Aphelion

Soylent Green. <br><br>I'm sorry to say I think anyone who knows what that is will have figured out what the point of the pit was before the story was halfway done. That stole a lot of the punch for me.<br><br><br>I assume this was meant as a horror piece, and not just an exercise in detailed description. As such, I myself enjoy psychological horror much more than the gore-based variety, so I was not moved by the way the story unfolded. Further, I worked in a hospital laundry plant one 100° summer, so it takes waaay more than this to gross me out.<br><br>I'm frequently known as a Defender of Description, but I thought this was too much. There's so much about the tracks & carts, the rending and tearing of flesh, the blood running, and the bodies piling up that it slows the story to the crawl. Robert will probably laugh at me, but I tuned it out & skipped ahead.<br><br>It is important to describe the setting with all the senses to make it concrete, but the amount of description has to be balanced with the pace of the tale. Too much for too long and you lose readers. How much and how long you can sustain them is all in your skill level. Sometimes I get told things are too slow in what I write, myself.<br><br>Stories need professionalism, setting, character growth, plot credibility, and good dialog. The professionalism here was ok, the setting was overdone, the characterization was fair, the dialog worked well, but the plot had holes in it. Big ones.<br><br>The plotline of the old man, which I thought was the most interesting part, was abandoned. Unless I missed it, why not continue to see the rendering through his dead eyes? If it wasn't there, what was the point? To show this is what happens to you for wrong thinking? That could have been stated in one paragraph. If he was more important than that, why leave him? He was a more compelling hero than the technician.<br><br>The soldier/cop Royle was more interesting than these people of the pit, too.<br><br>Who was the guest, and why was he there? <br><br>The rending process seemed to have been automated, so why would Paul have worked there and seen everything?? Further, if it was so secret, why risk his spilling the beans when he could have just been recycled as beans? <br><br>Vince's resolution to walk away at the end confused me. Was it just fleeing, or was it meant as some statement in support of Paul's position?<br><br>In the end, plot is about whether or not a story rings true or not. It's a gut-level thing: either you believe or you don't. For me, it just didn't ring true.<br><br>This story had good things going for it, but not the whole package. There were interesting characters, a well-defined setting, structured transitions that brought readers back into the flow with all those instances of "well..." Dialog was handled well, giving distinctive voice to each character. Plot, however, unhinged things for me.<br><br><br>Don't stop trying.<br><br>Nate

Soylent Green.

<br><br>Actually, I didn't think of Soylent Green at ALL when I wrote this. In fact, I knew nothing about the movie aside from that one famous line, and even that didn't enter my consciousness as I wrote this story.<br><br>Furthermore, it wasn't my intention, initially, for that to be the point of the Pit. It came naturally as the solution to the question: "What in the world does a massive company do with a hundred thousand dead bodies?" I had the bodies, and the racks, and the Pit, but no answer to that question. And the answer itself is actually more complex than Soylent Green: people aren't just being eaten, they're being used like the Native Americans used buffalo; not a piece was wasted.<br><br>

I'm sorry to say I think anyone who knows what that is will have figured out what the point of the pit was before the story was halfway done. That stole a lot of the punch for me.

<br><br>Yep, but fortunately the point of the story turned into something else entirely by the time it was finished. It wasn't just about people being used as cattle, it was about these workers and their reactions to an awful revelation, and the choices that they made as a result. <br><br>Vince's lines after they leave the room, to answer another of your questions, was indeed him fleeing. By refusing to help Armande in his attempt to free Paul, he basically shows that he's not accepting what he's been told and wants no more to do with it.<br><br>Armand, on the other hand, not only accepts what Paul says, no matter how ghastly it is, but decides he'll have nothing more to do with the Company, if he can help it. That's why you see him walking to the exit, wanting out.<br><br>The two made very different decisions as the result of one man's bravery, based on information that I gave to the reader in abundance. It almost acts like a sort of psychological test: a person's reaction to the gruesome details and their sympathy with whichever character seems to expose a bit of their personality. I'm actually proudest of that funciton of the story (which I've found evident in many of the people who've read it) than most everything else. <br><br>

I assume this was meant as a horror piece, and not just an exercise in detailed description. As such, I myself enjoy psychological horror much more than the gore-based variety, so I was not moved by the way the story unfolded. Further, I worked in a hospital laundry plant one 100° summer, so it takes waaay more than this to gross me out.

