Military Intelligence.
One of my brothers is heading out for another tour in May. I'd rather not have his intelligence casually mocked by someone he's never met. (Nor the rest of my family's. They are almost all military.)
Passive aggressive.
Correct.
http://www.achangeinthewind.com/2010/09 … words.html
That must have been exhausting to write. Your bit too. Take a break. You've earned it! 
It is more challenging to write one sentence.
That's why War & Peace is a sentence long. 
She thought with detachment how funny that would sound if she said it aloud, as if she could disturb so eloquently.
She knew that after this moment, she would never be as tall, nor as fine, nor as elegant, but it had become too much.
I thought the instructions said "Write the closing SENTENCE of a story inspired by this image." Was I wrong?
I went back and checked, and I think you must be! You might want to check with the person who wrote those rules though.
She hadn't intended to love him, for he had never loved her. She realized this. As winter fell over that final afternoon she knew him, and satiated men and women passed by her table in heavy brogans, offering her a smile or an apathetic nod which cruelly disrupted the last long light, she settled her face. She would miss conversations with him, the play of autumn on his cheeks as they shared a mug of cocoa, the stories he told of life on the ocean when he was younger. One wouldn't know it to look at him, but he could speak the ordinary into superlative. His mind belied his face, his heart the indifferent pull of his shoulders. Oh, he had lived. He had seen life as no man she'd ever known had seen it, and she knew he saw her with that same shrewd eye: he saw within her a gentleness none had ever noticed. But he did not love her. To him she was a last autumn leaf: symmetry within a moment, lovely for her poetic potential, but never moving, never changing, never truly alive. He saw within her the beliefs he held, and the justification for them. She was eternally his most rapt listener, but she failed where the world itself could not: she neglected to pull away.
She placed a hand on his wrist, as she did every afternoon when they said goodbye. He glanced at her as if looking upon a vision, and a scent like that of chimney smoke came over her as he smiled, raising both eyebrows in inquiry. She nodded, yes, it is time, and leant forward, pressing her lips against the bear-like hollow in his face. She knew that after this moment, she would never be as tall, nor as fine, nor as elegant. But it had become too much.
She looked ahead to the years to come, to days filled with tea and toast and he with the stained yellow fingers and sullen lower lip, how it collapses over his teeth as he talks of rain and roads and yesterday's headlines, and she wanted to kill him. She thought with detachment how funny that would sound if she said it aloud, as if she could disturb so eloquently.
Write the end of a story inspired by this image. The rumors that it must only be a sentence long are greatly exaggerated. (Although it can be.)
Image information here.
Thank you. And I appreciate your honorable apology.
I appreciate your honorable response.
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.
I believe we're having two different conversations. I don't believe I expressed any opinion above about who should be voting for whom? I believe everyone should vote for whomever they personally believe will be best for the job. I'm not naive enough to believe my position on who should be president is the only valid position. My family is split on this topic, as are many of my friends. We all have valid reasons for the choice we are making, and I respect each of their decisions as well as my own. Our nation was founded on principles of democracy, and I very much respect its principles. I may dislike the candidate who wins, but I'll be proud to know I had a voice in making that decision. If Trump wins, he ought to be walked with dignity into his position, because he will be leading and representing our nation, and he is the people's choice. I may not like him, but I very much respect the position.
I wasn't debating who should be President above. I was on the topic of rape culture, and was contesting your apparent position that it's all very logical and simple. The unfortunate thing about these forums is that they offer only a lens on our personalities. You see me most of the time when I am appalled. You are, I think, likely very low-key and logical, whereas I am all heart, all passion and spontaneity. Often when I speak within these forums it is because I've been prompted by some emotion, or something has triggered my temper. It's not my finest quality, but there it is. If there were more discussions here about writing, and poetry, and French Impressionism and film and history, you'd probably see my calmer side. Unfortunately, whenever one of those appears within these forums, it quickly frays into the likes of everything you see above. Which is simply the way it is. Different personalities, different perspectives.
Anyway, I'm guessing you were simply having an intellectual discussion about Trump himself above, and the import of the comments within the video, and then branching off into a philosophical discussion about consent. I was responding in disgust and anger at what I perceived to be more of the old "boys will be boys" mentality. I concede I may have misunderstood. When I see things like the lists of allegations against Trump, I don't just read them intellectually. The prodding, sprawling hands are live and in color.
