Search options (Page 49 of 151)

I'm behind on reviews.  I'll do a batch tonight and tomorrow.

Hmmm.  What happens if you drop all the proper nouns NOT linked to your protag?

Check out the battles near the end of Kate Paulk's =ConVent= and =ConSensual=, especially where the angels end up on the wrong side of things.

Don't you mean 'the punnier'?

No, I suppose you don't.

No.  Pathos or bathos, let it all stand.  Sometimes the comedy we act out is unintentional--and I was ragging Dirk, anyway.

Which story would you like me to review?  Where would you like me to start?

I'm still not 100%, or even 95%.  You may have noticed I've been catching up on owed reviews.  I've also been working on edits for my last chapter, as well as a few non-writing things.  And it finally occurred to me that Jamen will have some reaction to his failed attempt to kill the manticore-skinned Veethan.  I'm thinking he will channel it into extra protectiveness toward the children, and maybe towards Merran.

I added a couple of notes and answers to the reviews.

To take up the question of introducing the science, I wonder if it could be presented in small amounts in the same way that other background is presented.  Consider this:

Obviously I haven't read very far, but I'm guessing your mysterious diatoms are an existing species that transforms and helps to produce acid once the acid hits a certain level--or else an easy mutation from an existing species.  This leads to another consideration, one that involves your title.

When the musical A Chorus Line went to tryouts, they found that a song fell flat--a song that they felt should have a great deal of force.  They were giving the punchline away in the title.  They found a new title that told the story, and left the punchline to the song.

The new title?  Dance Ten, Looks Three.  The original, punchline title?  Tits And Ass.

The change worked.  Audience reaction to the re-titled song was what they'd expected it to be in the first place.

Okay, an extreme example.  But your main point is the pH change in the oceans.  Your story appears to be one or more damaging species that creates a tipping point.  (Again, I haven't read far enough to be sure.)  I suggest finding a title that includes that species or event.

Even Atlas Shrugged, as unabashed a tract as you're likely to find, uses a title that maintains some distance from its thesis, by casting that thesis in a pseudo-mythological event.

As always in my reviews, In My Opinion and Your Mileage May Vary.

Apology accepted, with gratitude.

I recall seeing a few more lines in the middle.  It looks like someone took the most distinctive lines and made them into that postcard.  I wonder if the owners preserved that plain white, scalloped-edge placemat.

Our recent discussion of word choices and word images somehow brought to mind Ogden Nash's Tale of the 13th Floor, an atypically serious poem for Nash.  (I've seen it with 'maidens' replaced with 'virgins'.  I prefer the latter word.)

Trivia: Back in the 70's I visited a restaurant on 3rd Avenue called The Fisherman's Net (in the 30's, east side of the street, IIRC).  Evidently Mr. Nash had frequented it not too many decades earlier, for over the cash register was one of their paper placemats bearing a poem written in pencil and signed Ogden Nash.  I remember only the opening and closing couplets:

(I'll post this on my MFMagic thread, too.)

Thank you.  And I appreciate your honorable apology.

I'm not looking to score points.  I'm looking to make them, and in this instance to show that damning human beings over human frailties isn't quite the simple thing that the politicians and their pundits make it out to be.

The worst sin is not lust, nor avarice, nor destructive envy.  It the kind of pride that says "Who are you to talk to me like that?" and "Laws are for other people."  This accusation may be leveled against both candidates in the presidential race.  We must choose between two deeply flawed candidates, based on their records, their intentions, and what we think the outcomes of each presidency would be.

We each have different criteria and processes by which we make this judgement.  Some of us focus on one issue, others look at a broader tapestry.  But if we are to retain a civil society, we must refuse to join the Alinsky-style demonization and retain our respect for each other.  Understanding is part of that respect.  Understanding requires communication.