<br><br>Initially it was meant as a horror piece with me trying to write at my very, very best. It sort of turned into a variety of things in the end, though, not all of which are obvious. <br><br>(Glad to hear I'm not the only one with an iron stomach when it comes to this sort of thing. =P And this is the only thing I've ever written that has such an emphasis on gore. Most of my other stuff is a mix of the psychological and the surreal...and the gore. I admit to an addiction. D: )<br><br>

I'm frequently known as a Defender of Description, but I thought this was too much. There's so much about the tracks & carts, the rending and tearing of flesh, the blood running, and the bodies piling up that it slows the story to the crawl. Robert will probably laugh at me, but I tuned it out & skipped ahead.

<br><br>I'm a visual writer to a fault, sometimes. I think I admitted in some other thread on this board that I overwrote this story, but there was so much to see and so much to put down when I wrote it that I went all-out. What you see wasn't the result of me trying to pad the story or make it as long as possible, it was me seeing tons of stuff as I wrote it and putting down as much as possible. <br><br>

It is important to describe the setting with all the senses to make it concrete, but the amount of description has to be balanced with the pace of the tale. Too much for too long and you lose readers. How much and how long you can sustain them is all in your skill level. Sometimes I get told things are too slow in what I write, myself.

<br><br>I actually found a lot of telling was in the description, and much of the tale is fueled by it. And I had too, too much fun writing in all that detail, painting the fullest picture, that it's really become too precious to me to change. Your critique is noted, however, for future stories.<br><br>

Stories need professionalism, setting, character growth, plot credibility, and good dialog. The professionalism here was ok, the setting was overdone, the characterization was fair, the dialog worked well, but the plot had holes in it. Big ones.

<br><br>Actually, there's less than you think.<br><br>

The plotline of the old man, which I thought was the most interesting part, was abandoned. Unless I missed it

<br><br>You missed it. XD You really did. The guy who gets dissected in the third bit was the same man from the first. I didn't state it totally outright because I thought it felt a bit too much like talking down to the reader. There's a bunch of mentions to him being fat, bald, old, and a seditionist, though, that I thought would clue in the reader.<br><br>

The soldier/cop Royle was more interesting than these people of the pit, too.

<br><br>I'm not entirely sure how that would be. =P She's just a flunky and a soldier, there's not terribly much to her or her part.<br><br>

Who was the guest, and why was he there?

<br><br>Eeeeexcellent question. The guest functioned, in my mind, as a sort of proxy for the reader. He has no name and no identifiable features for that reason. He also puts the question "are they really dead?" in the minds of the readers, thus jumpstarting the plot and setting the whole story in motion. Further, his purpose and sudden disappearance at the end of Paul's tale raises the question of where he went, why, and what he was doing. It can be postulated that he was an informant and ran off to inform his superiors, or that he ran off to the bathroom to go throw up properly, or that he left, or any number of things. He's a blank slate whose fate is determined more by the reader than by me.<br><br>

The rending process seemed to have been automated, so why would Paul have worked there and seen everything?? Further, if it was so secret, why risk his spilling the beans when he could have just been recycled as beans?

<br><br>Probably for the same reason he was working in the Pit in the first place: to make sure the automated systems were doing things properly. It wasn't a future so advanced that humans could leave machines like that to run all on their lonesome, or would even feel safe doing so. I think there's been enough stories told about the evils of pure automation and the negative potential that I really don't have to explain more. (Terminator, I, Robot, The Matrix)<br><br>As for not grinding him up, it's possible that he never actually expressed his exact reason for disliking his job when he wanted to change it. They could've put him in another department with full trust (and a few contractual obligations) that he'd keep shut. <br><br>

In the end, plot is about whether or not a story rings true or not. It's a gut-level thing: either you believe or you don't. For me, it just didn't ring true.

<br><br>And that's just fine, at least you didn't think it was terribly awful the first four lines in. =P (I had that happen on another board, once.) It's nice to see this story getting some good, reasonable, honest critique. I'm glad I submitted here. ^_^<br><br>However, I've got to point out that a lot of things could've been guessed or found more satisfying with more thorough reading. If it was due to the style of the writing and the level of description, then I can only apologize. <br><br>

This story had good things going for it, but not the whole package. There were interesting characters, a well-defined setting, structured transitions that brought readers back into the flow with all those instances of "well..." Dialog was handled well, giving distinctive voice to each character. Plot, however, unhinged things for me.

