Hey! It looks like you're new here. You might want to check out the introduction.
Show rules for this event
Third Law of Motion
For every action, there is an equal reaction. That pious platitude has never been so true, except that, in this very moment, the reaction is way above the action. And also, it has already happened before. So fuck this sentence, and fuck the twisted mind where that shit came from, your laws can't be applied here. In fact, there isn't one left to be applied.
I should take a deep breath to calm myself, if only I could remember what being calm meant. I feel sweat is dripping from my forehead and at the same time, I feel so cold I'm shaking. Especially my hand, the one that I've raised to open the door.
Why am I doing this? It's not like there's something for me past that door except death. At least, that's what my guts are screaming to me. I know what is waiting for me, things that everybody seems to be able to do without thinking about them. But they are blind and I'm one-eyed. What was left of morality and dignity has been shredded by the call of fanaticism. If only I could gouge the other eye, but it's too late. It has been too late the moment where I chose to remain upright.
"Honey?"
I hear my wife's voice behind me. I look at her and try to smile. In a previous life, I would have find her beautiful but now, she looks ugly. Her eyes are filled with fear, she doesn't know if she will see me tonight. She reminds me that I'm a fool for trying to look braver just for her but I don't want to disappoint her. So I lie.
"Don't worry, I'll be fine."
She tries to smile too. It makes her look uglier and I want to punch myself.
"Why don't you take a day off?"
I hear that she wants to leave. It's not the first time she asks me this but I can't. I'm supposed to be a shepherd -no, I'm a shepherd- even if the sheep have become wolves. I have to keep watch of the flock. They devour each other to the slightest hint of weakness but I'll be there, even if can't do anything, I'll try.
I can't manage to give her an answer but it doesn't matter. She already knows it and she doesn't have to hear it for the hundredth time. She disappears in the kitchen, leaving me alone, me and the door.
My hand manages to reach the knob and to grasp it firmly. I hear gunshots outside and my grisp becomes rigid.
Maybe tomorrow, I could be stronger tomorrow, but I know that I won't. So I touch my handgun in its holster with my other hand. I feel like a monkey hanging on a reed during a hurricane. At least, it's enough to finally open the door. Before it closes, I hear crying from the kitchen. I don't stop and push the lift call button.
For every action, there is an equal reaction.
Fuck. You.
I should take a deep breath to calm myself, if only I could remember what being calm meant. I feel sweat is dripping from my forehead and at the same time, I feel so cold I'm shaking. Especially my hand, the one that I've raised to open the door.
Why am I doing this? It's not like there's something for me past that door except death. At least, that's what my guts are screaming to me. I know what is waiting for me, things that everybody seems to be able to do without thinking about them. But they are blind and I'm one-eyed. What was left of morality and dignity has been shredded by the call of fanaticism. If only I could gouge the other eye, but it's too late. It has been too late the moment where I chose to remain upright.
"Honey?"
I hear my wife's voice behind me. I look at her and try to smile. In a previous life, I would have find her beautiful but now, she looks ugly. Her eyes are filled with fear, she doesn't know if she will see me tonight. She reminds me that I'm a fool for trying to look braver just for her but I don't want to disappoint her. So I lie.
"Don't worry, I'll be fine."
She tries to smile too. It makes her look uglier and I want to punch myself.
"Why don't you take a day off?"
I hear that she wants to leave. It's not the first time she asks me this but I can't. I'm supposed to be a shepherd -no, I'm a shepherd- even if the sheep have become wolves. I have to keep watch of the flock. They devour each other to the slightest hint of weakness but I'll be there, even if can't do anything, I'll try.
I can't manage to give her an answer but it doesn't matter. She already knows it and she doesn't have to hear it for the hundredth time. She disappears in the kitchen, leaving me alone, me and the door.
My hand manages to reach the knob and to grasp it firmly. I hear gunshots outside and my grisp becomes rigid.
Maybe tomorrow, I could be stronger tomorrow, but I know that I won't. So I touch my handgun in its holster with my other hand. I feel like a monkey hanging on a reed during a hurricane. At least, it's enough to finally open the door. Before it closes, I hear crying from the kitchen. I don't stop and push the lift call button.
For every action, there is an equal reaction.
Fuck. You.
Seems this one's a story-puzzle. It was tough to read since I never felt oriented as a reader. I tried to figure out the puzzle but I can't and don't have the time to further pursue it. Most I can guess is there's some religious thing going on ("pious" "fanatical" and the shepherd thing. Also "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" is not from the bible I don't think but is from Latin or something?).
You don't have to tell the reader everything, sure. But I think this entry holds too much back. Like I say, I should be rereading the story because I want to, not because I have to.
You don't have to tell the reader everything, sure. But I think this entry holds too much back. Like I say, I should be rereading the story because I want to, not because I have to.
I just, don't understand this one. It doesn't seem like it is supposed to be the same story, or at least, the same chapter, as the separate parts do not "fit" together well.
I think this might have to do with some sort of religious war, though I’m not actually positive. But I agree with all the former comments, it’s hard to parse, and there isn’t sufficient context to get to the point. Now, some stories choose to let the reader deliberately on the fence of two or more interpretations, and that’s a good thing. But in this case, there’s no really meat for us to know what dish we are tasting, and it left us with a sour aftertaste – which means, I don’t really want to re-read it to find out what I’ve missed.
So I'm in a bit of a disagreement with people on Third Law of Motion. I don't really find it necessarily confusing what the explicit context of the scene is, but I think the story itself has a problem making clear to the reader what the take-away message is and is overloaded with unclear metaphors and imagery that don't seem to connect with one another. Perhaps if the author had been more straightforward and forthwith with describing the situation instead of utilizing a number of similes and metaphors that the story as a whole would go down easier.
