![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
edenfallingI love my sister. Not only is she a generally cool person (much cooler than I am!), she's willing to read my stuff and edit it. And she does literary analysis!
---------------------------------------------
In which Vicky analyzes Parseltongue and Liz responds
---------------------------------------------
Vicky: I like it, but I'm a little confused about what you're going for here. Is this scene supposed to fit into anything? It obviously doesn't work in "Secrets," but I'm curious if I'm supposed to be reading this as a Harry/Ginny story or not. It kinda gives me the creeps to imagine that being Harry/Ginny, since I prefer them as innocent and fumbling, and if they ever have sex, with none of this drawn out seduction stuff.
Liz: No, it doesn't fit into anything in particular. It came, in a very roundabout way, from me reading some anime sex stories and thinking, "You know, if the Venomous Tentacula weren't venomous, it would work very well as the monster in a tentacle porn episode." And then I had a flash of someone telling this to Ginny, who was creeped out, which then segued into the person describing a sex scene with snakes, to see if she could get the same reaction again.
And then it occurred to me that I could just write the bit with the snakes. So while the inspiration was Ginny and someone (could be either Tom or Harry, I was deliberately vague), now it's just a general thought... any woman with any male Parselmouth. It's a one-shot -- no background, no sequel.
Vicky: Also, in general, snakes creep me out and I find it very hard to believe many people (other readers or the character in this) would find the idea of foreplay with snakes a turn-on.
Liz: Er. Well, it developed from an attempt to squick Ginny, so there is that element of "Ick, I can't believe I'm writing/reading this!" but then again, snakes are a very old and venerable phallic symbol... I dunno.
Vicky: Also, is the title "This is why you should love a Parselmouth?" And are we supposed to imagine some character addressing us, telling us that?
Liz: That was me attempting to convince myself to write the damn thing, to ease myself into the atmosphere. It's not the title. In fact, I'm deleting it from the final version.
Vicky: Those general comments aside, some ones that pertain to the actual writing here: Firstly, why did you chose to write in second person? I assume this is a conscious choice, as it's not particularly common, and I don't believe I've ever read anything of yours where you've used it before. I think it's an interesting choice here, but I think it runs the risk of putting-your readers off. It's an invasive sort of style, addressing the readers as "you" not only sets up a rapport with them where they can now imagine that this scene is happening to someone they know, but that this person is suggesting it's happening to them, and because this person is describing it, it feels to the reader like this person is watching all this happen to them. This can make readers uncomfortable, especially in a sex scene, because it's a far more personal style than third person, or even first in my opinion.
Liz: It's MEANT to make readers uncomfortable. You know, "Can you imagine yourself in this scene? Does it affect you even a little? Ooh, look, you get turned on by snakes!" It's meant to be invasive.
Vicky: Secondly, you use a lot of progressive (?) verbs here, instead of regular old present. Since second person narration lends itself well to present tense, direct voiced stuff, I wonder why you constantly attach "ing" to your verbs. It weakens them. The effect that you want them to have, the pictures or ideas they're supposed to arose in the readers' minds is weakened because there's something else taking up space and distracting from the meaning of the verb. Case in point: "his warm breath ghosting over your breasts" creates a stronger image as "his warm breath ghosts over your breasts." Also, you've got this whole snake motif going, and it'd only get stronger if you used more "s's" anyway, onomatopoeia, right?
Liz: Aha! Yes, you have a point. I will think about that when I revise the piece -- particularly the hissing bit. The letter S is a GOOD thing...
Vicky: Thirdly, this is a random comment, but I've never been a fan of the word "mound" used in this context. I just don't think it sounds very sexual or attractive. But that could just be me.
Liz: I'm not a huge fan of "mound" either, but the only other word I could think of at the time was "crotch," and that felt just a little bit too clinical and crude for the mood I was trying to set. *shrug* I'll try to find an alternative.
