throwing a bunch of facts at us with no context because they think that's how you make a character. What we have here is a young but talented but unskilled writer attempting to ape a period author, and thus throwing a bunch of meaningless prose with no context at us because that's what he thinks period writers do.

The details MAKE a story, the details MAKE a character, and if the details feed into the character and the story (as I have suggested) they are never junk no matter how insignificant they may seem. If you write a story about a car crash, you need to know EXACTLY how the light is glinting off the shards of glass on the highway, or the smell of the airbag. This is not to say that you need to go all purple-prose with detail and throw a bunch of pointless facts at us but you NEED tiny details to give a story that kernel of truth which causes it to emotionally effect the reader.

You're not helpful because your response was not critical. In fact it encourages the perpetuation of the mediocrity in the piece by getting choked up on the diction and the window dressing, while praising the bits where the story fails.

Critiquing a persuasive essay is different from prose poetry is different from a novella is different from a short story.
And that's just when it comes to kinds of pieces. I'm all about objectivity, but I think there is wiggle room when it comes to the purpose of a given bit of writing. For example, there are certain bits people often consider necessary to a "story." Characterization is one of these. However, he may not have actually cared about the vessel at all, and cared more about practicing/showcasing the words themselves. I think that's ok.

This is a short STORY. Stories are not about showcasing the words themselves. Stories are not about action without context. Those are the domains of bad poetry. Porl clearly has some talent with words, now he needs to work on his STORYTELLING if he wants his work to reach the next level.

Diction and word use are important, but only so much as a means of creating characterization and feeding into the plot (usually I find them useful in dialogue because they inform on the sort of person the character is). To use Gaiman as another example you have Chivalry here we have TONS of "Junk" details, but each one is working FOR the story, as a part of the setting and the characterization and not a single word is extraneous.

Either way, Porl is going to benefit from being exposed to perspectives that differ as ours do, I think.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Underwear

I'm going to just repeat what Des and Oph said, even though they don't really mesh, because I have nothing going on in my own head!

[Despanan]

Writing is about the implicit, not the explicit. Ex Dee.

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I haven't read all of it yet but... you're NOT Victorian, so stop it.

Ophelia is right. It's Lovecraftian. That's your diction though, which I already told you to stop.

It's fine to draw inspiration from writers like Lovecraft, but trying to sound like Lovecraft, especially in this decade and generation, is pretty damned pretentious. That's not to say you shouldn't do it, but it is to say that you should consider your audience and realize that even though what you wrote was pretty good, most are going to dismiss you as pretentious with word salad.

Modernize the diction and the sentiment.

This, this, ALWAYS this. Imitating writers you admire is where everybody starts (and since you wrote this a while back, I guess that's where you were at the time), but a voice that isn't your own is always going to sound stilted and contrived.

I'll give a proper critique later when I have time to sit and read fully, but finding your own original voice is the first and most important thing anyone who wants to write can do. And also one of the easiest, once you start thinking about what you're about, how you use language in speech & informal communication, and what kind of style you're going for.

[PorlNecklace]

My apologies yet again for not getting back sooner on this everyone.-_- Finals will end for me on monday though, after which I intend to post a completely new work, or perhaps even another old composition from 10th grade. Will try to reply back more in depth later of course, although it is too late right now, and shall appreciate a proper critique from you as well AC.