I enjoyed this a lot, but I'm finding a number of stylistic inconsistencies; if they were tightened this piece would be even stronger.
I think I see what you're doing - this story is meant to summon up the England-that-never-was, the Merrie-Old one.
And there are just some constructions that you use, that, while certainly grammatically correct and otherwise acceptable, take me out of the 17th/18th century-ness. I'll explain.
I associate this kind of story with a definite type of literary register, and one that remains consistently within the confines of archaic speech. First sentence? Fabulous. Second sentence? Fabulous. Third and fourth sentences? They smack of modernism. It might just be that phrase "the only sounds were". I don't know, make of it what you will. But here's how I hear those sentences:
The road was fat with silence, save for the chirring of frogs and the thudding of his horse's hooves.
I just don't think there's room in a story like this for anything to Just Be. I think everything in this England must be thick with mythic import: burghers are all fat-pursed and hoary-bearded, young swains are hearty and untiring, and every mug is frothy. Am I putting too much of my prejudices into this edit? probably. But I feel like there is a Very Specific Way you want this story to read, and that you have to do it with highly stylized language.
I'd try to avoid using passive constructions in general, of course - but here, particularly, I feel that it makes some of your sentences sound too Modern. Her loveliness struck him senseless - he was the strickenee but don't lead with that sentence.
Jenny/Solomon's first interaction:
Cute! but I think there's something off about the phrase "his reputation is that of a highwayman's". It's.. I dunno. that doesn't seem to go with the High English style. It falls a little short. I'd say "Men say that Gale's a skullduggerer and a cutpurse else," to which Jenny could respond, "And those things be neither of 'em true; he's a protector and a gentleman."
Anyway, you get the gist of what I'm getting at. And feel free to disagree! But that's where I think this story needs to go, is just, y'know, deeper into the stylized place.
Thanks, David. I agree with you about the stylization; this needs more archaic language, and I also want to develop the scene when the king's men show up at Jenny's door.
I had meant this to take place in colonial Massachussets, sometime around 1750-70. I don't think the language in the colonies was as formalized as it would have been in England at the time. Still, I think I'm going to steal the phrase you wrote for Jenny :D
Again, thanks for the edit; I plan to submit this (I'm always getting calls for submission in my inbox), so your thoughts are invaluable.
I enjoyed this a lot, but I'm finding a number of stylistic inconsistencies; if they were tightened this piece would be even stronger.
I think I see what you're doing - this story is meant to summon up the England-that-never-was, the Merrie-Old one.
And there are just some constructions that you use, that, while certainly grammatically correct and otherwise acceptable, take me out of the 17th/18th century-ness. I'll explain.
I associate this kind of story with a definite type of literary register, and one that remains consistently within the confines of archaic speech. First sentence? Fabulous. Second sentence? Fabulous. Third and fourth sentences? They smack of modernism. It might just be that phrase "the only sounds were". I don't know, make of it what you will. But here's how I hear those sentences:
The road was fat with silence, save for the chirring of frogs and the thudding of his horse's hooves.
I just don't think there's room in a story like this for anything to Just Be. I think everything in this England must be thick with mythic import: burghers are all fat-pursed and hoary-bearded, young swains are hearty and untiring, and every mug is frothy. Am I putting too much of my prejudices into this edit? probably. But I feel like there is a Very Specific Way you want this story to read, and that you have to do it with highly stylized language.
I'd try to avoid using passive constructions in general, of course - but here, particularly, I feel that it makes some of your sentences sound too Modern. Her loveliness struck him senseless - he was the strickenee but don't lead with that sentence.
Jenny/Solomon's first interaction:
Cute! but I think there's something off about the phrase "his reputation is that of a highwayman's". It's.. I dunno. that doesn't seem to go with the High English style. It falls a little short. I'd say "Men say that Gale's a skullduggerer and a cutpurse else," to which Jenny could respond, "And those things be neither of 'em true; he's a protector and a gentleman."
Anyway, you get the gist of what I'm getting at. And feel free to disagree! But that's where I think this story needs to go, is just, y'know, deeper into the stylized place.
Good luck this week!
Yours,
-D
Reply
I had meant this to take place in colonial Massachussets, sometime around 1750-70. I don't think the language in the colonies was as formalized as it would have been in England at the time. Still, I think I'm going to steal the phrase you wrote for Jenny :D
Again, thanks for the edit; I plan to submit this (I'm always getting calls for submission in my inbox), so your thoughts are invaluable.
Good luck to you this week!
Reply
-D
Reply
Leave a comment