Excerpt from my novel: chapter on DRAFT BOARD review.

by Terry 25 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  Terry

  "What about wife beating and child molestation? How does your religion deal with those matters?"

  Trust me, I know I could be completely off base. I don't think that it seems "real-life" that your character would have been asked this question in 1966. I am a little younger than you so my memory of that time is of an 8 year old. I just don't think these were topics that many people were concerned about in those days. These are two important issues that I would love to see in your book and suspect that you have written more on and I applaud that. I am just wondering if the draft board story is the right place to include it.

  You have an uncanny sensibility!

  Would you believe I added that above offending passage as an afterthought just as I was posting?

  And, yes! I'm really wary about making so many/too many points at once.

  This excerpt is but a first revision and I'm running it by eyes here so that I can catch little things like your sharp eye has discovered.

  I appreciate help such as this. Too heavy-handed and it will sink like a stone under its own quibbling weight.

  Much obliged!
• 

  AWAKE&WATCHING

  I'm flattered - "sharp eye and uncanny sensibility"?

  You really do have a way with words! LOL

  I'm glad to be of help, I am really excited about your book.
• 

  Terry

  I'm glad to be of help, I am really excited about your book.

  It is the very smallest of elements which make the elusive "magic" in a thing and tips the balance one way or the other.

  The "perfect" martini with just the right amount of vermouth.

  The delicious meal with just the right amount of seasoning.

  The aftertaste of a fine wine.

  One word or wrong phrase can tear a reader out of a story and the bubble bursts.

  So, never underestimate what an art there is the proper assembly of a work that aspires to be artistic.

  Yes, I confess, I aspire for this novel to read as literature. That is a mighty large chunk o' meat to chew.

  Thanks!
• 

  Nathan Natas

  I agree with AWAKEANDWATCHING about the wife beating and child molestation thing. If they came up in conversation in the 60's, they wouldn't hjave been discussed in those terms. I realize you wanted to get a point in, but it doesn't ring true.

  The only other comment I have is that I would change " Mathis, still clutch his green bible," to "Mathis, still clutching his green bible,"

  Great job so far!
• 

  Abandoned

  OK, Terry, here's my thoughts....

  • I like how you started out, right in the middle of the action. Too many writers waste time setting up premises that we are smart enough to get just by jumping in. I like that you didn't.
  • I also like your descriptions. They aren't over the top, but they do allow us to see the people you are describing. One complaint I have, however, is your use of the word affable for Needham's bald head. That felt awkard to me. He might be affable. He might appear affable. But I don't see how his forehead would be affable. Subtle difference, perhaps, but it stuck out for me.
  • When describing Morris Culpepper, you say, "His thick neck looked like it was about to burst...." Why not instead, just say, "His thick neck was about to burst out..." It flows better and still paints the same picture.
  • Be careful about using a word twice too close together. For example: "Parks, the attorney, volunteered for Draft Board review cases because it was much easier than taking court appointed cases..." Try to reword it where you use cases only once. Like: "Parks, the attorney, volunteered for Draft Board review cases because they were easier than those appointed by the court."
  • Get rid of redundant words. For example: "Like an axe hewing down timber..." doesn't need the word down. It's redundant. "Like an axe hewing timber..." is more crisp and flows better. Remember, when writing prose that flows, less is best.
  • I hope I'm not sounding too critical. I'm just offering suggestions that I have received over the years.
  • You do a great job switching between simple and complex sentences.

  Overall, I think you have a good story here. I can't wait to read more...
• 

  Terry

  I agree with AWAKEANDWATCHING about the wife beating and child molestation thing. If they came up in conversation in the 60's, they wouldn't hjave been discussed in those terms. I realize you wanted to get a point in, but it doesn't ring true.

  The only other comment I have is that I would change " Mathis, still clutch his green bible," to "Mathis, still clutching his green bible,"

  Great job so far!

  Ha ha ha--I must have been thinking about my grandmother's old clutch bag with the beads! Thanks!

  I've snipped the wife beating and child molestation. I've substituted the heartbreak of psoraisis.

  Just kidding....maybe.

  Thanks for the help!
• 

  Terry

  however, is your use of the word affable for Needham's bald head. That felt awkard to me. He might be affable. He might appear affable. But I don't see how his forehead would be affable. Subtle difference, perhaps, but it stuck out for me.

  Maybe Neeham's wife loves to give him Noogies! Or, not. Okay. Out with the affable. How about "shaggy" instead? :)

  When describing Morris Culpepper, you say, "His thick neck looked like it was about to burst...." Why not instead, just say, "His thick neck was about to burst out..." It flows better and still paints the same picture.

  Mmmm...here I was thinking there is a real difference between something that looks a certain way as opposed to it actually being that way. A surgical distinction, perhaps, without a difference. Think of it this way. Is there a difference between: It looks like it will rain today...

  and: It will rain today. ????