To me, it is apparent the the narrator is some sort of law enforcement official or soldier in a place that has lost itself to anarchy, and he he is begrudgingly venturing out to restore some semblance of order, likely in vain. The main character laments the danger and violence that he is being tossed into and also assumed to commit as a result of his duty. His wife wants him to stay at home where it's safe, but he puts on a brave face and goes out anyway, but he's not happy about it.
The thesis of the story itself, however, and how it plays into the Third Law of Motion is either ill-conceived in its comparison or just poorly explained. I could maybe go for interpreting it being along the anarchy is the result of a completely disproportionate reaction by the public that has caused rioting, i.e. some sort of needless war type scenario, but there's simply not enough context to support that interpretation, and is more me trying to give the author the benefit of the doubt that he/she had a clear idea in mind when writing this than anything else. How exactly the Third Law of Motion ties into the rest of the story proper is never made explicitly clear, which is unfortunate because it's the title of the story, the opening sentence, and the final line. As a result, it feels like MLPMatthew said, a series of separate parts that have no strong unifying body to bring them together.
To me, it is apparent the the narrator is some sort of law enforcement official or soldier in a place that has lost itself to anarchy, and he he is begrudgingly venturing out to restore some semblance of order, likely in vain. The main character laments the danger and violence that he is being tossed into and also assumed to commit as a result of his duty. His wife wants him to stay at home where it's safe, but he puts on a brave face and goes out anyway, but he's not happy about it.
The thesis of the story itself, however, and how it plays into the Third Law of Motion is either ill-conceived in its comparison or just poorly explained. I could maybe go for interpreting it being along the anarchy is the result of a completely disproportionate reaction by the public that has caused rioting, i.e. some sort of needless war type scenario, but there's simply not enough context to support that interpretation, and is more me trying to give the author the benefit of the doubt that he/she had a clear idea in mind when writing this than anything else. How exactly the Third Law of Motion ties into the rest of the story proper is never made explicitly clear, which is unfortunate because it's the title of the story, the opening sentence, and the final line. As a result, it feels like MLPMatthew said, a series of separate parts that have no strong unifying body to bring them together.
It's always good to see a story named Third Law of Motion misquote Newton's Third Law of Motion!
In all seriousness, the opening of this story throws me for a loop, and I think we ought to talk a little about why that happened. After your misquote, you describe the law as a "pious platitude"—a phrase often associated with religious or moralistic phrases said insincerely. Almost immediately we've got something odd going on, and we're forced to examine the phrasing of the Third Law in a totally different context. Except, in any other context, it's not a Law and we shouldn't really expect it to apply—so when you say "the reaction is way above the action" I know that I, as a reader, simply thought, 'so what?'
I can see what you're going for with those first two sentences, though: you're trying to set up this feeling that some sort of reactionary thing has happened that is far, far worse than whatever it was reacting to. I think there are probably a million and one better ways to convey that message, but the fact of the matter is that you successfully conveyed it, and that's a good start. Where you lose me is sentence number three.
Context tells us that "it" is the reaction, because the alternative ("it" referring to the Third Law) makes the sentence totally redundant. The "And also", structurally, is tying into the "except that" clause from the previous sentence, so we know whatever follows it is another exception for the Third Law holding true. And then the rest of the sentence tells us that... the reaction has already happened before? I'll be honest, I don't actually know what relevance that has, or what you're actually trying to tell us there. That's not another exception—it doesn't even hold any relevance to the Third Law. Combine that confusion with a really weird choice of conjunction ("not to mention" would probably be a better choice than "and also") and you've lost me. I no longer know what I'm reading.
Then, almost as if you're reading my mind, you go meta and proclaim: "fuck this sentence". I still have no idea why the meta parts of this story are here, by the way. They don't add anything meaningful to the story, except perhaps to act as an excuse for the incredibly confusing third sentence. In all honesty, I think this story would be far better without them, unless you can find a way to give them more meaning.
>>MLPmatthewl419 said that this story didn't really fit well together, and I agree with that conclusion. Aside from the meta sections not fitting, there's also the whole aspect of the story where the wife is described as "ugly". I'll be honest, I'm not sure what the point of those lines is. I guess they're meant to be commenting on how the wife's fear and worry are ugly properties, but it just struck a wrong note for me and came across as condemning. But then the main character wants to punch himself for thinking it? I didn't see how it fit into the rest of the story's meaning, and I wasn't quite sure why it was there.
With all that having been said, I think that at its heart this is a very interesting exploration of bravery in the face of horror and death, and of two people trying to maintain a sense of normality as hell is breaking out around them. I have no idea what the context of that horror and hell may be, and to be totally honest I'm not sure that lack of context helps your story. There's something religious going on (is it the world outside? Is it the main character?), the main character probably works in something related to law enforcement, and I'm pretty sure that outside there's some kind of anarchistic riot... but that's all I've got. I really do think that a little more context would help make this story better, if only to make the reader's conclusions feel more solid and grounded in the text. As much as I like the withholding of information and deliberate ambiguity, I'd appreciate it being toned down a bit.
To round this all off, I just want to quickly comment that this story could have used another editing pass—I know we don't get much time in minific rounds, but there are enough examples of sentences with awkward (sometimes, like the third sentence, to the point of distraction) phrasings and grammar mistakes ("I would have find her beautiful", for example) that probably could have been cleared up with just a little more attention.
In all seriousness, the opening of this story throws me for a loop, and I think we ought to talk a little about why that happened. After your misquote, you describe the law as a "pious platitude"—a phrase often associated with religious or moralistic phrases said insincerely. Almost immediately we've got something odd going on, and we're forced to examine the phrasing of the Third Law in a totally different context. Except, in any other context, it's not a Law and we shouldn't really expect it to apply—so when you say "the reaction is way above the action" I know that I, as a reader, simply thought, 'so what?'
