Please respond: a short fiction piece

[SoloAJ]

Bleh. It seems really obvious that most readers are passing over the fact that he is deaf. My contention to this is that a few people got it really easily. I think the story loses some of its effect if I make it any more blatent than "She signed to him." This is quite a dilemma for me, as I feel that I am changing the meaning behind the story by forcing it out so openly.

I am torn. I have until Friday to submit this, but the numbers are piling up of people who aren't getting it the first time through. It seems that I'm going to have to do something to make it more obvious, and if that means revealing lamely "he's deaf" then it might have to be. Bleh.

I understand your sentiment about the detailed movements katy. The entire story is describing actions. The reason for this is that the story started as me having the idea of 4 or 5 steps that would have to happen chronologically. So, the entire story is just described with action sequences.

I will look at trying to edit that a little, and those two sentences in particular maybe. The problem is that my rough rough rough draft (haha), the one I wrote before the OP, had detail and was written better. It was also 300 words, so I had to cut it down a lot. Because of the word constraint, I kept all of the action...unfortunately it is all action now.

I will try and look at these things. Hopefully I can find a balance.

Thanks for the response katy and others! Greatly appreciate it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[SoloAJ]

[ QUOTE ]

Second, to me the story seems to be from the point of view of Jackson. So when the reader learns that Emily garbles out "Dada!" loud enough for everyone to hear, it's understandable we assume that Jackson has heard it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Specifically, I used the phrase "loud enough for the room to hear" because then the reader should assume he heard it. Then him being confused should tip the reader off that something isn't right.

Shrug. I'm trying...

[writername]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Second, to me the story seems to be from the point of view of Jackson. So when the reader learns that Emily garbles out "Dada!" loud enough for everyone to hear, it's understandable we assume that Jackson has heard it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Specifically, I used the phrase "loud enough for the room to hear" because then the reader should assume he heard it. Then him being confused should tip the reader off that something isn't right.

Shrug. I'm trying...

[/ QUOTE ]


It kind of just popped into my head that this sentence is the crutch. I think the reason that the sentence with the word 'signed' is being passed over is because of the sentence telling us the room heard. It is just setting us up for confusion.

My advice: hit us with the twist, or more deftly allude to it as soon as we learn the whole room should have heard something but Jackson didn't. The fact that we have to retrace to the last sentence of the first paragraph to realize he didn't hear it probably weakens the story and confused the POV perspective of Jackson, not good things. I'm curious how you can close the gap between just a few (2?) sentences.

[SoloAJ]

He rolled his eyes and smirked to himself. As he did this, Emily suddenly garbled out “dada” loud enough for the entire room to hear.

Jackson, still smirking, looked up and saw that his wife was excited. Why? Confused, his smirk dropped, eyebrows lowered, and his head tilted to the right. His wife quickly signed fluently to him “She just said her first word! Dada!”

----

The first might be a reach. But it's the best I have so far.
The second is a bit awkward because of the adverb barrage, but the idea is that it draws attention to "signed." The adverb barrage, in fact, draws attention to it. I don't think people will read it so quickly as 'signaled' with that....

Thoughts on the two ideas?

[Dane S]

Maybe you could stress the "signing" part a bit by describing the actual motion she makes with her hands? Like, "his wife touched her fingers and her thumb together, then moved them in a circle, signing..." Perhaps something like this would draw closer attention to this critical sentence.

[SoloAJ]

Dane, agreed. But I'm two words under the limit right now. So it is hard to add that much to it. My first inclination was the same though. I just don't know how to add all the motions like that in a word or two...hence I stuck the adverb in.

Having a whole 20 minutes to look at this, I like the fluently (it makes it more obvious IMO..at least I hope). I don't much like the 'Why?' because it doesn't fit the theme of the story and makes it way too obvious.

I want it to be subtle, and maybe casual quick readings would miss the deaf part....but I really don't want it to be impossible or entirely obvious.


Again, let me thank all of you for bearing with me and giving input as we go along. It is as much The Lounge's piece as it is mine at this point. I just control the direction it goes [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Dane S]

Actually, the word "fluently" seems awkward to me, partly because it seems redundant to call a deaf man's wife's sign language "fluent" (it sounds sort of like you're trying to congratulate her on her signing), and partly because I don't think fluent really fits the situation. Fluent means graceful and smooth, but here she's excited, so I would think her signing would probably be the opposite.

[rothko]

[ QUOTE ]
He rolled his eyes and smirked to himself. As he did this, Emily suddenly garbled out “dada” loud enough for the entire room to hear.

Jackson, still smirking, looked up and saw that his wife was excited. Why? Confused, his smirk dropped, eyebrows lowered, and his head tilted to the right. His wife quickly signed fluently to him “She just said her first word! Dada!”

----

The first might be a reach. But it's the best I have so far.
The second is a bit awkward because of the adverb barrage, but the idea is that it draws attention to "signed." The adverb barrage, in fact, draws attention to it. I don't think people will read it so quickly as 'signaled' with that....

Thoughts on the two ideas?

[/ QUOTE ]

solo, neither idea is good. you are correct in what you are trying to accomplish with the second edit, but "signed fluently" is wrong. something as simple as "signed with her hands" emphasizes it just enough to help the reader pick up on it.

also, why are you using the word garbled? it's not right. you're trying to make the point that she said it loud enough for everyone to hear, but it's garbled? use a different word there.

[SoloAJ]

I used garbled because it seemed like a fitting word to describe a baby's first word. Perhaps it isn't the right word, but it seemed babyish to me.

And fair enough on the fluently thing. I'll have to work on something....I think I'm at 197 right now with fluently...so it will be hard to say "with her hands" maybe, but I will try and work something out.

Thanks for the feedback on the new ideas gents.

[rothko]

you've got lots of other stuff that can be cut. that part is the pivot, don't sacrifice it for other less important areas.