The separator between the comment pane and the story pane is moveable. Drag it up or down if you need more room to read on the screen.
From: Mat Twassel
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: 07 Oct 2002 15:09:47 GMT
First time reading I liked the ending much more than the first two thirds. I read it again right away, and this time I enjoyed it all. So what does that mean?
The first part goes on and on without much real action. A very slow setup, almost all background. A lot of the sentences are much the same. And we don't really get much flavor of what Uncle Stanley actually says in his rants. I'm not sure it would be a good idea to try to deliver a rant or two beyond the couple of one-liners we're given, but I'd be interested to see it tried. I'd be tempted to put a rant at the very beginning.
- Mat Twassel
Mat's Erotic Calendar at http://calendar.atEros.com
From: Father Ignatius
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 22:05:30 +0200
Hooray! Fish Tank is back!
"Desdmona" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ...
The following is our 66th submission to the FishTank. This story was published in ASSM three years ago as part of a 9-story collection. It was the eighth story (1,405 words in length) in that collection and according to Dr. Spin, seemed to get lost in the shuffle. He calls it a quirky story, with only passing references to sex but still sexy. His editor at the time called it literature. He wants to know what we call it. Could it be better? Longer? More interesting? Should it have sex? Is it literature, or is it dreck?
FishTank guidelines apply:
1) 2 positive comments
1. This writer shows a certain degree of promise in the area of narrative invention.
2. He shows good attention to spelling and punctuation, with few errors in either case. This is a good example to others, and we would encourage him in future endeavours to continue with this level of effort.
2) 2 suggestions for improvement
1. He might do well to think of details that interest his female readers and not just a masculine audience. For instance, when Ginny puts on a "light housecoat," is the housecoat striped or does it have a floral pattern? And the masculine audience wants to know if it is light in colour, merely, or arrestingly insubstantial?
2. He should spare his energy from worrying about what readers might opine about the story's length and invest this saving in feeling smug about having got it just right before they even saw it.
Nat
"Father Ignatius" <Father Ignatius at ANTISPAMananzi dot co dot za> Stories: http://www.asstr.org/~FatherIgnatius/Stories.html ASSDers: http://www.asstr.org/~FatherIgnatius/Images.html The Web's Best Illustrated Adult Fiction is at http://www.ruthiesclub.com/
"Men are now so well served out of doors - at clubs, hotels and restaurants - that, to compete with the attractions of these places, a mistress must be thoroughly acquainted with the theory and practice of cookery, as well as all the other arts of making and keeping a comfortable home." Mrs Beeton's "Household Management."
From: Jeff Zephyr
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 19:38:18 -0600
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 08:43:11 -0400, "Desdmona" <[email protected]> wrote:
The following is our 66th submission to the FishTank. This story was published in ASSM three years ago as part of a 9-story collection. It was the eighth story (1,405 words in length) in that collection and according to Dr. Spin, seemed to get lost in the shuffle. He calls it a quirky story, with only passing references to sex but still sexy. His editor at the time called it literature. He wants to know what we call it. Could it be better? Longer? More interesting? Should it have sex? Is it literature, or is it dreck?
It is funny, a subtle sense of humor. Doesn't need more sex to work for that. But it could have a bit more of Ginny's reaction to her discovery.
So that is like one positive and one improvement. Make it a bit longer, add in more of Ginny's reaction to the new situation, not just Phil's acceptance of the improvement. It is Ginny's story, after all. It wouldn't take much imagination to wonder just what Uncle thought about her actions, even though it was solving the problem. Nor a few "close calls" with Phil showing up suddenly.
The jump to two weeks later with Mavis is too abrupt. And - a bit of a repeat - maybe too short to judge the effects well enough.
The frustration of the situation is presented well. From Ginny's POV, the sad parts maybe don't matter so much, but what about Phil? Does he remember his uncle only as a crazy man, or as something else? Adding that contrast in, even a line of remorse about it, would make Phil's anger more bittersweet. He wouldn't feel happy about not handling the situation, but he'd be hurt - and maybe even admit it to Ginny - that he hadn't been able to, and still couldn't.
Jeff
Web site at http://www.asstr.org/~jeffzephyr/ For FTP, ftp://ftp.asstr.org/pub/Authors/jeffzephyr/
There is nothing more important than petting the cat.
From: Conjugate
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 21:45:53 -0600
"Desdmona" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ...
FishTank guidelines apply:
********************************************** Shut Up, Uncle By Neil Anthony/DrSpin
Hard not to repeat what others have said. Still, two positive points:
a) Literature, definitely, and witty.
b) It doesn't need lengthening, but you could make a somewhat different
story by making it longer.
To improve: I'm cheating a bit because two other FishTankers have already mentioned the timeline. I want to suggest that, if you wish to make it longer, you might fill in the additional weeks in a couple of ways. Does Uncle Stanley need a greater "fix" as time goes on, getting to see a bit more of what's there?
And, considering the number of escort services available, does Ginny, or perhaps Mavis, decide that a brief respite is worth the high price of giving Uncle S. something else to stare at?
I was a little put off by the phrase, "Phil's father's younger brother," though it was certainly unambiguous. It seemed somehow a bit too much. Perhaps "Phil's youngest uncle" would work. Or even "her husband Phil's uncle" says all that is necessary, and ensures that we can place Phil quickly in this drama.