Vicky: Fourthly, it seems like the point of this piece is not so much to describe the characters' emotions as it is merely to describe a sort of atmosphere, an image we're supposed to have in our heads. You do this well by barely letting us inside this girl's head; we know nothing of what she thinks of him, etc. If that's what you're going for, fine.
But I wonder, if you're going for creating this atmospheric sort of piece, why you use repetition in the way that you do. There's a lot of repetitious description of the snakes, the way they sound and feel. But though you repeat these ideas, and use a lot of the same words, you don't use the same sentence structure all the time. I think the whole piece would be more effective at drawing in the reader if you could make it a little more rhythmic. I know that's kinda nit-picky, but maybe just go back and count the syllables in your sentences and see where the stress falls. If you can make it into a sort of pattern, that can help make the piece sorta lyrical, which would be cool.
Liz: Good point! I will work on that; I think it will go well with the changed verb tenses, actually, which in and of themselves require a slightly more regular sentence structure. Rhythm is good. I am lazy, though, so don't count on this; besides, you're the poet in the family. :-)
As to the lack of emotions, well, if I don't describe them, you insert your own as you read. It makes it easier to pull the reader in and say, "This is happening to YOU, right here, right now." If I told you what she felt, it would be easier for readers to say, "Ew, she likes snakes and I don't like snakes," and distance themselves from the piece. I mean, all you know is that she's sexually excited, that the man holds her attention, that apparently this is not their first time, since he's taught her a bit of Parseltongue, and that he at least does not view this as a totally imbalanced relationship since he says he's hers after she says she's his. But does she think the same way about the relationship? I don't know. I don't think it matters.
Vicky: Lastly, and I know this is kinda an English teacher, nit-picky thing to do, but you do realize that in the first sentence, "hissing" cannot "caress" anything, it's not that kind of noun. There may be a few more places in this piece where you do that, attach verbs to nouns that can't do the action you have them doing. Sometimes this is perfectly fine and a good lit technique that evokes images in the readers mind, but sometimes it just sorta reads "off" to them and can stick out like a sore thumb.
A way to get around this is to link the noun, hissing, to another noun that can do caressing, perhaps one we're used to thinking of as caressing things, through simile, metaphor, or something. Ex: "listen to the soft hissing as it slides through the air, its tongue/hands caressing your skin in the darkened room." Or "listen to the soft hissing as it slides through the air, like chilled silk caressing your skin in the darkened room." Ooh, I like that one actually & note that in this case caressing is fine as an "ing" because the focus has shifted to silk, instead of the verb.
Liz: It was by way of being a metaphor, but I like your alternate version a lot, actually! Mind if I steal it?
Vicky: Well, that's about it. It's very well written, good variation in adjectives and all that, which can be hard when you're describing something like snakes, which we assign a limited number of descriptive words to. Good job on describing the surroundings by the way; your readers will appreciate that. And also, it's just an interesting idea in general. It adds a darker, seductive side to a world where I'd only ever picture things as wholesome. I do like it and I hope this was helpful.
Liz: Eh, well, you know me. Cute and fluffy is not my strong point! And the whole old, darkened, musty room bit developed along with the scene, to sort of highlight that this is not a normal interaction, and go along with the illicit feel. It sort of plays up the feeling of wrongness (the eeww factor), and also gives a bit of permission to be affected, since after all, who's going to see? You're alone in the dark.
Um, yeah. I think I think too much about these things. Obviously we are both doomed to be English majors or something similar, what with the way we analyze the shit out of pieces this short and irrelevant. :-)
Thank you! It was very helpful.
---------------------------------------------
Subsequent response from Vicky: god liz, what if i do end up as an english major? i don't want to be one! i want to be a ling major with justice and peace studies and womens studies minors! ugh, but you're right, only creepy people like us who read too much and paid too much attention to the poetry & prose analyzing sessions in ap english and glyphs and such would actually care about these little details... ahh! i'm doomed to become a loopy english professor for the rest of my life! ahhhhh!
