I like this piece of writing very much. If this is intended to be a sort of cli-fi horror story then it's exceptionally well done, because you are lulling the reader into thinking this is just going to be a sort of social comment literary fiction novel, with an element of chick-lit thrown in.
But then you gradually add the evil bit regarding animal testing. And you do this in a sort of 'creeping' fashion - and through the main character's thoughts and eventually physical reaction to it - with whom we, the reader, have already identified/emotionally bonded with.
Excellent.
I like it. I like it a lot.
And it shows what a versatile writer you are, too.
Another aspect I like about this piece of writing relates - ironically - to what we were talking about earlier about narrative theory. Here, you do not show or tell. There is no extraneous distracting stuff. You simply 'suggest' and 'prompt' and 'hint', then let the reader fill in the gaps. Which is just as it should be.
For example there is no description whatsoever of any of the characters. And that doesn't matter. It allows the reader to choose - like 'what does Helen look like?' Even 'how old is she' isn't mentioned - but it's implied, or inferred, because she has just completed a doctorate, so she must be mid-to-late 20s - see, the reader has to complete that description - you don't need to.
Having said that, there were times when for her and her parents I felt my brain beginning to visualise Bridget Jones and her parents. See - that's how the reader brings their own thing into it. So that throwaway comment about chick-lit wasn't entirely out of place. But in a way this is a good method of tricking the reader.
The pacing is just right too, by the way.
As for editing, I would keep it totally minimal. At most, add some bits for 'colour', without letting those descriptors get in the way of enabling the reader to fill it in with their own choices, if that makes sense. No fake Chekhov's guns/red herrings, unless you're feeling totally mischievous. So far, you are simply telling a story and keeping it sufficiently simple, which is just how it should be.
I'm wondering whether in the next chapter or so some sudden horror thing is going to happen which breaks this 'normalcy' without warning (possibly involving the 'research' and/or her unborn). That would really, really work and be very shocking because it's unexpected and in direct contrast with the normalcy element.
Hi Evelyn - Yet again a huge wow and thank you for your considered opinions and musings on things I am writing. So this chapter is not the first chapter of the book - its a bit of a sort of flash back - the story is going to be told in the past and in the present, with those streams converging. helen is one of the main characters - the other is a journalist called Flannery Stainton (yes I had just read wise blood) ) who is investigating why Helen has disappeared. the truth behind her disappearance is where the horror - which is a nice wholesome sort of horror, in a cli-sci-fi sort of way - is going to appear - nothing happens to helen that she doesnt control. Other characters in the story are Jasper van Gron the editor of a science magazine that Flannery is writing her piece for, Booth - who is another scientist that mysteriously vanishes, Helens daughter, A mexican professor and some research helpers, a shaman called El Gaumis who is not what he seems....and thats about all I got at the moment. - oh and helens parents and georgie - but they are bit parts really.
And there was I thinking this was a great opening to the creepingly scary novel!
Well, if you did the flashback thing, then you really do need to 'ease' the reader into the horror. Personally I love this piece of writing as the opening. And there's no reason why you can't just immediately open with a flashback.
Take a step back. Think about characters. Everything starts with a character.
Of course I want to read more! Get to it, Sir! Get to it!
Oh - I have a 'horror' story of my own I am about to publish. Let me know what you think.
dug this out of my library of bits and was quietly very happy with it. always nervous of writing about sex however and trying to write a convincing woman in a pregnancy dilemma... lordy! do the characters work in the dialogue do you think? Georgie not too gay?
I'm like Jeannine with the Georgie being gay thing - it's only obvious when he speaks the line about bringing 2 johnnies along with him all the time, one for me and one for him. By that time he is a very likeable character indeed. Part of me was wondering why there was nothing sexual between him and Helen and then that explained it - but it's nice, because it reinforces his likeableness.
The characters work out extremely well. Michael is a perfectly executed self-centered slimeball. Helen and her parents are very real and likable. Georgie is a sweetie, and definitely not "too gay." In fact I didn't even realize his character was gay until about three quarters of the way into the story - I thought at first that he was just a very good childhood friend (though I do tend to be a mite slow on the uptake). I think the matter-of-fact way you depicted the sex was fine - the fact that it happened is integral to the story, so it was necessary to discuss, but you don't let it take over the whole plot - it's clear that the RESULTS of the sex are more important.
You said that this was part of a horror novel... I would be sorry to see bad things happen to these people (except for Michael, of course! 😡), but of course that's what differentiates horror literature from a comic-book-like gore fest. One of my favorite Stephen King novels, "Cujo," is like that. The horror is there, but it's so much worse because he makes us care about the boy and his dog before the horror hits. That one made me cry. I would cry if anything happened to Georgie or Helen or her parents, too. I already felt sorry for all those poor baby rabbits...