As for reaching understanding within these forums? I love to surround myself with people who believe in debate as it really is: a frank, respectful exchange of opposing positions. I've had my own viewpoint finely sharpened and tested by such discussions. I agree with you that anything else is completely fruitless. I'm not sure I agree that one should just overlook appalling conduct in the name of peace. Peace isn't achieved by wishful thinking, and when it's silent within cacophony because no one is willing to fight, that isn't really peace at all. It's uneasy tension borne out of fear. I think of everything I believe in, built on the experiences in my life, I believe in that most of all: it is better to say something, anything, and shake madly the walls of that uneasy peace, than to die within it.
Sometimes I bring that into the forums, and disrupt. I'm not sure I'm sorry about that, but I am sorry for my conduct with you. I can see that you are interested in reaching understanding rather than forcing your agenda. I may disagree with you entirely on this topic, but I respect your attempt to bring reason into these discussions. I've seen you attempt to do this a few times, and I recognize that it's likely quite the thankless task.
I'm going to withdraw from this conversation now, because I see that I am personally invested and will therefore be directly opposed to the distant, philosophical nature of the discussion.
All the very best.
I didn't say the words you impute to me. You feel you've represented my meaning fairly, but someone else can capture your writing and present the words as mine--just like Tina Fey's parody has been quoted as Sarah Palin's actual words.
As a matter of fairness and civility, I ask that you edit your article, replacing 'NJC' with 'You argue that' or some similar phase, so that your words are not presented as mine.
You have nothing to say about the several times I attacked your intelligence for no reason at all within my post? I only did that so I could tell you not to gong my bell when you protested. I had prepared a whole when in Rome argument, and everything. I was going to suggest that you admire my brilliant arguing tactics, which are only amplified by my personal attacks.
Those were gold mines, sir. You might have pointed them out as indicative of a weak argument.
I'll just delete the post. I thought it was obvious I was making up a pretend conversation, but I hadn't considered the way people skim within forums. I see your point, and apologize. I was serious on the points I made, but irreverent about my approach.
The Georgia quip, it was nested in there for my dearly beloved friend in Atlanta within the state of Georgia USA.
And that dearly beloved friend laughed when she saw it.
Some great reveiw rants on Amazon. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/feature.htm … 1000799743
Love the upside-down picture and the invisible Bilbo Baggins
Har! I love the reviews for Bic Pens for Women.
This might help.
“Better to be a rational creature,” he added then, after ringing a small bell on the table, “and accept your natural destiny. But you are lost, Monsieur Charles, I see.”
That would certainly be the end of the Romance genre! It would also be the end of most human courtship, since most signalling is non-verbal, and much of it is begun by the woman, with glances, closeness, and touches...
There's a vast difference between the often bewildering map of consensual romance, and this. That you would conflate the allegations against Trump with romance is highly disturbing. You referenced his power (money) as a viable excuse for such allegations? (Have you also rationalized this?)
(Actually, I had a whole long post written out in response to your remarks above, but I've just deleted it. Why am I even engaging with you on this topic? Anyone with honor knows exactly what I meant.)
Keep fighting the good fight, njc. Peace in the form of "not clanging the bell lest it gong", and the right to freely grope. Good stuff.
I would start with the blurb, and put all that extra stuff (word count, pros, genre, contact) after it. The blurb is all they care about; the rest is details.
I'm not exactly sure what your question is. Short and to the point would definitely be my advice, but I don't think that means you have to strip the query of personality. I think it would be a mistake to aim the personality at the agent. They want to know what your story is about, and whether or not you have the skill to carry it through. It's probably good form to acknowledge that you know what the agent prefers to represent, but other than that, stick to business.
I have some suggestions:
Shadyia, a daring and passionate courtesan of the Silver Rose, finds herself caught between an enigmatic magician who searches for an ancient labyrinth, and a devious zealot who conspires to further a twisted agenda. Concealing both a forbidden romance with a fellow sister and a vengeful past, Shadyia must choose which man to favor. Her madam demands she please the zealot to keep the sisterhood safe from the wrath of his order, but Shadyia’s integrity requires she aid the magician. Will she follow him into the labyrinth and face the shadows of death, or betray him to save the sisterhood she cherishes above all?
Immediately as an agent, I'm thinking (written as I read),
- What is Silver Rose? Am I supposed to know this? This author is vague and may leave readers behind.
- Why do I care that the magician is searching for a labyrinth? What are the stakes?
- What "twisted agenda"? What does that have to do with the stakes? What is this author mentioning Shadyia as the main character and not then immediately delivering her stakes?
- Ah, "Shadyia must choose which man to favor." Now I see the beginning of a dilemma. I wonder why the author doesn't begin on this point? Will the novel have a long-winded opening?