I can see what you're going for with those first two sentences, though: you're trying to set up this feeling that some sort of reactionary thing has happened that is far, far worse than whatever it was reacting to. I think there are probably a million and one better ways to convey that message, but the fact of the matter is that you successfully conveyed it, and that's a good start. Where you lose me is sentence number three.
And also, it has already happened before.
Context tells us that "it" is the reaction, because the alternative ("it" referring to the Third Law) makes the sentence totally redundant. The "And also", structurally, is tying into the "except that" clause from the previous sentence, so we know whatever follows it is another exception for the Third Law holding true. And then the rest of the sentence tells us that... the reaction has already happened before? I'll be honest, I don't actually know what relevance that has, or what you're actually trying to tell us there. That's not another exception—it doesn't even hold any relevance to the Third Law. Combine that confusion with a really weird choice of conjunction ("not to mention" would probably be a better choice than "and also") and you've lost me. I no longer know what I'm reading.
Then, almost as if you're reading my mind, you go meta and proclaim: "fuck this sentence". I still have no idea why the meta parts of this story are here, by the way. They don't add anything meaningful to the story, except perhaps to act as an excuse for the incredibly confusing third sentence. In all honesty, I think this story would be far better without them, unless you can find a way to give them more meaning.
>>MLPmatthewl419 said that this story didn't really fit well together, and I agree with that conclusion. Aside from the meta sections not fitting, there's also the whole aspect of the story where the wife is described as "ugly". I'll be honest, I'm not sure what the point of those lines is. I guess they're meant to be commenting on how the wife's fear and worry are ugly properties, but it just struck a wrong note for me and came across as condemning. But then the main character wants to punch himself for thinking it? I didn't see how it fit into the rest of the story's meaning, and I wasn't quite sure why it was there.
With all that having been said, I think that at its heart this is a very interesting exploration of bravery in the face of horror and death, and of two people trying to maintain a sense of normality as hell is breaking out around them. I have no idea what the context of that horror and hell may be, and to be totally honest I'm not sure that lack of context helps your story. There's something religious going on (is it the world outside? Is it the main character?), the main character probably works in something related to law enforcement, and I'm pretty sure that outside there's some kind of anarchistic riot... but that's all I've got. I really do think that a little more context would help make this story better, if only to make the reader's conclusions feel more solid and grounded in the text. As much as I like the withholding of information and deliberate ambiguity, I'd appreciate it being toned down a bit.
To round this all off, I just want to quickly comment that this story could have used another editing pass—I know we don't get much time in minific rounds, but there are enough examples of sentences with awkward (sometimes, like the third sentence, to the point of distraction) phrasings and grammar mistakes ("I would have find her beautiful", for example) that probably could have been cleared up with just a little more attention.
Post by
Shadowed_Song
, deleted
>>QuillScratch
This is not a meta-narrative comment! This is a character making a reflexive commentary on their own narration! WRRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
Then, almost as if you're reading my mind, you go meta and proclaim: "fuck this sentence". I still have no idea why the meta parts of this story are here, by the way.
meta
This is not a meta-narrative comment! This is a character making a reflexive commentary on their own narration! WRRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
>>Cassius
I'll agree that that may not have been the best choice of word, as it does tend to have all those connotations of meta-narratives and the like. I was mostly using it in the sense of "self-referential", which I think is pretty much exactly the kind of meaning you're talking about there. I understand that that use of the word is less rigorous*, and I apologise for any confusion.
*It's also less common—I checked seven dictionaries and only found "self-referential" as a definition in two of them, which generally implies that a usage of a word isn't common enough to merit a mention.
I'll agree that that may not have been the best choice of word, as it does tend to have all those connotations of meta-narratives and the like. I was mostly using it in the sense of "self-referential", which I think is pretty much exactly the kind of meaning you're talking about there. I understand that that use of the word is less rigorous*, and I apologise for any confusion.
*It's also less common—I checked seven dictionaries and only found "self-referential" as a definition in two of them, which generally implies that a usage of a word isn't common enough to merit a mention.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. That's the common phrasing of it, and it is hella distracting to see it "wrong" in a story that is attempting to cite it as the basis of things going on.
Beyond that... yeah, you can't quite leave the reader hanging this badly. I suspect Front is right about the content, but honestly, you have to give us -something- to go on. There's strong emotion, but no real basis for that emotion, and without that? It is sound and fury signifying nothing.
Beyond that, definitely needs an editorial pass. Lot of little errors scattered all through.
Beyond that... yeah, you can't quite leave the reader hanging this badly. I suspect Front is right about the content, but honestly, you have to give us -something- to go on. There's strong emotion, but no real basis for that emotion, and without that? It is sound and fury signifying nothing.
Beyond that, definitely needs an editorial pass. Lot of little errors scattered all through.
I feel like the shade thrown out on Newton here is a reference to the arms race between police and criminals. I figure by the wife's attitude, the environment noise, and the cop's meek armament (though he's leaving his home so I shouldn't expect him to be too geared up) the situation isn't panning out well for law enforcement.
Okay, now that I can finally tell that I'm the author of this epic fail, I want to explain what I wanted to do with this poor imitation of a story. I'll answer to comments after, so if you are only interested in that, scroll down until you see the big "ANSWERS". Know that I've repeated myself several time for every answer I gave so you may want to only see my answers to your comment. However, there are some important things you could miss.