I'm glad you've brought the evils of so-called 'medical research' into this. And in a very creeping way as well, since the reader is mainly focussed on (or misdirected to) Helen, the main human character. So you gradually introduce the evil.
I'm not going to ramble on about how much I wish everyone who has ever been involved in animal testing would suffer the same torture as they inflicted on the animals (for a number of repeated lifetimes equal to the number of animals they tortured - in a sort of classical Greek Underworld style punishment), or we shall be hear all evening.
One interesting little conspiracy though, which you may find intriguing, seeing as it involves the current 'Prime Minister', is the link with a man called Bob Lambert, who was a spycop, who infiltrated environmentalism movements in the 80s. He didn't just form relationships with (female) activists, he was also alleged (I have to use the word alleged) to have carried out false flag attacks, such as an arson attack on a branch of Debenhams, which was then blamed on the Animal Liberation Front. This is the kind of thing that gave animal rights activists a bad name in the eyes of the public, of course - and thus prolonged the use of animal testing.
The reason why this relates to Keir Starmer is because Lambert was also partly responsible for drawing up the pamphlet which led to the McLibel trial, which Starmer inveigled his way into. This achieved him - as an almost certain MI5 spy (recruited at Leeds uni; first job - spying on people at the Wapping dispute) - 1/ full access to the environmental activist movement, and 2/ able to protect the spycop, who never had to answer questions on the witness stand. This is the true Keir Starmer right there. And this is how the world really works - evil people protecting other evil people and enabling them to continue doing evil things.
And funny how we can join dots together like this, eh.
Anyway, animal testing is still used widely today in pretty much every instance of 'medical research'. I know this because of being a medical translator and reading all the academic papers. They always use euphemistic language, like 'mouse models' or 'animal models'. This people, psychologically, are fucking evil psychopaths.
So I am hoping that as your story develops into a horror thing, all these psychopaths will get their justified comeuppance.
Sorry - I have just rambled again. Clearly it's an issue that riles me.
I like this piece of writing very much. If this is intended to be a sort of cli-fi horror story then it's exceptionally well done, because you are lulling the reader into thinking this is just going to be a sort of social comment literary fiction novel, with an element of chick-lit thrown in.
But then you gradually add the evil bit regarding animal testing. And you do this in a sort of 'creeping' fashion - and through the main character's thoughts and eventually physical reaction to it - with whom we, the reader, have already identified/emotionally bonded with.
Excellent.
I like it. I like it a lot.
And it shows what a versatile writer you are, too.
Definitely keep going with this one!
Another aspect I like about this piece of writing relates - ironically - to what we were talking about earlier about narrative theory. Here, you do not show or tell. There is no extraneous distracting stuff. You simply 'suggest' and 'prompt' and 'hint', then let the reader fill in the gaps. Which is just as it should be.
For example there is no description whatsoever of any of the characters. And that doesn't matter. It allows the reader to choose - like 'what does Helen look like?' Even 'how old is she' isn't mentioned - but it's implied, or inferred, because she has just completed a doctorate, so she must be mid-to-late 20s - see, the reader has to complete that description - you don't need to.
Having said that, there were times when for her and her parents I felt my brain beginning to visualise Bridget Jones and her parents. See - that's how the reader brings their own thing into it. So that throwaway comment about chick-lit wasn't entirely out of place. But in a way this is a good method of tricking the reader.
The pacing is just right too, by the way.
As for editing, I would keep it totally minimal. At most, add some bits for 'colour', without letting those descriptors get in the way of enabling the reader to fill it in with their own choices, if that makes sense. No fake Chekhov's guns/red herrings, unless you're feeling totally mischievous. So far, you are simply telling a story and keeping it sufficiently simple, which is just how it should be.
I'm wondering whether in the next chapter or so some sudden horror thing is going to happen which breaks this 'normalcy' without warning (possibly involving the 'research' and/or her unborn). That would really, really work and be very shocking because it's unexpected and in direct contrast with the normalcy element.
Anyway, some more two pence from me there.
Hi Evelyn - Yet again a huge wow and thank you for your considered opinions and musings on things I am writing. So this chapter is not the first chapter of the book - its a bit of a sort of flash back - the story is going to be told in the past and in the present, with those streams converging. helen is one of the main characters - the other is a journalist called Flannery Stainton (yes I had just read wise blood) ) who is investigating why Helen has disappeared. the truth behind her disappearance is where the horror - which is a nice wholesome sort of horror, in a cli-sci-fi sort of way - is going to appear - nothing happens to helen that she doesnt control. Other characters in the story are Jasper van Gron the editor of a science magazine that Flannery is writing her piece for, Booth - who is another scientist that mysteriously vanishes, Helens daughter, A mexican professor and some research helpers, a shaman called El Gaumis who is not what he seems....and thats about all I got at the moment. - oh and helens parents and georgie - but they are bit parts really.