Oh, and hasn't Phil ever heard of headphones? Still, I suppose trying to write scripts with big headphones on might not be easy either. Oh, well, that's enough. Good story, and I enjoyed it quite a bit. Thanks for sharing it.
Conjugate
From: PleaseCain
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: 08 Oct 2002 04:13:35 GMT
Good story, good sexy conclusion.
The story might be strengthened by developing the characters of the married couple. He whines; she resents it, yet remains complacent: why, I don't know.
Devise a more pungent opening. The present intro is enigmatic and keeps us reading, but your scenario holds so many possibilities for comedy or shock, that you can do better. One of the moments in the story is when he calls her "cunt" toward the end; bring something like that forward.
I love the idea of her parading all day in an open robe, so I'm tempted to cheer "more, more," but I think not. Keep 'em wanting more, the real showmen say.
Thanks for sharing this. Show me a bad Spin story - you can't do it.
Cain
From: Father Ignatius
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 14:12:29 +0200
"PleaseCain" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ...
He whines; she resents it, yet remains complacent: why, I don't know.
Because he is a man and she is a woman. Which bit don't you get?
From: PleaseCain
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: 08 Oct 2002 20:32:34 GMT
He whines; she resents it, yet remains complacent: why, I don't know.
Because he is a man and she is a woman. Which bit don't you get?
I missed the cave setting. Yours is the keener eye!
C.
From: Bradley Stoke
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: 8 Oct 2002 10:45:38 -0700
Neil
Marvellous! A delightful story. Only just squeezes into the world of sex stories, but to be honest most of the best stories do. Especially the ones submitted to the Fish Tank. A nice story with a nice twist. And an anxiety which I'm sure we all have, which is having to face up to the consequences of unpleasant family obligations. (Though I suspect that Phil has rather more tolerance than I have).
There were a lot of things that I enjoyed in this story, but the requirements are to pick on just two. It's a bit difficult to choose which two, but I suppose I can focus on the choice of subject as one. It was a brave choice, covering a strange medical condition with a peculiar solution. I don't know a great deal about sufferers from strokes or Tourett's Syndrome (if I've spelt it right!), but it rings true with accounts I've read that sometimes the solutions are not ones that would make a good subject of conversation with a vicar or a family friend.
I also liked the rhythm of the story. An intelligent use of phrase repetition. It helped the story roll along and stopped it getting bogged down in a morass of explanation. You have developed a style from which others could well learn of not explaining more than you need to and of pushing the story along by scene description. This is not a story that needs to have been any longer (although I'm not sure it could have held together if it had been very much shorter).
What suggestions do I have to improve it? Well, not a lot really. I wonder how Ginny manages to read with Uncle Stanley around. Surely that requires more concentration than listening to the radio? Especially if you pump up the volume. I also wondered what it meant about Uncle Stanley dressing "adequately". Does that mean he just about manages to get the sequence of underwear underneath his trousers and shirt? What does it mean to dress "inadequately"?
My main concern is the Fish Tank website being out of commission. There's no Homer Vargas, no Jeff Zephyr, and no Dr Spin. Let's hope the decorators get the job finished soon. And let's hope that the d�cor will benefit from the excellent selection of tasteful (vintage) nudes that so enliven the rest of Desdmona's delightful site.
Bradley Stoke
http://www.asstr.org/~Bradley_Stoke
From: Wolf
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 17:42:37 GMT
I must have missed it, where might one find the Fish Tank stories? :-)
Bradley Stoke wrote:
Neil
Marvellous! A delightful story. Only just squeezes into the world of sex stories, but to be honest most of the best stories do. Especially the ones submitted to the Fish Tank. A nice story with a nice twist. And an anxiety which I'm sure we all have, which is having to face up to the consequences of unpleasant family obligations. (Though I suspect that Phil has rather more tolerance than I have).
There were a lot of things that I enjoyed in this story, but the requirements are to pick on just two. It's a bit difficult to choose which two, but I suppose I can focus on the choice of subject as one. It was a brave choice, covering a strange medical condition with a peculiar solution. I don't know a great deal about sufferers from strokes or Tourett's Syndrome (if I've spelt it right!), but it rings true with accounts I've read that sometimes the solutions are not ones that would make a good subject of conversation with a vicar or a family friend.
I also liked the rhythm of the story. An intelligent use of phrase repetition. It helped the story roll along and stopped it getting bogged down in a morass of explanation. You have developed a style from which others could well learn of not explaining more than you need to and of pushing the story along by scene description. This is not a story that needs to have been any longer (although I'm not sure it could have held together if it had been very much shorter).
What suggestions do I have to improve it? Well, not a lot really. I wonder how Ginny manages to read with Uncle Stanley around. Surely that requires more concentration than listening to the radio? Especially if you pump up the volume. I also wondered what it meant about Uncle Stanley dressing "adequately". Does that mean he just about manages to get the sequence of underwear underneath his trousers and shirt? What does it mean to dress "inadequately"?
My main concern is the Fish Tank website being out of commission. There's no Homer Vargas, no Jeff Zephyr, and no Dr Spin. Let's hope the decorators get the job finished soon. And let's hope that the d�cor will benefit from the excellent selection of tasteful (vintage) nudes that so enliven the rest of Desdmona's delightful site.