The use of the third law of motion, as some have guessed, is intentionaly misused. It is misused by the narrator to introduce the consequences of some people's actions, and to emphasize that the reaction is unequal to the action (remember that the quote is supposed to be 'For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction'. I know that I didn't write 'opposite and equal', the story is about the fact that many people wrongly quote this law for other things than physics). It is also linked to later actions in the story but I'll coming back to it later.
So the first paragraph was supposed to introduce the law and how the narrator strongly disagrees with it. The misconception of the third law works in our peaceful and modern society, where one of the main idea that govern our reflection is the link between the causes and the consequences. Except that when the world around you is falling apart because of some people's actions, this idea seems like bullshit. Hence, the "fuck this sentence, and fuck the twisted mind where that shit came from".
The first thing that this law was supposed to highlight was the fact that he just wants to open a door, a common thing that everyone does without even thinking about it, but because of what is happening outside, he is terrified and it is really difficult for him to simply open the door. Thus the reaction (fear, terror, body shaking etc) isn't equal to what is required to open a door.
Then, he's wondering why he does this. With that, I wanted to introduce the danger waiting for him outside, and also the fact that he has chosen "to remain upright", unlike the rest of the population. That's why he is 'one-eyed' when the rest is blind (but I believe you have figured that out). And last but not least, the fanaticism has to be linked with the 'pious platitude'.
Now comes the wife. She was here to emphasize his fight and how it 'twists' his ideal. Remember that he has chosen to remain upright, but here, he has to lie to his wife, who isn't fooled by it. Add to this that his lie makes her look uglier and he hates himself for that.
For the shepherd metaphor, it is, indeed, to explain that he is "a law enforcement official or soldier" (thanks Cassius for the guess :) ). You also have to link that to the gun he is touching later in the story. And of course, the sheep becoming wolves and devouring each other is here to amplify the violence that people are committing and also to add some bestiality traits (they have lost their status as humans).
The last paragraphs are meant to be linked with the first, with his difficulty to open the door. The gunshots he is hearing make it more difficult but he manages to open the door nonetheless.
Now remember when I said that I'll coming back to what were the other things the third law of motion was connected to? You have two in the end. The first is the reaction of his wife who is crying in the kitchen. Action: he can't leave the country, he goes back to his job; Reaction: his wife is crying, fearing for her husband's life. And the second (and the last), is the lift call button. Action: you press a button, Reaction: the lift is coming to the floor (it know it's a bit silly but I liked the idea).
Now that all thoses details are said, I have to say that the exact job of the narrator wasn't intented to be mention. The same applies to what is happening outside. I know that I've lost some of you by not being clearer on what was going on but I thought that what was already there was enough. It seems not.
The Endless Struggle was for the narrator to be able to open the door and go doing his job, even after all the things he has seen. He doesn't want to but he is seeing himself as the last bastion before his country is plunged into a total chaos.
Last thing to do, I thank every one who have taken the time to read and comment. It helps to see how a story can be read and percieved by readers and it seems that I've failed hard to convey what I had in mind. Too bad, I'll do better next time.
ANSWERS
I've already covered some of the critics but I'll still answer to each one of you.
>>Spectral
About the fact you didn't understand, you're not the only one. If you are still interested in what was going on, check the explanation I did.
And about the errors, I'm sorry for that. I didn't have the time to get the story read by an editor and I'm still learning.
>>FrontSevens
You guessed pretty much what was going on. I didn't intend to give more but it seems I should have. It wasn't supposed to be a story-puzzle, just a story. And the fact that you reread the story because you wanted to, not because you had to, I guess it is because you somehow enjoyed the story? So thanks for that.
>>MLPmatthewl419
You're the second one to tell me that the parts don't fit together well.
I thinks that's because of the exposition parts. Indeed, because he's supposed to imitate the hard-boild type, the narration is supposed to be more directly aimed at the audience. Think about Roschach in the movie Watchmen. I didn't handle it well though.
>>RawCringe
You guessed well, the narrator is indeed a policeman. The cause of the fight is supposed to remain vague.
>>Monokeras
Religious war it is.
For the rest of your comment, I understand that I didn't give enough on what was happening. I assumed that, because it was clear in my mind, it should be the same (more or less) for the reader.
>>TitaniumDragon
Sorry about that, I didn't want to lose the reader.
I'll start to split some comments because some are really long.
>>Cassius
Thanks for the compliment and the critics.
There isn't really a take-away message in this story, aside from seeing what can it cost a man to remain a man.
And is the story really overloaded with metaphors? I didn't feel so. Moreover, there somehow connected. The shepherd/sheep/wolves metaphors has to be linked with the monkey. In the narrator's mind, he is one of the few who have keep their status as human (the shepherd is a human) because he kept his integrity and didn't succomb to the call of fanaticism. However, when he touch his weapon to give himself some confidence, he knows that it is not how he wants to be a human. It also implies that he would probably need to use it, and kill people. So he sees hismelf as an animal for a moment, not a human.
That's one way to sum up the story, good job.
I had, indeed, a clear idea in mind when I wrote this, but all the comments let me know that between my mind and my words, there's a gap that I didn't manage to cross.
>>QuillScratch
With this part, I may understand what had got some readers lost.
I think I didn't completely understand what 'pious platitude' could mean and imply. When I'll rewrite it, i I think I'll go for 'appalling commonplace'.
And when I say that 'the reaction is way above the action', it's because I've just established before that the reaction is supposed to be equal to the action. So it was supposed to make the reader wonder why and how the reaction could be above the action. (I used above here in the sense that the reaction is stronger/bigger than the action. Above works for that right?)
Okay so the premise isn't totally f***ed up. Small victory.
You are totally right. I'll be honest, that sentence wasn't supposed to be kept for the final editing. I missed it and, indeed, it isn't relevant to anything in the story or the third law of motion.