Hmm.
And there was I thinking this was a great opening to the creepingly scary novel!
Well, if you did the flashback thing, then you really do need to 'ease' the reader into the horror. Personally I love this piece of writing as the opening. And there's no reason why you can't just immediately open with a flashback.
Take a step back. Think about characters. Everything starts with a character.
Of course I want to read more! Get to it, Sir! Get to it!
Oh - I have a 'horror' story of my own I am about to publish. Let me know what you think.
i shall await your horror with baited breath!
I like these characters a LOT. I would definitely love to read a book featuring them...
Thank you jeannine
dug this out of my library of bits and was quietly very happy with it. always nervous of writing about sex however and trying to write a convincing woman in a pregnancy dilemma... lordy! do the characters work in the dialogue do you think? Georgie not too gay?
I'm like Jeannine with the Georgie being gay thing - it's only obvious when he speaks the line about bringing 2 johnnies along with him all the time, one for me and one for him. By that time he is a very likeable character indeed. Part of me was wondering why there was nothing sexual between him and Helen and then that explained it - but it's nice, because it reinforces his likeableness.
The characters work out extremely well. Michael is a perfectly executed self-centered slimeball. Helen and her parents are very real and likable. Georgie is a sweetie, and definitely not "too gay." In fact I didn't even realize his character was gay until about three quarters of the way into the story - I thought at first that he was just a very good childhood friend (though I do tend to be a mite slow on the uptake). I think the matter-of-fact way you depicted the sex was fine - the fact that it happened is integral to the story, so it was necessary to discuss, but you don't let it take over the whole plot - it's clear that the RESULTS of the sex are more important.
You said that this was part of a horror novel... I would be sorry to see bad things happen to these people (except for Michael, of course! 😡), but of course that's what differentiates horror literature from a comic-book-like gore fest. One of my favorite Stephen King novels, "Cujo," is like that. The horror is there, but it's so much worse because he makes us care about the boy and his dog before the horror hits. That one made me cry. I would cry if anything happened to Georgie or Helen or her parents, too. I already felt sorry for all those poor baby rabbits...
i like how michael is destroyed in your eyes so thoroughly and he gets only one line of dialogue. thats him done. he never gets a shot at redemption.
I should hope not! Helen dodged a bullet there. You did a good job of painting Michael as a despicable character in a very few words.
its not horror... but there will be some horrible bits. Helen is a central pillar. thank you for the feedback! really appreciated jeannine! 😁
Well, you already have bunny torture and murder going on.... 🤨 Thank you for sharing this!
true... a driver for Helen is the medical research aspect...
I'm glad you've brought the evils of so-called 'medical research' into this. And in a very creeping way as well, since the reader is mainly focussed on (or misdirected to) Helen, the main human character. So you gradually introduce the evil.
I'm not going to ramble on about how much I wish everyone who has ever been involved in animal testing would suffer the same torture as they inflicted on the animals (for a number of repeated lifetimes equal to the number of animals they tortured - in a sort of classical Greek Underworld style punishment), or we shall be hear all evening.
One interesting little conspiracy though, which you may find intriguing, seeing as it involves the current 'Prime Minister', is the link with a man called Bob Lambert, who was a spycop, who infiltrated environmentalism movements in the 80s. He didn't just form relationships with (female) activists, he was also alleged (I have to use the word alleged) to have carried out false flag attacks, such as an arson attack on a branch of Debenhams, which was then blamed on the Animal Liberation Front. This is the kind of thing that gave animal rights activists a bad name in the eyes of the public, of course - and thus prolonged the use of animal testing.
The reason why this relates to Keir Starmer is because Lambert was also partly responsible for drawing up the pamphlet which led to the McLibel trial, which Starmer inveigled his way into. This achieved him - as an almost certain MI5 spy (recruited at Leeds uni; first job - spying on people at the Wapping dispute) - 1/ full access to the environmental activist movement, and 2/ able to protect the spycop, who never had to answer questions on the witness stand. This is the true Keir Starmer right there. And this is how the world really works - evil people protecting other evil people and enabling them to continue doing evil things.
And funny how we can join dots together like this, eh.
Anyway, animal testing is still used widely today in pretty much every instance of 'medical research'. I know this because of being a medical translator and reading all the academic papers. They always use euphemistic language, like 'mouse models' or 'animal models'. This people, psychologically, are fucking evil psychopaths.
So I am hoping that as your story develops into a horror thing, all these psychopaths will get their justified comeuppance.
Sorry - I have just rambled again. Clearly it's an issue that riles me.