Bradley Stoke
-
http://www.asstr.org/~Bradley_Stoke
From: Vinnie Tesla
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 22:45:49 GMT
On Wed, 09 Oct 2002 17:42:37 GMT, quoth the Wolf <[email protected]>:
I must have missed it, where might one find the Fish Tank stories? :-)
Did no one ever answer this, or did I have a newsreader glitch?
The FishTank site is http://www.asstr.org/~Desdmona/FishTank/base/
Or, if you prefer, http://Desdmona.com/FishTank/base/
It's just an archive - actual FishTank activities happen weekly here on ASSD.
-Vinnie
[email protected]
http://www.asstr.org/~vinnie_tesla/
He polishes birds of the Vista
From: oosh
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 22:23:41 +0000 (UTC)
"Desdmona" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
Shut Up, Uncle
By Neil Anthony/DrSpin
I really enjoyed it. I didn't feel that the buildup was too drawn-out. The author gave a very convincing picture of Ginny's predicament, trapped as she is between Phil's intolerance and Uncle Stanley's constant presence and endless babbling. She is admirably resigned and patient!
The first paragraph served well as an introduction. I highlight the first sentence for a reason.
She'd more or less come around to it in just nine days, which surprised her because she thought she'd be the one with the lesser tolerance.
I understand the phrase "come around to it" to mean "become resigned to it", but I'm not quite sure if that's what it usually means. Doesn't it mean "become convinced"? (I observe that in the USA "around" is used as a synonym for the preposition "round", whereas in the UK there is a difference: "around" has one connotation of surrounding or encircling, and another of aimlessness. You "come round" from an anaesthetic!)
Here she was, sitting at the kitchen table folding clean laundry while across sat Uncle Stanley, babbling at her incessantly, shouting frequently and in a stream of words not sequentially or consequently linked.
It was, he was saying, up to her to give him the time and space he required.
Would it be more comfortable to put "It was up to her, he was saying ..."?
If you went into the bathroom and shut the door on him, he'd wait and babble until you opened it. Unless somebody else came by, in which case he'd follow.
I suggest a dash after "opened it", and make the following sentence flow on.
In nine days she'd more or less come around to it.
This is so similar to the opening sentence that I wonder if it should be put some other way. I see the point of the repetition, however, which is to mark the contrast with the next paragraph:
But after ten days Phil was coming apart.
Immediately he started ranting again. She stood at the closed door, listening to him run up and down the roller-coaster of his amazing vocabulary.
I liked that way of expressing it. From here on it is very tightly written.
I thought this story was inspired and quite unforgettable.
O.
From: Tesseract
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: 8 Oct 2002 21:59:10 -0700
oosh <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]> ...
"Desdmona" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
The first paragraph served well as an introduction. I highlight the first sentence for a reason.
She'd more or less come around to it in just nine days, which surprised her because she thought she'd be the one with the lesser tolerance.
I understand the phrase "come around to it" to mean "become resigned to it", but I'm not quite sure if that's what it usually means. Doesn't it mean "become convinced"? (I observe that in the USA "around" is used as a synonym for the preposition "round", whereas in the UK there is a difference: "around" has one connotation of surrounding or encircling, and another of aimlessness. You "come round" from an anaesthetic!)
Here, on the left bank of the pond, 'round' and 'around' are pretty much interchangeable when used as an adverb. They are also usually interchangeable when used as prepositions - though I think 'around' is more common. You can "come round from an anaesthetic" or you can "come around from an anaesthetic"
"Teen girls wander aimlessly around the mall" is more common than " ... round the mall" but the latter would be understood to mean the same as the former.
In the current case "come around to it" cound mean "become resigned to it", but more commonly means "convinced of it" or "accepting of it, however reluctantly". "Come round to it" would not have a different meaning. Any subtleties would have to come from context.
Come (a)round to the Taverna sometime and we can discuss it. You know where the Taverna is, don't you? It's just (a)round the corner. You pass it all the time while walking with your arm (a)round your SO's waist.
Here the above sounds correct using 'around', and 'round' sounds as if 'a' has been dropped. It's quite interesting that your side of the pond has gives different meanings to the two words.
Tesseract
From: Father Ignatius
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 11:16:03 +0200
"Tesseract" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ...
oosh <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]> ...
She'd more or less come around to it in just nine days, which surprised her because she thought she'd be the one with the lesser tolerance.
I understand the phrase "come around to it" to mean "become resigned to it", but I'm not quite sure if that's what it usually means. Doesn't it mean "become convinced"? (I observe that in the USA "around" is used as a
Well, it works fine in South African English and we may infer that it works fine in Australian English, or he wouldn't have written it. I surmise that Hornblower and Aubrey, if not Maturin, would have taken it to be a sailing ship metaphor: she had re-oriented herself to the change in wind. It seems plausible that the colonial variants are one smidge[o?]n closer to Napeolonic era nautical terminology than the now-debased home product.
"Teen girls wander aimlessly around the mall" is more common than " ... round the mall" but the latter would be understood to mean the same as the former.
Are you sure? How would you distinguish meandering through the interior of the mall from by-passing the mall (as implausible as that is for teen girls)?