~vix~
ps: glad it was helpful
---------------------------------------------
See why I love her?
---------------------------------------------
In which Vicky analyzes Parseltongue and Liz responds
---------------------------------------------
Vicky: I like it, but I'm a little confused about what you're going for here. Is this scene supposed to fit into anything? It obviously doesn't work in "Secrets," but I'm curious if I'm supposed to be reading this as a Harry/Ginny story or not. It kinda gives me the creeps to imagine that being Harry/Ginny, since I prefer them as innocent and fumbling, and if they ever have sex, with none of this drawn out seduction stuff.
Liz: No, it doesn't fit into anything in particular. It came, in a very roundabout way, from me reading some anime sex stories and thinking, "You know, if the Venomous Tentacula weren't venomous, it would work very well as the monster in a tentacle porn episode." And then I had a flash of someone telling this to Ginny, who was creeped out, which then segued into the person describing a sex scene with snakes, to see if she could get the same reaction again.
And then it occurred to me that I could just write the bit with the snakes. So while the inspiration was Ginny and someone (could be either Tom or Harry, I was deliberately vague), now it's just a general thought... any woman with any male Parselmouth. It's a one-shot -- no background, no sequel.
Vicky: Also, in general, snakes creep me out and I find it very hard to believe many people (other readers or the character in this) would find the idea of foreplay with snakes a turn-on.
Liz: Er. Well, it developed from an attempt to squick Ginny, so there is that element of "Ick, I can't believe I'm writing/reading this!" but then again, snakes are a very old and venerable phallic symbol... I dunno.
Vicky: Also, is the title "This is why you should love a Parselmouth?" And are we supposed to imagine some character addressing us, telling us that?
Liz: That was me attempting to convince myself to write the damn thing, to ease myself into the atmosphere. It's not the title. In fact, I'm deleting it from the final version.
Vicky: Those general comments aside, some ones that pertain to the actual writing here: Firstly, why did you chose to write in second person? I assume this is a conscious choice, as it's not particularly common, and I don't believe I've ever read anything of yours where you've used it before. I think it's an interesting choice here, but I think it runs the risk of putting-your readers off. It's an invasive sort of style, addressing the readers as "you" not only sets up a rapport with them where they can now imagine that this scene is happening to someone they know, but that this person is suggesting it's happening to them, and because this person is describing it, it feels to the reader like this person is watching all this happen to them. This can make readers uncomfortable, especially in a sex scene, because it's a far more personal style than third person, or even first in my opinion.
Liz: It's MEANT to make readers uncomfortable. You know, "Can you imagine yourself in this scene? Does it affect you even a little? Ooh, look, you get turned on by snakes!" It's meant to be invasive.
Vicky: Secondly, you use a lot of progressive (?) verbs here, instead of regular old present. Since second person narration lends itself well to present tense, direct voiced stuff, I wonder why you constantly attach "ing" to your verbs. It weakens them. The effect that you want them to have, the pictures or ideas they're supposed to arose in the readers' minds is weakened because there's something else taking up space and distracting from the meaning of the verb. Case in point: "his warm breath ghosting over your breasts" creates a stronger image as "his warm breath ghosts over your breasts." Also, you've got this whole snake motif going, and it'd only get stronger if you used more "s's" anyway, onomatopoeia, right?
Liz: Aha! Yes, you have a point. I will think about that when I revise the piece -- particularly the hissing bit. The letter S is a GOOD thing...
Vicky: Thirdly, this is a random comment, but I've never been a fan of the word "mound" used in this context. I just don't think it sounds very sexual or attractive. But that could just be me.
Liz: I'm not a huge fan of "mound" either, but the only other word I could think of at the time was "crotch," and that felt just a little bit too clinical and crude for the mood I was trying to set. *shrug* I'll try to find an alternative.
Vicky: Fourthly, it seems like the point of this piece is not so much to describe the characters' emotions as it is merely to describe a sort of atmosphere, an image we're supposed to have in our heads. You do this well by barely letting us inside this girl's head; we know nothing of what she thinks of him, etc. If that's what you're going for, fine.