- But then, the stakes kind of fizzle? That's it? She's just choosing which man to favor? That's not a plot. The whole book is based on that one dilemma? Nothing else happens? What are the actual stakes?
- Junk pile. Next.
I'm not saying there is no plot, but you haven't presented it in a way that makes me want to know what will happen. Give more, but not so much you give it away. You're holding WAY too much back, and the result is a query that is lacking personality, lacking endurance, lacking hook.
Shadiya's integrity demands that she aid the magician? WHY? That's the stakes (I assume). What happens if she disregards her integrity? Anything? I see that impending wrath is coming, but you haven't made me care at all. You blandly mention a romance with a sister and then never mention it again. Is that the plot? Or is that side information? If it's side information, it doesn't belong in the query. If it's plot, it needs to be weaved in so we know why this affects the stakes.
I don't see any faces in the sisterhood. I don't see actual people here. This is written like a newspaper blurb. You have to somehow make this Shadiya person so alive, so human, so incredibly real to me, in a few brief sentences, that I am as torn as she is. GIVE ME THE MEATY DETAILS OF HER DILEMMA. Don't say, "She is very torn. She doesn't know what to do." As an agent, I'm thinking, "Well, I would hope so."
Instead, say what makes her torn: "Here is Shadya and why you will be willing to spend 300 pages with her. Here is her problem. Here is how she confronts it. Here are three crazy things that happen to her, which put her in this bind which is so horrible it seems impossible she'll get out of it, and wouldn't you, Agent, like to know how she resolves this? Well, request some pages, because you will not believe how I get her out of it."
Only do that so well they don't hear you saying it. If the novel isn't an edge-of-your seat predicament like that, be CLEAR about what its strengths are, and take the agent so far he or she wants to see how it's resolved. That will be reams more constructive than trying to buddy up to the agent. You have to make that agent respect you for your story.
That's my advice, as elusively delivered as such advice ever is. 
I'm certainly no expert. It's much easier to see this stuff in another person's query letter, than one's own. These are HARD to write.
I think it's a good exercise to write these on a work still in progress, actually, just to attempt to locate the trajectory of a work in progress. Please take my suggestions with the spirit intended, and toss whatever conflicts with your own gut.
Good luck.
corra wrote:It's not actually an insult to call a modern woman a bitch.
Really?
I tried this with my wife and received a slap.
Okay, so she's not so much the modern woman nowadays.
I tried it with my daughter and received a slap.
So, tell me; are they are both not up to date, or are they just plain unreasonable?
They were just confirming your keen observation skills. I'd consider myself complimented.
Full context here Memphis? Mr. Trump was expressing the effect of wealth and power as a sexual attractant. He was marveling at the behavior that these women accepted. Were the acts wrong? Yes. Were they encouraged? He thought so. Was he correct in that thinking? Quite possibly, since those women chose to be in the presence of money and power.
Note that the 'power' was merely the power of money. It was not the power to jail anybody, or to start an IRS investigation, or an FBI investigation. It was not the power to trigger events overseas.
Trump's strengths in business include the ability to recognize opportunities. It exposes him to temptation. Can you say you would not explore the opportunities that one of those temptations offer?
"OPPORTUNITIES?"? Really, njc?
Female bodies are NOT opportunities. That opportunity does not exist. I don't care what she's wearing, how she smiles at you, or how quickly your moron paycheck makes you think your penis grows. Keep your hands to yourself unless she says VERY PLAINLY that you may proceed. It's no more difficult to do that than it is to NOT steal the diamond bracelet in the display case because the jeweler turned her back and you were therefore TEMPTED.
A murderer, a child molester, or a thief couldn't possibly get away with such a defense. Yet it remains a steadfast excuse for the theft of the female body, in 2016.
Isn't unsolicited correcting punctuation and grammar being mean?
Is it? IS IT?
What a complete moron!!!
You've been chasing your own tail (no 'bitch' reference, of course) endlessly over this twattle. That signifies a bigoted ideologue.
It's not actually an insult to call a modern woman a bitch. It means you're intimidated by a woman's intelligence and must resort to playground name-calling to maintain your tenuous hold on your position. You might not realize that having been a little... out of touch in the last forty years.
I think for men the label "bitch" means you are a cowardly, slobbering idiot. I'm not calling you one, of course. I'm just saying you're projecting.
corra wrote:njc wrote:Well, if you insist on pulling the Bell chain, you're going to get gonged.
Let it drop already.
What is this "pull the Bell chain" thing?
Perhaps, your contribution being "you've got your head up your ass."