From: oosh
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 21:56:24 +0000 (UTC)
"Father Ignatius" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
I surmise that
Hornblower and Aubrey, if not Maturin, would have taken it to be a sailing ship metaphor:
I'm wondering why. I've heard of a ship "coming about" and "coming round into the wind", and believe that these are quite different - but have I overlooked something? I don't know about Forrester, but Patrick O'Brian certainly should be trusted for authentic period seafaring jargon.
O.
From: Father Ignatius
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 13:10:54 +0200
"oosh" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ...
"Father Ignatius" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
I surmise that
Hornblower and Aubrey, if not Maturin, would have taken it to be a sailing ship metaphor:
I'm wondering why. I've heard of a ship "coming about" and "coming round into the wind", and believe that these are quite different - but have I
They are different. I had in mind the latter.
overlooked something? I don't know about Forrester, but Patrick O'Brian certainly should be trusted for authentic period seafaring jargon.
O.
From: Conjugate
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 22:09:30 -0600
"Father Ignatius" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ...
"oosh" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ... "Father Ignatius" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
I surmise that
Hornblower and Aubrey, if not Maturin, would have taken it to be a sailing ship metaphor:
I'm wondering why. I've heard of a ship "coming about" and "coming round into the wind", and believe that these are quite different - but have I
They are different. I had in mind the latter.
What about Coming 'Round the Mountain When She Comes? Or is that a subtle sexual reference?
Conjugate
Who always wondered why they called it "peaking"
From: Tesseract
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: 9 Oct 2002 20:22:15 -0700
"Father Ignatius" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]> ...
"Tesseract" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ... oosh <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]> ...
She'd more or less come around to it in just nine days, which surprised her because she thought she'd be the one with the lesser tolerance.
I understand the phrase "come around to it" to mean "become resigned to it", but I'm not quite sure if that's what it usually means. Doesn't it mean "become convinced"? (I observe that in the USA "around" is used as a
Well, it works fine in South African English and we may infer that it works fine in Australian English, or he wouldn't have written it. I surmise that Hornblower and Aubrey, if not Maturin, would have taken it to be a sailing ship metaphor: she had re-oriented herself to the change in wind. It seems plausible that the colonial variants are one smidge[o?]n closer to Napeolonic era nautical terminology than the now-debased home product.
"Teen girls wander aimlessly around the mall" is more common than " ... round the mall" but the latter would be understood to mean the same as the former.
Are you sure? How would you distinguish meandering through the interior of the mall from by-passing the mall (as implausible as that is for teen girls)?
Around here you don't. It's ambiguous and needs to be resolved by the context.
Until Oosh mentioned this, I was never even aware that 'round' and 'around' could have different meanings. Some academics here may be aware of it (of course I'm excluding everybody with a British background) but the majority of us unwashed heathens are not, and any writers that wrote as if there was a difference would not be understood.
Tesseract - remembering that Britain and her colonies are separated by a common language.
From: oosh
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 21:51:18 +0000 (UTC)
[email protected] (Tesseract) wrote in news:[email protected]:
It's just (a)round the corner.
In my dialect, "around the corner" seems a little strange. It seems to be saying "surrounding the corner" or "in the vicinity of the corner". But it's only a nuance thing.
O.
From: Jeff Zephyr
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 19:12:43 -0600
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 21:51:18 +0000 (UTC), oosh <[email protected]> wrote:
[email protected] (Tesseract) wrote in news:[email protected]:
It's just (a)round the corner.
In my dialect, "around the corner" seems a little strange. It seems to be saying "surrounding the corner" or "in the vicinity of the corner". But it's only a nuance thing.
It is one of those things which changes in different places. Just round the corner, around here, would sound wrong - as if you'd omitted a necessary part of the word, as it is ordinarily used. People would probably understand it, but it doesn't match the ordinary expression in use.
Jeff
Web site at http://www.asstr.org/~jeffzephyr/ For FTP, ftp://ftp.asstr.org/pub/Authors/jeffzephyr/
There is nothing more important than petting the cat.
From: Lisa Libris
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: 10 Oct 2002 15:45:41 GMT
I understand the phrase "come around to it" to mean "become resigned to it", but I'm not quite sure if that's what it usually means. Doesn't it mean "become convinced"?
Here's the context:
She'd more or less come around to it in just nine days, which surprised her because she thought she'd be the one with the lesser tolerance.
Yes, it means "resigned," though I think I'd interpret it as less "resigned" than "accustomed." It's an idiom, that is what it usually means. To enforce usage on idiom is less than sensible. Idiom's arrive because of frequent use - and that means they are often less than grammatical. In this case, it's quite grammatical, based on historical use and the derivation of the preposition "around."
(I observe that in the USA "around" is used as a synonym for the preposition "round", whereas in the UK there is a difference: "around" has one connotation of surrounding or encircling, and another of aimlessness. You "come round" from an anaesthetic!)