  Be careful about using a word twice too close together. For example: "Parks, the attorney, volunteered for Draft Board review cases because it was much easier than taking court appointed cases..." Try to reword it where you use cases only once. Like: "Parks, the attorney, volunteered for Draft Board review cases because they were easier than those appointed by the court."

  Yep! I agree wholeheartedly on that one. Duly noted and amended. Thanks.

  Get rid of redundant words. For example: "Like an axe hewing down timber..." doesn't need the word down. It's redundant. "Like an axe hewing timber..." is more crisp and flows better. Remember, when writing prose that flows, less is best.

  Maybe I was hoping to get paid by the word! An extra two cents can come in handy.

  I'll commence to begin to start to remove redundancy right now. Once again, thanks to you in grateful gratitude.

  I hope I'm not sounding too critical. I'm just offering suggestions that I have received over the years.

  You do a great job switching between simple and complex sentences.

  No, not too critical at all! That's exactly the sort of help I am looking for. Once something is printed inside a book it is there until the cows come home. I can't abide these sorts of sloppy errors being attached to something permanent of mine if I can help it.

  You time, effort and perspicacity (and the sundance kid) are much appreciated.
• 

  AWAKE&WATCHING

  Give us more Terry!
• 

  Crumpet

  Abandoned has given some excellent tips. I think partly its hard to be critical because I know what it's like to whip your baby out and the fear that it might be considered ugly.... I kind of really admire you for being able to put it up here.

  I would say that in criticising this piece it really does depend on the market. If its for therapy for you then really it is a stand alone piece -that's not something any of us can comment on other than to applaud the bravery. As you describe - the first person is really difficult and I can imagine more so for you because even when you are talking about yourself you dont actually use the first person very much - you tend to be much more externally observational.... I personally find first person much easier and third person feels really artificial.

  If the piece is to be published I would say it does need a fair bit of work. Its almost as if for me your natural style (and I say what I infer to be natural from your posts here and having met you) you cover material much better when you are giving incisive no frills factual bullet points. The style suits you better.

  A great maxim and one which I invariably fail to apply is Orwell's - never use two words when one will do.

  Writing is an art and there are many different forms. A professor of physics may write an excellent science paper that persuades a whole generation of researchers to adopt his theories, but can he write a novel. Can he f***? Same with newspaper journalists trying to write more elaborately - they can't always manage that transition.

  I think I'm going all round the houses to say

  a) who is your audience? ie to have an audience - its got to be marketable. Who are they? Where are they? How is your work going to reach them? Will it appeal to them? How much are you prepared to compromise in order to engage them?

  b) try different styles of writing - and then read them out loud. How does each piece sound? If it doesnt flow then maybe you need to look at a different way of presenting the material. (I kind of feel this isn't quite flowing yet, not as well as it could)

  I kind of feel almost out of order to be even offering any advice - after all I have had nothing published and you clearly are lightyears ahead of me. if you want to bring it over when I am there week after next I'd be happy to talk about it with you and give you some other input.
• 

  Terry

  a) who is your audience? ie to have an audience - its got to be marketable. Who are they? Where are they? How is your work going to reach them? Will it appeal to them? How much are you prepared to compromise in order to engage them?

  b) try different styles of writing - and then read them out loud. How does each piece sound? If it doesnt flow then maybe you need to look at a different way of presenting the material. (I kind of feel this isn't quite flowing yet, not as well as it could)

  I'm straddling two audiences. The first is certainly former JWs who are curious about the experiences of the 60's inside the organization. Being a JW in the 50's and 60's was an entirely different milieu and mindset that has become thorny and more authoritarian over the decades.

  Publishers who have only been around for a little while never gave up anything but their good sense when they joined the local Kingdom Hall. They are just full of themselves and high and mighty. They don't know doodly squat about the heartbreak of military era draft or the debacle of 1975. It is my aim to inform them.

  Secondly, curious JWs in good standing might read a fiction novel with their religion in the mix a whole lot quicker than they'd ever pick up a blood and thunder diatribe purporting to expose them or disprove their doctrines.

  I employ two styles for this novel. In the above excerpt I use confrontational set pieces to extract the maximum exposition which would otherwise sit as bullet points on the page. This is my least favorite thing to have to do.

  My second style is a more lyrical, poetic fiction style which has long been a part of my inmost feelings when I write seriously.

  I might post another excerpt today which is more in that style for you to see the contrast.

  All in all, however, I'm really writing for myself. I've needed to clean out the nasty part of my life which this story is for a long time.

  Truthfully, the majority of tell-all first person accounts of people in religious settings always seem to come across self-serving to me when I read them. I keep wanting to shout at them, "How come you're suddenly so much smarter now?" So, I simply had to use third person and keep in a story setting so I would not be tempted to paint myself in a better light.

  Reading and writing both are such personal enterprises that it is more like cooking or wine tasting than anything else. What one person savors and craves another person wants to spit out in a napkin!

  Thanks to everybody for their two cents. It means a lot.