There isn't anything meta here. The first lines are the narrator thoughts and the swearing that follows is his comments on this sentences. It was here to show how much he hates that commonplace, because of his situation.
The wife is descripted as ugly because on one hand, it emphasizes that there isn't anything beautiful or joyful for the narrator anymore and, on the other hand, the narrator lying to her by telling that everything is gonna be fine makes her smile, a fake smile, so he finds her uglier because he knows by her smile that she knows he is lying so he hates himself for disappointing her by not being braver (is that clear? Because it doesn't sound clear when it's written).
Nothing more to say that I haven't already said, except that I wanted to focus mainly on what the narrator was feeling right now, when he is about to leave his house. I didn't want to go "EXPOSITION" all the way, but I should have done some.
I know that I need some people to pre-read my stories, not only for the simple grammar mistakes that I make (like the one you quoted), but also for all the critics that have been said. I struggled (haha) to find one for one of my story and he is been pretty busy lately (*wink* *wink*).
>>Shadowed_Song
Woawoawoa, wait... that's it?
I won't take gloves with you because you didn't take yours. Your comment feels more like finding the right sentence that sounds good than actually tell what was wrong with the story.
So too many metaphors. Let's count them together shall we? (I only count the strongest metaphors)
The third law of motion that go through the entire story. That's one.
The blind people and the one-eye. That's two.
The shepherd, the sheep and the wolves. That's three.
The monkey and the reed. Four.
Four metaphors, in less than one hundred words. Four is too much? Okay, then I don't know if you're really interested in litterature because, except from some specific genres AND some specific period of time, metaphors is one of the main element of litterature. Even the language is filled with metaphors that everyone use without thinking (just think about all the link between love and fire for example).
Now I can understand if they are bad or poorly executed, I won't argue with that, there are clearly not my best. Metaphors are hard things to create and to work with, because on one hand, you need to be specific in order to convey what you want, but on the other hand, you have to let some areas unclear in order to let your reader construe and build his own mental image.
Here is one that I found brilliant, from Paul Eluard, a French poet
Earth is blue like an orange (La Terre est bleue comme une orange)
I don't. I don't know what have made you think that, and you're not the only one. Maybe because some entries were about an author having difficulties to write but there is nothing meta here.
But too much? Seriously?
'Writing need work' How?
'premis is barely understandable' That's legit, except it is thanks to the others that I now understand why.
'execution is pretty terrible' Again, how?
On what scale did the story is rated? From % to ¤? So -/10 is good or bad?
Okay enough joking, if you can't give a real number because the story was bad (and that's perfectly ok), say it. I understand that there are majors flaws in my entry. From the others that I've read, I'm well aware that mine is way lower than them. But please, give a real grade next time, even a 0/10. But this -/10, I don't understand it. If you meant that you couldn't grade it because it was shit, tell me.
>>AndrewRogue
That was the point, misquote the third law because it is how often people understand and use it.
For the strong emotion, I'm glad that the main purpose worked in a way, but I see why it can sound like that. As I've said, the basis for those emotions had been kept vague because I wanted the emotion to be the real purpose of the story. However, and because you're definitely not the first one to mention it, I'll keep in mind for when I'll rewrite it.
>>Rao
Interesting, that's an interpration I haven't planned at all, but it still works. Good job (and bad job for me for letting the possibility of different interpretations possible)
END OF ANSWERS
This fic was largely inspired by the character from 'Morituri' and 'L'automne des chimères' (Chimeras' autumn/ Autumn of Chimeras) by Yasmina Khadra. There are crime novels that take place during the Algerian Civil War, after the decolonization.
For those who aren't familiar with this events, just check the Wiki here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_Civil_War
If what you have seen here has, somehow, piqued your curiosity, I strongly recommand you to read those books. There are translated in English so don't worry.
As my first entry in the writeoff events, I'm kinda happy of what I did, knowing my own difficulties with the English language and the time we had to write.
Once again, I thank everyone who took time to read and offer valuable comments on why the story was bad. Against all odds, it still encourages me to keep improving and I hope you're ready to read more from me, for better or worst.
PS: Quill Scratch, you have some proof-read to do so stop reviewing stories better than mine and go back to work :p
The use of the third law of motion, as some have guessed, is intentionaly misused. It is misused by the narrator to introduce the consequences of some people's actions, and to emphasize that the reaction is unequal to the action (remember that the quote is supposed to be 'For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction'. I know that I didn't write 'opposite and equal', the story is about the fact that many people wrongly quote this law for other things than physics). It is also linked to later actions in the story but I'll coming back to it later.
So the first paragraph was supposed to introduce the law and how the narrator strongly disagrees with it. The misconception of the third law works in our peaceful and modern society, where one of the main idea that govern our reflection is the link between the causes and the consequences. Except that when the world around you is falling apart because of some people's actions, this idea seems like bullshit. Hence, the "fuck this sentence, and fuck the twisted mind where that shit came from".
The first thing that this law was supposed to highlight was the fact that he just wants to open a door, a common thing that everyone does without even thinking about it, but because of what is happening outside, he is terrified and it is really difficult for him to simply open the door. Thus the reaction (fear, terror, body shaking etc) isn't equal to what is required to open a door.
Then, he's wondering why he does this. With that, I wanted to introduce the danger waiting for him outside, and also the fact that he has chosen "to remain upright", unlike the rest of the population. That's why he is 'one-eyed' when the rest is blind (but I believe you have figured that out). And last but not least, the fanaticism has to be linked with the 'pious platitude'.
