Critique #34 — Rosamunda Delamer #2
Kevin Andrew Murphy July 17th, 2006
Â
The fire crackled in the library fireplace. It glittered on the gold embossing of leather bound books and cast dancing shadows around rare and curious objet d’art, scrounged from other countries by generations of Melvilles and borne triumphantly home. One object alone did not come to life in the light of the dancing flames: a bottle of thick green glass. Heavy, misshapen and dull, it seemed out of place in this room. Its cobwebby shape was reflected in the gleaming wood of both the sideboard and the panelled wall. In the fire-lit room one could almost believe that there were two bottles instead of one.
‘Two bottles. Now, wouldn’t that be wonderful,’ Roger Melville mused as he entered the library and saw the illusion.Â
Rosamunda,
The word for the day is “bathos.” That is to say, a sharp change in tone from one word to another. Having “scrounge” followed by “borne” makes it sound like the Melvilles are dumpster-diving then bearing their loot home on a palanquin. This could be humorous if there were more of it in the scene, but as it stands, there’s nothing but a lot of pretty description.
I’ll admit that I’m intrigued by the bottle, but only because it’s not behaving as a bottle should in such light. Even the poorest green glass would glitter in such firelight, no matter how many cobwebs there were, if just because unless the butler brought it specially to preserve the cobwebs, some of them would be smudged free. Of course it also begs the question of why the butler didn’t clean the bottle before bringing it up to the sparkling library, but still…
This all goes a long way to say that I’m intrigued, and I would turn the page, but I’m also highly judgemental, and unless the bottle turns out to be exceedingly magical and curious, thus explaining its odd behavior with the physics of light, I’m going to be annoyed.
Also, don’t say “seemed” when something “was.” The bottle was out of place in the room, both because it’s dirty where everything else is lovingly polished, and because it’s ugly and unremarkable whereas everything else is precious and strange.
Two nits quickly, Rosamunda. First, “rare and curious objet d’art” : The “curious” is a very old cliche. It’s objets d’art if there are more than one.
“Its cobwebby shape” — my first thought was a bottle in the shape of a cobweb, which would have been r. and c. indeed! I suspect you mean “covered with cobwebs.” If so, why haven’t the servants of this rich man cleaned it?
More later, when I wake up.
I felt this one was a tad overwritten (Kit hit some of my reactions above) and the word “dancing” used twice–shadows and flames, when neither really dance, giving the tone a slightly arch tweak. I found myself speeding my reading, skimming past details of a room I’m not interested in, searching for story, and just before I was about to bail, there was the bottle. Hook!
I think I would have been hooked before, and harder, if we’d had that bottle earlier, and not so much about a room. (Which is kind of like beginning with the weather.)
Thank you, everyone. I knew things were wrong with this, but not exactly what, so your comments are very useful.
Kevin, the whole story is about the bottle and what’s in it, and there is a reason for its odd behaviour, which is that the bottle and its contents are both magic and curious. Just to let you know that I didn’t forget to put that in the story. It’s not an ‘oh, it’s magic and that’s why it doesn’t gleam’ explanation either.
Just a question on ’scrounge’. I have always used it and heard it used in two ways, one in the sense of sponging of another person (which is how I used it in my piece), and the other in the sense of foraging for food, usually in a time of war. I’m not questioning your interpretation, but I am puzzled as to where the ‘dumpster-diving’ comes in. I have never heard this image associated with the word before. I’m not American - maybe that has something to do with it?
Kit, thanks for the correction on the foreign phrase, and for pointing out the cliche. It’s gone.
There is a reason the bottle hasn’t been cleaned, and that is mentioned a few sentences later. I can move it up in the story if it is important to have it straight after the description (I’m sorry if that is a daft question, but I just don’t know these things). I’m looking forward to your comments when you’re awake.
Sherwood, I’m changing dancing right now. Arch is not the tone I am going for. Where you hooked by the bottle itself (which enters the story in the third sentence) or when Melville enters the library? I’m curious.
Rosamunda,
You don’t have to put the information earlier. The next paragraph is fine, though if you take Sherwood’s excellent suggestion to cut the description of the room, you’d move the information about the bottle earlier.
Regarding “scrounge,” here’s the definition from Dictionary.com and the American Heritage Dictionary:
Here is the definition from Urbandictionary.com:
So, yes, scrounging is also salvaging, and salvaging is done in dumpsters and dumps. It’s a disreputable practice which is at odds with anything being “borne triumphantly” anywhere, especially because if you bear something triumphantly, people who might object to dumpster diving, graverobbing, or just plain stealing might take objection to this.
Thanks, Kevin. The word is far more disreputable in those definitions than it is in my Shorter Oxford and in the local usage. I will keep the differences in mind.
Rosamunda,
No trouble. It pays to have multiple dictionaries. In addition to the online resources, I have here beside my desk Websters Unabridged, both the 1980s and 1920s edition; The New Century Dictionary (two volumes), Funk & Wagnalls New Practical Standard Dictionary (also two volumes), and the Webster’s Collegiate & Abridged. I’ve been meaning to get an Oxford Unabridged for years, but just haven’t gotten round to it.
If you want to get an American dictionary for cross-referencing purposes, I’d recommend the Websters Unabridged, though I’d still try to pick up as many dictionaries as possible. There are a surprising number of words which Websters and Oxford do not contain that less popular dictionaries do.
Rosamunda: I am sorry, I should have said I was hooked at the line about the bottle’s illusion, seeming two instead of one. That snapped my attention immediately!
Thanks, Sherwood. it helps tremendously to know that.
“You were supposed to read my brain!”! *g*
I’ll have to start practising then.