The preposition is "around." The use of "round" as a proposition, not an adjective, is derived from the dropping of the prepositional suffix "a" leaving us "round," or as it is properly written 'round (that's an apostrophe, that is). What actually happened, historically, goes back to Old English, though the phrase around is itself Middle English. The distinction that seems to exist, actually doesn't. The inclusion of the "a" with "around" or the absence of it with "round" or more properly "'round," is, if anything, a matter of idiom, register and dialect. I give you the fourth use under the lemma "around" in the OED:
4. In U.S.: = ROUND. Perhaps orig. U.K. (cf. quot. 1816). Now coming back into British use under U.S. influence.
1816 JANE AUSTEN Emma I. x. 187 Emma..was beginning to think how she might draw back a little more, when they both looked around, and she was obliged to join them. 1883 Harper's Mag. Feb. 446/1 The apples and nuts are just enough to go around. 1883 J. KELLY in Ibid. Aug. 453/1 It is not the best all-around boat. 1936 WODEHOUSE Laughing Gas xxvi. 269 'I want to know why you haven't tied him up.’.. 'We was aiming to get around to it later.’ 1952 Manch. Guardian Weekly 9 Oct. 7/3 They tended to get rubbed out before he got around to it.
The "a" in "around" is not purely decorative; it's a bit of a linguistic fossil. In Old English, it's fairly common to add a preposition, usually "on" to a verbal noun (verb + -ing) to indicate ongoing (see? it still works) continuous action. This habit was extending to adjectives, like "round" and as Old English evolved to Middle English, the "on" became "a" as in a-going, around, or, other adjectives, abuzz, astern, and yes, even the adverb "about".
Strictly speaking, even in the UK, one "comes 'round" from an anaesthetic. It is not, however, an indication of aimlessness, rather it means you have come "full circle," passing from a state of consciousness, to unconsciousness, and back to consciousness.
The U.S. idiom "standing around," as in "Standing around, loitering, waiting for trouble" meaning, as the OED puts it roughly the U.K. use of "about":
5. In U.S.: = ABOUT. a. Here and there with no fixed direction; all about, at random; as in 'to travel around,’ 'to fool around.’ b. Somewhere near; as in 'to stand around.’ For shop, sleep around, see the verbs.
Is derived from the Northern English, or Scots use of "around." You may be familiar with the phrase "round about" which is a "dual language" phrase akin to "law and order," or "lord and master," an attempt to create meaning between two languages or dialects, when addressing users of each.
In other words, though I perfectly understand Oosh's feelings, I think the sentence makes sense, and commits no crimes against grammar or usage. Perhaps Dr. Spin might favor us with the Mcquarie view?
From: oosh
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 16:15:31 +0000 (UTC)
[email protected] (Lisa Libris) wrote in news:[email protected]:
In other words, though I perfectly understand Oosh's feelings,
I didn't even know that I had any feelings. I was just pointing out a dialectal variation.
I think
the sentence makes sense, and commits no crimes against grammar or usage.
I hope that I was not understood to be saying the contrary. I just wished to raise the question whether "come around" usually means "become reconciled".
Perhaps Dr. Spin might favor us with the Mcquarie view?
- Or, as we might say, "Is Dr Spin around?"
O.
From: Father Ignatius
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 21:00:55 +0200
"oosh" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ...
[email protected] (Lisa Libris) wrote in news:[email protected]:
In other words, though I perfectly understand Oosh's feelings,
I didn't even know that I had any feelings. I was just pointing out a dialectal variation.
Damn me, it is Granny. Hello, Gran! What the hell are you doing hanging around here?
From: DrSpin
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: 10 Oct 2002 12:24:02 -0700
In article <[email protected]>, oosh said ...
[email protected] (Lisa Libris) wrote in news:[email protected]:
Perhaps Dr. Spin might favor us with the Mcquarie view?
- Or, as we might say, "Is Dr Spin around?"
Yes, but I'm not allowed to be under FT rules until Monday. Des is strict, you know, and 'ware her sharp tongue.
On the upside, perhaps by Monday the round v around debate might have collapsed through exhaustion.
DrSpin
From: Conjugate
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 22:23:53 -0600
"DrSpin" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ...
In article <[email protected]>, oosh said ...
[email protected] (Lisa Libris) wrote in news:[email protected]:
Perhaps Dr. Spin might favor us with the Mcquarie view?
- Or, as we might say, "Is Dr Spin around?"
Yes, but I'm not allowed to be under FT rules until Monday. Des is strict, you know, and 'ware her sharp tongue.
On the upside, perhaps by Monday the round v around debate might have collapsed through exhaustion.
DrSpin
You can always hope. Besides, worrying about "Around" vs. "Round" is probably easier on the ego than reading the two "things to improve" that we are all honor-bound to dig up (without repeating, yet).
Conjugate
From: Father Ignatius
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 13:32:30 +0200
"DrSpin" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ...
Des is strict, you know, and 'ware her sharp tongue.
Seconded.
From: celia batau
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 17:21:46 -0700
hi Des and DrSpin!
"Desdmona" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ...
FishTank guidelines apply:
1) 2 positive comments
2) 2 suggestions for improvement
3) Try not to repeat!
pozzie one: very strong story. concise. not overstated or underdeveloped.
pozzie two: the paragraph describing Phil and Ginny's positions to each other was really good. :) and the way Ginny learned to keep Uncle quiet felt accidental, natural, and not forced at all. :)
neggie one: the two-week Mavin visit.
neggie two: Phil wasn't a very nice person (even if his behavior did add to the drama of the story)
we don't think it's dreck. we don't think it needs sex. it's a good story like it is. we liked it a lot. :)
-cb
Shut Up, Uncle
By Neil Anthony/DrSpin
From: john
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: 8 Oct 2002 23:02:53 -0700
He calls it a quirky story ...,
His editor at the time called it literature. Should it have sex?