Now comes the wife. She was here to emphasize his fight and how it 'twists' his ideal. Remember that he has chosen to remain upright, but here, he has to lie to his wife, who isn't fooled by it. Add to this that his lie makes her look uglier and he hates himself for that.
For the shepherd metaphor, it is, indeed, to explain that he is "a law enforcement official or soldier" (thanks Cassius for the guess :) ). You also have to link that to the gun he is touching later in the story. And of course, the sheep becoming wolves and devouring each other is here to amplify the violence that people are committing and also to add some bestiality traits (they have lost their status as humans).
The last paragraphs are meant to be linked with the first, with his difficulty to open the door. The gunshots he is hearing make it more difficult but he manages to open the door nonetheless.
Now remember when I said that I'll coming back to what were the other things the third law of motion was connected to? You have two in the end. The first is the reaction of his wife who is crying in the kitchen. Action: he can't leave the country, he goes back to his job; Reaction: his wife is crying, fearing for her husband's life. And the second (and the last), is the lift call button. Action: you press a button, Reaction: the lift is coming to the floor (it know it's a bit silly but I liked the idea).
Now that all thoses details are said, I have to say that the exact job of the narrator wasn't intented to be mention. The same applies to what is happening outside. I know that I've lost some of you by not being clearer on what was going on but I thought that what was already there was enough. It seems not.
The Endless Struggle was for the narrator to be able to open the door and go doing his job, even after all the things he has seen. He doesn't want to but he is seeing himself as the last bastion before his country is plunged into a total chaos.
Last thing to do, I thank every one who have taken the time to read and comment. It helps to see how a story can be read and percieved by readers and it seems that I've failed hard to convey what I had in mind. Too bad, I'll do better next time.
ANSWERS
I've already covered some of the critics but I'll still answer to each one of you.
>>Spectral
I don't understand what you're going for here. The first paragraph and last two lines feel out of place, and there's some spelling/grammatical/formatting errors.
About the fact you didn't understand, you're not the only one. If you are still interested in what was going on, check the explanation I did.
And about the errors, I'm sorry for that. I didn't have the time to get the story read by an editor and I'm still learning.
>>FrontSevens
Seems this one's a story-puzzle. It was tough to read since I never felt oriented as a reader. I tried to figure out the puzzle but I can't and don't have the time to further pursue it. Most I can guess is there's some religious thing going on ("pious" "fanatical" and the shepherd thing. Also "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" is not from the bible I don't think but is from Latin or something?).
You don't have to tell the reader everything, sure. But I think this entry holds too much back. Like I say, I should be rereading the story because I want to, not because I have to.
You guessed pretty much what was going on. I didn't intend to give more but it seems I should have. It wasn't supposed to be a story-puzzle, just a story. And the fact that you reread the story because you wanted to, not because you had to, I guess it is because you somehow enjoyed the story? So thanks for that.
>>MLPmatthewl419
I just, don't understand this one. It doesn't seem like it is supposed to be the same story, or at least, the same chapter, as the separate parts do not "fit" together well.
You're the second one to tell me that the parts don't fit together well.
I thinks that's because of the exposition parts. Indeed, because he's supposed to imitate the hard-boild type, the narration is supposed to be more directly aimed at the audience. Think about Roschach in the movie Watchmen. I didn't handle it well though.
>>RawCringe
Clearly a policeman. I don't understand the cause of the fight, though.
You guessed well, the narrator is indeed a policeman. The cause of the fight is supposed to remain vague.
>>Monokeras
I think this might have to do with some sort of religious war, though I’m not actually positive. But I agree with all the former comments, it’s hard to parse, and there isn’t sufficient context to get to the point. Now, some stories choose to let the reader deliberately on the fence of two or more interpretations, and that’s a good thing. But in this case, there’s no really meat for us to know what dish we are tasting, and it left us with a sour aftertaste – which means, I don’t really want to re-read it to find out what I’ve missed.
Religious war it is.
For the rest of your comment, I understand that I didn't give enough on what was happening. I assumed that, because it was clear in my mind, it should be the same (more or less) for the reader.
>>TitaniumDragon
I'm with everyone else who was confused about what was going on here.
Sorry about that, I didn't want to lose the reader.
I'll start to split some comments because some are really long.
>>Cassius
So I'm in a bit of a disagreement with people on Third Law of Motion. I don't really find it necessarily confusing what the explicit context of the scene is, but I think the story itself has a problem making clear to the reader what the take-away message is and is overloaded with unclear metaphors and imagery that don't seem to connect with one another. Perhaps if the author had been more straightforward and forthwith with describing the situation instead of utilizing a number of similes and metaphors that the story as a whole would go down easier.
Thanks for the compliment and the critics.
There isn't really a take-away message in this story, aside from seeing what can it cost a man to remain a man.
And is the story really overloaded with metaphors? I didn't feel so. Moreover, there somehow connected. The shepherd/sheep/wolves metaphors has to be linked with the monkey. In the narrator's mind, he is one of the few who have keep their status as human (the shepherd is a human) because he kept his integrity and didn't succomb to the call of fanaticism. However, when he touch his weapon to give himself some confidence, he knows that it is not how he wants to be a human. It also implies that he would probably need to use it, and kill people. So he sees hismelf as an animal for a moment, not a human.
To me, it is apparent the the narrator is some sort of law enforcement official or soldier in a place that has lost itself to anarchy, and he he is begrudgingly venturing out to restore some semblance of order, likely in vain. The main character laments the danger and violence that he is being tossed into and also assumed to commit as a result of his duty. His wife wants him to stay at home where it's safe, but he puts on a brave face and goes out anyway, but he's not happy about it.
That's one way to sum up the story, good job.