<br><br>Thank you, again, for being fair with your comments. I'll work on things where applicable and see if I can't do better next time.<br><br>

Don't stop trying.

<br><br>No worries. ;D<br><br>~M. Maldonado

Thanks Matthew,

<br><br>You're welcome!<br><br>

I hate to admit it, but the end of the story left me wondering what had just occured. I had to go back and read the last few parts. . .after the "When was the last time you saw a cow" parts just to try and get the characters straight as to who was leaving and who was staying behind in the room to --presumably--gum up the works.

<br><br>Hrm, I might want to work on that scene a bit.<br><br>

There was an odd statement about somebody having always wondered why the vending machine was so heavy.

It seemed like you were trying to say that they were so heavy so they could be conveniently used to block doors.

Huh?

<br><br>Um, yes, that's exactly what I was saying. All the way back in the first section there was a mention of that same vending machine sitting next to the door "like a silent thug plotting ambush." Consider that a setup, and the door's use as a built-in barricade as a payoff. =P And no, it certainly wasn't Paul that put it over the door, before anyone asks. The Company is thorough in its surveillance and its precautions...<br><br>

i have a feeling that there is something wrong when it takes a multi-part post to answer lingering questions as to what the story was trying to portray.

<br><br>You know, this is honestly the first time it's ever come up, or that I've had to explain so much for someone. I've had to explain little bits and pieces, but things like meaning and what I was trying to get across haven't been a problem until now. O.o Weird.<br><br>

Though at least the questions were answered.

<br><br>And I hope to satisfaction. XD<br><br>

All except one: why weren't most of the folks in hanging on the hooks already dead? I mean, it would seem that most of them had been physically abused to the point where they should be. What I got from the story was. . .every once in a while. . .one of the hanging bodies was alive, despite the mistreatment at the hands of the Republicans. . .uh. . .The State.

<br><br>I think most of them were actually dead, except for people the Company deemed especially deserving of cruel and unusual punishment. Those that pretty much looked like they ought to be dead, probably were. <br><br>And I'm not knocking Republicans, I'm knocking anyone who improperly mixes business with government to the point where the two blend at the expense of the people supposedly served by it (another theme of the story, for those keeping score).<br><br>Much thanks for reading! ^__^<br><br>~M. Maldonado

And the answer itself is actually more complex than Soylent Green: people aren't just being eaten, they're being used like the Native Americans used buffalo; not a piece was wasted.

<br><br>Very "green" of you. :)<br><br>I had no doubt that it was all used, since you showed how all the parts were saved. I'm sure the bones went off to the Soylent Soap or Soylent Jello factories. That didn't seem to need mentioning.<br><br>

Initially it was meant as a horror piece with me trying to write at my very, very best. It sort of turned into a variety of things in the end, though, not all of which are obvious.

<br>Variety like that and unfound meaning are not necessarily good things, just so you know--especially if those things are not caught by readers. In fairness, sometimes stories can surprise us all by turning out to be much more than the sum of their parts, but not usually.<br><br>

You missed it. XD You really did. The guy who gets dissected in the third bit was the same man from the first. I didn't state it totally outright because I thought it felt a bit too much like talking down to the reader. There's a bunch of mentions to him being fat, bald, old, and a seditionist, though, that I thought would clue in the reader.

<br>No, that was pretty obvious. However, this is not even halfway through the story. Plus, the actual rending is not through his perspective, but instead from an omniscient 3rd party.<br><br>

I'm not entirely sure how that would be. =P She's just a flunky and a soldier, there's not terribly much to her or her part.