Very well done, Dr. You have a very sensitve touch. Your subtlety was appreciated. I too found it unnecessarily heavy at the start. The start seems less a place for tight writing, more a place for action. I loved the tease. I thought the ending clever, satisfying. I thought you missed some opportunities: the supermarket scene might have had a glimpse or two [no way another 1000 words for each jpg; your length was perfect] and the conflict between Phil and Ginny might have been less one-sided. All that's been said well by others. I didn't like your title, but what the hay, it fits. It's just less sexy than the story.
You asked a lot of questions at the start. I think you're far too good a writer to concern yourself with we'd think to be the answers, but ... well, they were the only thing about your story that annoyed me.
Why quirky? Of course, quirky is as quirky does, but I didn't see anything that strange. Ginny's solution is pretty reasonable in the story's terms. You justified her actions well. In fact her solution is the story.
Your editor seemed to imply that there was something dark and horridly civilized about "literature," and I find that offensive. Of course, it's literature. How could anyone mistake it? It is a classic? Duh, not yet. It's well written. Does that deem it unworthy of being erotica?
Of course it has sex! What it doesn't have is much anatomy. You didn't need it, did you. You know more about tags than I, but wouldn't voy and exhib be apropos? You created a real character, you put her in a very sexy situation, you let us know that she knows how sexy it is ... Does "no sex" mean that in the author's opinion masturbation would be unsuccessful? How would an author know that? What a strange way to measure a story? No stranger than measuring other things, I guess. It's sexy. Very. Because I have an evil imagination, I suppose.
Hats off from me. I liked it.
John
From: Tesseract
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: 8 Oct 2002 23:07:27 -0700
"Desdmona" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]> ...
The following is our 66th submission to the FishTank. This story was ********************************************** Shut Up, Uncle By Neil Anthony/DrSpin
No technical errors - spelling, grammar - jumped out at me. I have decided writers will not get points for this. But they will lose points exponentially if such errors do jump out at me.
Beyond that, I liked it, but I'm biased. I wish my problem was as well behaved as Stanley. Unfortunately, he has Alzheimer's and I don't think anybody prancing in the nude would help.
Could it use sex? I don't see how any sex could be integrated into it, though you might linger a bit on the nudity and seminudity.
Could it be better? Hey! That's a loaded question! It could always be better, but don't ask me how. I think it's good as it is.
More interesting? This is another way of saying better, isn't it? (looking around for the hideen camera).
Longer? As in could it be longer? Of course it could be longer. Should it be longer? I don't think so. It's not a complicated story and drawing out the setup wouldn't add to the story. Drawing out the resolution (except for a brief nude scene) would just dilute it. So, as Goldilocks might say, it's just the right length.
Is it literature? What's your definition? Unless it's nonfiction what else could it be? Hey, just because my definition isn't up to your standards .... But seriously folks, the definition is vague and and brings in such concepts as artistic value, "belles-lettres, or works of taste and sentiment"[1]. For what it's worth, I wouldn't line my bird cage with it - my computer wouldn't fit into my nonexistant cage anyway.
Is it dreck? You mean as opposed to literature? Are you sure the concepts are mutually exclusive? To answer, I'll say no.
[1]. dictionary.com
Tesseract
From: Altan
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 16:49:08 GMT
FishTank is back! Hooray!
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 08:43:11 -0400, "Desdmona" <[email protected]> wrote:
FishTank guidelines apply:
1) 2 positive comments
2) 2 suggestions for improvement
3) Try not to repeat!
Positives:
I loved the way the story is hinting, rather than describing in detail. Very well done.
Two weeks later Mavis dropped by. Ginny tied her housecoat before answering the door.
There were some comments earlier in this thread about the "two weeks." Actually, I didn't have a problem with it, because a little bit further it goes on:
"Phil says you're a marvel with him. What's your secret?"
Obviously, Mavis heard about the "miracle" and came over to learn more ...
Suggestions:
[ ...] and it was decided he would live with and be cared for by the various family households for four-monthly periods in turn. [ ...]
Should that be four-month periods? I guess not, but I hesitated on this when I read it. Maybe just "for four months in turn"? I'm not quite sure.
A second suggestion: it sounds improbable that Phil would not figure out what is going on. Maybe something like:
"That evening, she told Phil about her discovery. He didn't like the idea at all, but in the end agreed that it was better than having him talk all day."
(I'm sure you can phrase it much better than I did, but that's the idea.)
A.
http://www.asstr.org/~altan/
From: Father Ignatius
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:56:18 +0200
"Altan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ...
FishTank is back! Hooray!
Seconded.
There were some comments earlier in this thread about the "two weeks." Actually, I didn't have a problem with it, because a little bit further it goes on:
"Phil says you're a marvel with him. What's your secret?"
Well, yes. Egg fucking zackly.
From: celia batau
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 23:21:07 -0700
hi Altan!
"Altan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ...