The thesis of the story itself, however, and how it plays into the Third Law of Motion is either ill-conceived in its comparison or just poorly explained. I could maybe go for interpreting it being along the anarchy is the result of a completely disproportionate reaction by the public that has caused rioting, i.e. some sort of needless war type scenario, but there's simply not enough context to support that interpretation, and is more me trying to give the author the benefit of the doubt that he/she had a clear idea in mind when writing this than anything else. How exactly the Third Law of Motion ties into the rest of the story proper is never made explicitly clear, which is unfortunate because it's the title of the story, the opening sentence, and the final line. As a result, it feels like MLPMatthew said, a series of separate parts that have no strong unifying body to bring them together.
I had, indeed, a clear idea in mind when I wrote this, but all the comments let me know that between my mind and my words, there's a gap that I didn't manage to cross.
>>QuillScratch
In all seriousness, the opening of this story throws me for a loop, and I think we ought to talk a little about why that happened. After your misquote, you describe the law as a "pious platitude"—a phrase often associated with religious or moralistic phrases said insincerely. Almost immediately we've got something odd going on, and we're forced to examine the phrasing of the Third Law in a totally different context. Except, in any other context, it's not a Law and we shouldn't really expect it to apply—so when you say "the reaction is way above the action" I know that I, as a reader, simply thought, 'so what?'
With this part, I may understand what had got some readers lost.
I think I didn't completely understand what 'pious platitude' could mean and imply. When I'll rewrite it, i I think I'll go for 'appalling commonplace'.
And when I say that 'the reaction is way above the action', it's because I've just established before that the reaction is supposed to be equal to the action. So it was supposed to make the reader wonder why and how the reaction could be above the action. (I used above here in the sense that the reaction is stronger/bigger than the action. Above works for that right?)
I can see what you're going for with those first two sentences, though: you're trying to set up this feeling that some sort of reactionary thing has happened that is far, far worse than whatever it was reacting to. I think there are probably a million and one better ways to convey that message, but the fact of the matter is that you successfully conveyed it, and that's a good start.
Okay so the premise isn't totally f***ed up. Small victory.
Where you lose me is sentence number three.
Context tells us that "it" is the reaction, because the alternative ("it" referring to the Third Law) makes the sentence totally redundant. The "And also", structurally, is tying into the "except that" clause from the previous sentence, so we know whatever follows it is another exception for the Third Law holding true. And then the rest of the sentence tells us that... the reaction has already happened before? I'll be honest, I don't actually know what relevance that has, or what you're actually trying to tell us there. That's not another exception—it doesn't even hold any relevance to the Third Law. Combine that confusion with a really weird choice of conjunction ("not to mention" would probably be a better choice than "and also") and you've lost me. I no longer know what I'm reading.
You are totally right. I'll be honest, that sentence wasn't supposed to be kept for the final editing. I missed it and, indeed, it isn't relevant to anything in the story or the third law of motion.
Then, almost as if you're reading my mind, you go meta and proclaim: "fuck this sentence". I still have no idea why the meta parts of this story are here, by the way. They don't add anything meaningful to the story, except perhaps to act as an excuse for the incredibly confusing third sentence. In all honesty, I think this story would be far better without them, unless you can find a way to give them more meaning.
There isn't anything meta here. The first lines are the narrator thoughts and the swearing that follows is his comments on this sentences. It was here to show how much he hates that commonplace, because of his situation.
>>MLPmatthewl419 said that this story didn't really fit well together, and I agree with that conclusion. Aside from the meta sections not fitting, there's also the whole aspect of the story where the wife is described as "ugly". I'll be honest, I'm not sure what the point of those lines is. I guess they're meant to be commenting on how the wife's fear and worry are ugly properties, but it just struck a wrong note for me and came across as condemning. But then the main character wants to punch himself for thinking it? I didn't see how it fit into the rest of the story's meaning, and I wasn't quite sure why it was there.
The wife is descripted as ugly because on one hand, it emphasizes that there isn't anything beautiful or joyful for the narrator anymore and, on the other hand, the narrator lying to her by telling that everything is gonna be fine makes her smile, a fake smile, so he finds her uglier because he knows by her smile that she knows he is lying so he hates himself for disappointing her by not being braver (is that clear? Because it doesn't sound clear when it's written).
With all that having been said, I think that at its heart this is a very interesting exploration of bravery in the face of horror and death, and of two people trying to maintain a sense of normality as hell is breaking out around them. I have no idea what the context of that horror and hell may be, and to be totally honest I'm not sure that lack of context helps your story. There's something religious going on (is it the world outside? Is it the main character?), the main character probably works in something related to law enforcement, and I'm pretty sure that outside there's some kind of anarchistic riot... but that's all I've got. I really do think that a little more context would help make this story better, if only to make the reader's conclusions feel more solid and grounded in the text. As much as I like the withholding of information and deliberate ambiguity, I'd appreciate it being toned down a bit.
Nothing more to say that I haven't already said, except that I wanted to focus mainly on what the narrator was feeling right now, when he is about to leave his house. I didn't want to go "EXPOSITION" all the way, but I should have done some.
To round this all off, I just want to quickly comment that this story could have used another editing pass—I know we don't get much time in minific rounds, but there are enough examples of sentences with awkward (sometimes, like the third sentence, to the point of distraction) phrasings and grammar mistakes ("I would have find her beautiful", for example) that probably could have been cleared up with just a little more attention.
I know that I need some people to pre-read my stories, not only for the simple grammar mistakes that I make (like the one you quoted), but also for all the critics that have been said. I struggled (haha) to find one for one of my story and he is been pretty busy lately (*wink* *wink*).
>>Shadowed_Song
I have no idea whats going, and there is way to much metaphore/meta. This needs some major reworking to be understandable by the casual reader.