That's not a contribution. It's an observation. A contribution would be to escort you out of the forums.
... within the meaning of 'bigotry' is ignorance and under-powered IQ.
P.R.O.J.E.C.T.I.N.G.
Always dogpile the peacemaker!
It's not peace-making to enable abusive stupidity in the name of "getting along."
Anything else perpetuates and amplifies the conflict.
Which you are currently illustrating?
Well, if you insist on pulling the Bell chain, you're going to get gonged.
Let it drop already.
What is this "pull the Bell chain" thing? People within this thread were participating in a discussion about sneaked versus snuck. Dill expressed his opinion that people in the U.K. find the word "snuck" indicative of a low intellect among Americans. That's an observation. Charles crammed his head up his own ass again, and is currently attempting to conduct business from the great interior. Dill didn't create Charles's unfortunate position. We've all had to endure the talking head and its incoherent babbling. Observe that Charles has currently fallen off the cliff of reality and is little more than a pile of bones as we speak, sputtering about feminism and bigotry (his usual topics). This after mocking Gacela when he thought she was American, then retreating when he realized she wasn't. Now he's accusing Dill of what appears to be bigotry against white men -- a rather odd claim, but there you have it. I believe I am also being accused of something, however I've grown weary of attempting to decipher his line of thinking. He's backed himself into a corner again and is lashing out because he knows he's a complete fool, and he knows everyone else knows it, and he's too small-minded to pick himself up and recover gracefully. This is a pattern. We've all seen it over and over. Intelligent discussion here at the site quickly frays because poor little Charles with his Bell chain can't keep up. His only contribution within these forums is to gripe, to correct people's semi-colons from high, high, high on his high horse of stupidity, to mock people for their ideas, their way of speaking, their point of view, their perspective, their thoughts on history. Not in a constructive way, but in a way intended to elevate his own ego and make everyone who enters these forums feel as small as he actually is.
Dill expresses an opinion about the perspective of people in the UK (and himself) on the word "snuck", and THAT is pulling the chain? He was completely on topic! He's saying that the word carries a certain meaning outside America. That's valid within a writing discussion, and quite useful, actually. I may not agree that the word is stupid, but I can appreciate knowing that others might think it is. Aren't we writers? Don't we want to know this stuff? I do?
Charles has said countless odious things, and you say blithely, "He's so very intelligent. He deserves our respect." Dill says (within a discussion about sneaked versus snuck) that "snuck" carries a particular weight outside America. That's not a slam on anyone personally; it's an observation from a different perspective. Delivered light-heartedly. Anyone with a sense of self would have laughed and mocked him for saying Mum. (I don't think that word sounds at all intelligent. The word is Mom.)
Charles takes this as a personal offense rather than an observation, dresses it up with malevolent motivations, and declares Dill a bigot. To this you say, "Stop pulling Charlie's chain. Drop it!"
What is there to drop? Incredulity?
pc-approved bigotry
And there it is! Projecting. EVERY time.
You are quite predictable. No one even has to point out your flaws. You do it yourself, as if in anticipation.
"No, no, YOU are a bigot!" (There, now he can't call me one, says the toad.)
Except... well, you are one.
No, what I mean is that I object to someone making fun oi the way I speak and write that is, in fact, proper and fine English, and on top of that he bluffs his way on purported facts that are his juvenile (or might it be senile?) "mis-rememberings."
He was actually speaking to me in the last part you reference. Not you.
He didn't bluff anything. He mentioned the movie in passing, and then he corrected himself right after. That's called a conversation. Something you probably miss while "making fun of" the names of those around you that you consider "foreigners."
(I will pause a moment so you may call me a pc-approved bigot and unAmerican... and a girl. Also, you might haul out the label "feminist" while we're waiting. That could potentially distract me.)
If you meant my name, Mr Charles F. Bell, I'm not American.
Kiss
Gacela
To some Americans there is only America. The universe of America.
To all Americans who are Americans, that is.
You know what I object to in this conversation? THE ABOVE. Don't try to drag the rest of us into your little circle of pollution, Charles. Literally, this is what you said above:
"I think the following way, and therefore so do millions of other people, because we all fall under the label American. That is my line of thinking. We are all exactly the same."
You talk about senility? Whole wars have been fought, sir, to get the stench of your brand of thinking off our country. You are an anachronism.
The America I love is nothing like you, sir. It's filled with beautiful names and lovely people with accents and diction that color the light like music.
You object to someone making fun of the way you speak? You speak like a bigot. What a small sense of self you must have. To draw the entire nation around you like a blanket as justification for your limited line of thought.
America is better than you.