There were some comments earlier in this thread about the "two weeks." Actually, I didn't have a problem with it, because a little bit further it goes on:
"Phil says you're a marvel with him. What's your secret?"
Obviously, Mavis heard about the "miracle" and came over to learn more ...
but we think Phil's personality as described is the problem. He's self-absorbed, pressured and stressed and not willing even make his own effort to help the situation. so do you really think in this two-week period that he would call his sister and mention the "marvel?" do you think he would even notice the marvel at all, except that Uncle Stanley had shut up? we don't think that's likely. :)
-cb
celia batau's story site: http://www.myplanet.net/pinataheart/stories.htm.
"What does anyone want?"
"Dead things," suggested Mr. Vandemar, "Extra teeth."
-Neil Gaiman
From: Father Ignatius
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 20:39:00 +0200
"celia batau" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ...
[ ...]
but we think Phil's personality as described is the problem. He's self-absorbed, pressured and stressed and not willing even make his own effort to help the situation. so do you really think in this two-week period that he would call his sister and mention the "marvel?" do you think he would even notice the marvel at all, except that Uncle Stanley had shut up? we don't think that's likely. :)
Everyone is so goddam down on Phil. He seemed to me to be the realest character in the story.
Of course he is real. Profoundly real. That's why everyone reacts so strongly to him. There's the most there to respond to.
In fact, it is a transparent authorial self-portrait.
From: cmsix
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 19:16:30 GMT
"Father Ignatius" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ...
"celia batau" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ...
[ ...]
but we think Phil's personality as described is the problem. He's self-absorbed, pressured and stressed and not willing even make his own effort to help the situation. so do you really think in this two-week period that he would call his sister and mention the "marvel?" do you think he would even notice the marvel at all, except that Uncle Stanley had shut up? we don't think that's likely. :)
Everyone is so goddam down on Phil. He seemed to me to be the realest character in the story.
He did seem real. Everyone reacted so strongly because he was a real turd.
cmsix
Of course he is real. Profoundly real. That's why everyone reacts so strongly to him. There's the most there to respond to.
In fact, it is a transparent authorial self-portrait.
From: celia batau
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 21:34:08 -0700
hi Nat!
"Father Ignatius" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ...
Of course he is real. Profoundly real. That's why everyone reacts so strongly to him. There's the most there to respond to.
yes, he's real and a powerful force in the story, yet that reality is still inconsistent with the time-frame, and even perhaps with his noticing his wife's efforts as well.
In fact, it is a transparent authorial self-portrait.
and it's a very good story.
-cb
celia batau's story site: http://www.myplanet.net/pinataheart/stories.htm.
Now it's over, I'm dead and I haven't done anything that I want. Or I'm still alive and there's nothing I want to do. -TMBG
From: Altan
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 00:16:21 GMT
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 23:21:07 -0700, "celia batau" <[email protected]> wrote:
hi Altan!
"Altan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ... There were some comments earlier in this thread about the "two weeks." Actually, I didn't have a problem with it, because a little bit further it goes on:
"Phil says you're a marvel with him. What's your secret?"
Obviously, Mavis heard about the "miracle" and came over to learn more ...
but we think Phil's personality as described is the problem. He's self-absorbed, pressured and stressed and not willing even make his own effort to help the situation. so do you really think in this two-week period that he would call his sister and mention the "marvel?" do you think he would even notice the marvel at all, except that Uncle Stanley had shut up? we don't think that's likely. :)
Oh, I agree I thought Phil was much of a moron. Why didn't he go and do his work elsewhere, if he doesn't like it at home? He can take a laptop and sit at Starbucks all day, of it the park if Starbucks is too loud for him.
Anyway, I don't think that is quite the point. Oh, he may not have called his sister, but his sister, or brother, or someone, could have called him. Or they may have had an email exchange. Hey, he may have had a business meeting with a mutual friend of him and Mavis. Whichever way, there obviously is communication in the family. Even the self- absorbed etc. Phil will note in a casual conversation with anyone who knows his uncle, and knows that Uncle Stancley is staying with Phil, that he has shut up.
In fact, come to think of it, even Phil, self-absorbed as he is, may have sent out an email to all his relatives to the effect of "hey guys, look at this, my new wife shut him up, something none of you ever was able to achieve. Grin, grin, grin."
Maybe this whole discussion shows that the story needs an extra word or two at that point, hinting the reading in a direction that makes the visit more natural ...
Not sure I ever got to what the point was ;-)
A.
http://www.asstr.org/~altan/
From: celia batau
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 22:25:11 -0700
hi Altan!
"Altan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ...
Anyway, I don't think that is quite the point. Oh, he may not have called his sister, but his sister, or brother, or someone, could have called him. Or they may have had an email exchange. Hey, he may have had a business meeting with a mutual friend of him and Mavis. Whichever way, there obviously is communication in the family. Even the self- absorbed etc. Phil will note in a casual conversation with anyone who knows his uncle, and knows that Uncle Stancley is staying with Phil, that he has shut up.
we think we understand what you mean.
but there are two limiting factors, the two-week timeframe and Phil's personality. Phil's the fragile-genius-in-a-rush. if he's unable to tolerate Stanley's distractions, would he then tolerate the distraction of communicating with other family members? (note. the only time he talks with his own wife in the story is to beg her to shut Stanley up).
we also can't make guesses or excuses to explain this inconsistency in Phil's behaviour bc the story neither implies nor gives clues that Phil is anything other than as presented. short stories are a rarified form, esp one of this story's length. every element is very important, and conclusions need to be drawn from those elements. to start imagining things outside its lines could get us lost fast, you know?
the alternate side of this argument is that the two weeks and the mention of the marvel has been put there for a purpose other than to just tie up the end of the story. but so far we can't think of why (if there is one).
this is fun. :) we're part of a writing discussion! yay! :)
-cb
celia batau's story site: http://www.myplanet.net/pinataheart/stories.htm.