Writing need work, premis is barely understandable, execution is pretty terrible.
-/10
Would be higher if not for the first paragraph and last two lines, and the metaphores
Woawoawoa, wait... that's it?
I won't take gloves with you because you didn't take yours. Your comment feels more like finding the right sentence that sounds good than actually tell what was wrong with the story.
So too many metaphors. Let's count them together shall we? (I only count the strongest metaphors)
The third law of motion that go through the entire story. That's one.
The blind people and the one-eye. That's two.
The shepherd, the sheep and the wolves. That's three.
The monkey and the reed. Four.
Four metaphors, in less than one hundred words. Four is too much? Okay, then I don't know if you're really interested in litterature because, except from some specific genres AND some specific period of time, metaphors is one of the main element of litterature. Even the language is filled with metaphors that everyone use without thinking (just think about all the link between love and fire for example).
Now I can understand if they are bad or poorly executed, I won't argue with that, there are clearly not my best. Metaphors are hard things to create and to work with, because on one hand, you need to be specific in order to convey what you want, but on the other hand, you have to let some areas unclear in order to let your reader construe and build his own mental image.
Here is one that I found brilliant, from Paul Eluard, a French poet
Earth is blue like an orange (La Terre est bleue comme une orange)
you go meta
I don't. I don't know what have made you think that, and you're not the only one. Maybe because some entries were about an author having difficulties to write but there is nothing meta here.
But too much? Seriously?
'Writing need work' How?
'premis is barely understandable' That's legit, except it is thanks to the others that I now understand why.
'execution is pretty terrible' Again, how?
-/10
Would be higher if not for the first paragraph and last two lines, and the metaphores
On what scale did the story is rated? From % to ¤? So -/10 is good or bad?
Okay enough joking, if you can't give a real number because the story was bad (and that's perfectly ok), say it. I understand that there are majors flaws in my entry. From the others that I've read, I'm well aware that mine is way lower than them. But please, give a real grade next time, even a 0/10. But this -/10, I don't understand it. If you meant that you couldn't grade it because it was shit, tell me.
>>AndrewRogue
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. That's the common phrasing of it, and it is hella distracting to see it "wrong" in a story that is attempting to cite it as the basis of things going on.
Beyond that... yeah, you can't quite leave the reader hanging this badly. I suspect Front is right about the content, but honestly, you have to give us -something- to go on. There's strong emotion, but no real basis for that emotion, and without that? It is sound and fury signifying nothing.
Beyond that, definitely needs an editorial pass. Lot of little errors scattered all through.
That was the point, misquote the third law because it is how often people understand and use it.
For the strong emotion, I'm glad that the main purpose worked in a way, but I see why it can sound like that. As I've said, the basis for those emotions had been kept vague because I wanted the emotion to be the real purpose of the story. However, and because you're definitely not the first one to mention it, I'll keep in mind for when I'll rewrite it.
>>Rao
I feel like the shade thrown out on Newton here is a reference to the arms race between police and criminals. I figure by the wife's attitude, the environment noise, and the cop's meek armament (though he's leaving his home so I shouldn't expect him to be too geared up) the situation isn't panning out well for law enforcement.
Interesting, that's an interpration I haven't planned at all, but it still works. Good job (and bad job for me for letting the possibility of different interpretations possible)
END OF ANSWERS
This fic was largely inspired by the character from 'Morituri' and 'L'automne des chimères' (Chimeras' autumn/ Autumn of Chimeras) by Yasmina Khadra. There are crime novels that take place during the Algerian Civil War, after the decolonization.
For those who aren't familiar with this events, just check the Wiki here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_Civil_War
If what you have seen here has, somehow, piqued your curiosity, I strongly recommand you to read those books. There are translated in English so don't worry.
As my first entry in the writeoff events, I'm kinda happy of what I did, knowing my own difficulties with the English language and the time we had to write.
Once again, I thank everyone who took time to read and offer valuable comments on why the story was bad. Against all odds, it still encourages me to keep improving and I hope you're ready to read more from me, for better or worst.
PS: Quill Scratch, you have some proof-read to do so stop reviewing stories better than mine and go back to work :p
>>Fenton
From your (fairly lengthy) explanation, it sounds like the pieces of the puzzle were all there; it was just a matter of knowing how they all fit together. I couldn't figure that out. It was hard enough trying to follow what was going on, since sometimes it was vague or it made seemingly abrupt jumps from one idea to the next.
Sorry, maybe what I said was unclear. I said I should be rereading because I want to, not because I have to. I meant that I had reread it (3 times, because I felt I had to, and not because I wanted to) and it still didn't make sense to me.
From your (fairly lengthy) explanation, it sounds like the pieces of the puzzle were all there; it was just a matter of knowing how they all fit together. I couldn't figure that out. It was hard enough trying to follow what was going on, since sometimes it was vague or it made seemingly abrupt jumps from one idea to the next.
And the fact that you reread the story because you wanted to, not because you had to, I guess it is because you somehow enjoyed the story? So thanks for that.
Sorry, maybe what I said was unclear. I said I should be rereading because I want to, not because I have to. I meant that I had reread it (3 times, because I felt I had to, and not because I wanted to) and it still didn't make sense to me.
>>Fenton
Allow me to clarify, because my phrasing was vague. My intention was to say that there was an excess of metaphors that were unclear in what the reader was supposed to extrapolate from them as opposed to there being an unnecessary amount of metaphors being made.
And is the story really overloaded with metaphors? I didn't feel so.
Allow me to clarify, because my phrasing was vague. My intention was to say that there was an excess of metaphors that were unclear in what the reader was supposed to extrapolate from them as opposed to there being an unnecessary amount of metaphors being made.