<br>The old, fat seditionist and the chick storm trooper are more interesting because they have immediately endearing traits, where the technicians do not. The old guy is clearly a rebel against establishment, exercising freedom of expression in a cubby hole under the stairs. As an American and a writer, freedom of expression is a big thing for me. He's old, which implies frailty, which makes his rebellion all the more heroic. Plus, people are out to kill him just because he's an illustrator. How can you not want to back an underdog like that?<br><br>Royle is a woman charged with killing enemies of the state. Women are perfectly capable of such acts, but they also can give birth to new life, and men can't. I think this is why women assassins tend to cause a big stir when they appear in fiction. Women tend to be thought of as life givers, and not life takers. Those characters who go against these stereotypes get noticed. She's in charge of her squad, so she has leadership abilities, and she follows a code of justice--I have to respect characters who stay true to their beliefs.<br><br>Those in the pit live off the dead, but don't truly live themselves. Moreover, what traits of them are supposed to grip readers when the first impression is given? They're disinterested, faceless factory workers, processing the next batch of raw materials that come in. They don't know where they come from, or where they go, and at first, don't seem to care. That's not an auspicious start. It's only later that we learn that they have doubts, and that Paul had real rebellion in him after all. If this was a novel, that's fine, you have time to show all the nuances. In a short or novelette, however, you generally need to bind reader to character in a hurry, or you'll alienate the reader to them, spoiling the impact of the story or other features you want to bring out in the reader's experience.<br><br>Nate

Very "green" of you. :)

I had no doubt that it was all used, since you showed how all the parts were saved. I'm sure the bones went off to the Soylent Soap or Soylent Jello factories. That didn't seem to need mentioning.

<br><br>And the Soylent Scrubbing Powder factory!<br><br>

Variety like that and unfound meaning are not necessarily good things, just so you know--especially if those things are not caught by readers. In fairness, sometimes stories can surprise us all by turning out to be much more than the sum of their parts, but not usually.

<br><br>Honestly, it wasn't my intention to write anything of the sort. I just see a whole lot in a story that got extremely out of hand. Can you believe I only wanted to write a short story?<br><br>And as for not being caught by readers: it's really in the minority. Reaaaaaaaally. So much that I'm kind of surprised it's more of a complaint so far than the gore, when so much was understood by so many other people. O.o;<br><br>

No, that was pretty obvious. However, this is not even halfway through the story. Plus, the actual rending is not through his perspective, but instead from an omniscient 3rd party.

<br><br>I would've done that from his point of view, actually, if he hadn't been dosed with heavy anesthesia. A wriggling person wouldn't have been the best for dissecting, really. Besides, from his perspective I could've only said so much, and make it feel so cold.<br><br>

The old, fat seditionist and the chick storm trooper are more interesting because they have immediately endearing traits, where the technicians do not. The old guy is clearly a rebel against establishment, exercising freedom of expression in a cubby hole under the stairs. As an American and a writer, freedom of expression is a big thing for me. He's old, which implies frailty, which makes his rebellion all the more heroic. Plus, people are out to kill him just because he's an illustrator. How can you not want to back an underdog like that?

Royle is a woman charged with killing enemies of the state. Women are perfectly capable of such acts, but they also can give birth to new life, and men can't. I think this is why women assassins tend to cause a big stir when they appear in fiction. Women tend to be thought of as life givers, and not life takers. Those characters who go against these stereotypes get noticed. She's in charge of her squad, so she has leadership abilities, and she follows a code of justice--I have to respect characters who stay true to their beliefs.

<br><br>...I honestly can't argue with that. You know, I've given thought more than once to taking much of that first interlude out and working it into its own standalone story, as it seems so effective a piece.<br><br>

Those in the pit live off the dead, but don't truly live themselves. Moreover, what traits of them are supposed to grip readers when the first impression is given? They're disinterested, faceless factory workers, processing the next batch of raw materials that come in. They don't know where they come from, or where they go, and at first, don't seem to care. That's not an auspicious start. It's only later that we learn that they have doubts, and that Paul had real rebellion in him after all. If this was a novel, that's fine, you have time to show all the nuances. In a short or novelette, however, you generally need to bind reader to character in a hurry, or you'll alienate the reader to them, spoiling the impact of the story or other features you want to bring out in the reader's experience.

<br><br>Actually, the doubts on the Pit, at least, are expressed relatively early in the story. And it was the transformation from disinterested to personally involved and exposed that actually drove their characterization. I'll admit they weren't introduced as effectively as they could've been, but it seemed like the story's fate to broaden from a small point into a bigger vista, so to speak. Fortunately, I do character introductions a lot better in other stories. =P Hopefully I can show them off on Aphelion one day.<br><br>~M. Maldonado