But I wonder, if you're going for creating this atmospheric sort of piece, why you use repetition in the way that you do. There's a lot of repetitious description of the snakes, the way they sound and feel. But though you repeat these ideas, and use a lot of the same words, you don't use the same sentence structure all the time. I think the whole piece would be more effective at drawing in the reader if you could make it a little more rhythmic. I know that's kinda nit-picky, but maybe just go back and count the syllables in your sentences and see where the stress falls. If you can make it into a sort of pattern, that can help make the piece sorta lyrical, which would be cool.
Liz: Good point! I will work on that; I think it will go well with the changed verb tenses, actually, which in and of themselves require a slightly more regular sentence structure. Rhythm is good. I am lazy, though, so don't count on this; besides, you're the poet in the family. :-)
As to the lack of emotions, well, if I don't describe them, you insert your own as you read. It makes it easier to pull the reader in and say, "This is happening to YOU, right here, right now." If I told you what she felt, it would be easier for readers to say, "Ew, she likes snakes and I don't like snakes," and distance themselves from the piece. I mean, all you know is that she's sexually excited, that the man holds her attention, that apparently this is not their first time, since he's taught her a bit of Parseltongue, and that he at least does not view this as a totally imbalanced relationship since he says he's hers after she says she's his. But does she think the same way about the relationship? I don't know. I don't think it matters.
Vicky: Lastly, and I know this is kinda an English teacher, nit-picky thing to do, but you do realize that in the first sentence, "hissing" cannot "caress" anything, it's not that kind of noun. There may be a few more places in this piece where you do that, attach verbs to nouns that can't do the action you have them doing. Sometimes this is perfectly fine and a good lit technique that evokes images in the readers mind, but sometimes it just sorta reads "off" to them and can stick out like a sore thumb.
A way to get around this is to link the noun, hissing, to another noun that can do caressing, perhaps one we're used to thinking of as caressing things, through simile, metaphor, or something. Ex: "listen to the soft hissing as it slides through the air, its tongue/hands caressing your skin in the darkened room." Or "listen to the soft hissing as it slides through the air, like chilled silk caressing your skin in the darkened room." Ooh, I like that one actually & note that in this case caressing is fine as an "ing" because the focus has shifted to silk, instead of the verb.
Liz: It was by way of being a metaphor, but I like your alternate version a lot, actually! Mind if I steal it?
Vicky: Well, that's about it. It's very well written, good variation in adjectives and all that, which can be hard when you're describing something like snakes, which we assign a limited number of descriptive words to. Good job on describing the surroundings by the way; your readers will appreciate that. And also, it's just an interesting idea in general. It adds a darker, seductive side to a world where I'd only ever picture things as wholesome. I do like it and I hope this was helpful.
Liz: Eh, well, you know me. Cute and fluffy is not my strong point! And the whole old, darkened, musty room bit developed along with the scene, to sort of highlight that this is not a normal interaction, and go along with the illicit feel. It sort of plays up the feeling of wrongness (the eeww factor), and also gives a bit of permission to be affected, since after all, who's going to see? You're alone in the dark.
Um, yeah. I think I think too much about these things. Obviously we are both doomed to be English majors or something similar, what with the way we analyze the shit out of pieces this short and irrelevant. :-)
Thank you! It was very helpful.
---------------------------------------------
Subsequent response from Vicky: god liz, what if i do end up as an english major? i don't want to be one! i want to be a ling major with justice and peace studies and womens studies minors! ugh, but you're right, only creepy people like us who read too much and paid too much attention to the poetry & prose analyzing sessions in ap english and glyphs and such would actually care about these little details... ahh! i'm doomed to become a loopy english professor for the rest of my life! ahhhhh!
~vix~
ps: glad it was helpful
---------------------------------------------
See why I love her?
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-22 09:06 am (UTC)