Now it's over, I'm dead and I haven't done anything that I want. Or I'm still alive and there's nothing I want to do. -TMBG
From: Selena Jardine
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: 10 Oct 2002 10:58:52 -0700
"Desdmona" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]> ...
The following is our 66th submission to the FishTank. This story was published in ASSM three years ago as part of a 9-story collection. It was the eighth story (1,405 words in length) in that collection and according to Dr. Spin, seemed to get lost in the shuffle. He calls it a quirky story, with only passing references to sex but still sexy. His editor at the time called it literature. He wants to know what we call it. Could it be better? Longer? More interesting? Should it have sex? Is it literature, or is it dreck?
FishTank guidelines apply:
1) 2 positive comments
2) 2 suggestions for improvement
3) Try not to repeat!
So the Doctor's editor at the time called this story literature, and he wants to know what we call it: literature or dreck? What an interesting thing, this tangle, round and around. It's almost as good as the old chestnut: Stroke versus Erotica. Do we write porn, here? Smut? Erotica? High-minded sexualized LIT-tra-chure? Mainstream fiction that keeps its eyes open during the dirty bits? And do these definitions matter, in the end, if you are writing well?
But oh, dear, I'm going to be accused of hijacking the thread, again. And I have been threatened with Terrible Vengeance if I do that. So here we go:
Positive comments:
This story is all smoke and mirrors. DrSpin makes you look the other way as he is conjuring "Shut Up, Uncle" out of a hat. Take the title, for instance. Who would say that? Not the POV character, Ginny, no indeed. We would rather expect to hear that from Phil, who is in fact the motivating character, the character who sits at the center of the plot and around whom the other two revolve.
Phil is a budding Uncle Stanley. He yells and screams and bangs and demands. He follows, as much as Uncle Stanley does, with his rattling windows and banging on ceilings. He is helpless (or behaves as if he is.) He labors under the job-stress that, we are told, eventually snapped Uncle Stanley's mind. His is the power that sets the whole story in motion: the "You've got to do something about this" that makes the crisis urgent. And thanks to his behavior, Ginny turns the thought and energy and sexuality that would normally be turned toward her husband, toward crazy Uncle Stanley.
And here it twists again beautifully in our hands, more misdirection. Uncle Stanley is far more rewarding than (we suspect) Phil would ever be, as the recipient of this sexuality and thought and energy. He responds with adoration and bliss and peace. If Phil is every woman's husband, then Uncle Stanley is every woman's ideal lover, in some sense: awestruck, literally dumbstruck with desire.
So, the second positive comment, which follows on from the first: notice that Ginny doesn't want to share, or not right away. She's found the secret to Uncle Stanley's wide-eyed wonder, and she loves having it to herself. Mavis asks what the secret is, and Ginny only proposes sharing it when Mavis is desperate. It may have to be an all-family-women secret in time, but not right now. The perfect note to end on, and perfectly true both to the character and to the setup.
Things to improve: You say that Uncle Stanley has an amazing vocabulary and only now and then shouts an obscenity. You give us only examples of the latter. We need to see the former. "Eidetic quixotic quotidian cunt!" Or something. You play Scrabble; I'm sure you can come up with some good ones. This will contribute to the sense that he talks all the time, as well as to the sense that he's mostly harmless.
I think I'm going against the stream here, so we must have a very high-minded bunch responding to your story, but I would put in at least a description of Ginny's body. Give us a sense of what Uncle Stanley is looking at (and what Phil sees, or rather overlooks.) I don't think you need a sex scene, since Uncle Stanley seems to be a watcher rather than a groper, but I think you could stand to flesh it out a bit, so to speak.
Okay, that's my contribution. Thanks for tanking it, Doctor. Our pleasure.
Ever your own
Selena
[email protected]
From: Altan
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:04:04 GMT
On 10 Oct 2002 10:58:52 -0700, [email protected] (Selena Jardine) wrote:
Positive comments:
[Removed the actual comments; go and read the original post if you haven't done so yet: it's worth it.]
Boy am I jealous.
I just struggled, reading the story a couple of times, trying to come up with comments that hadn't been made before.
Then I turn around and I find Selena's post.
She provides a whole new level of depth, a whole new way of looking at the story. Her comments are almost as fun to read as the story itself.
Oh well, I'll keep on learning and trying. I hope I'll get better eventually. Though I realize I'll probably never reach these kind of levels.
A.
http://www.asstr.org/~altan/
From: Mat Twassel
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: 10 Oct 2002 20:34:11 GMT
Uncle
Stanley wasn't her crazy relative, for God's sake.
I've been looking at the story some more, trying to understand why I had trouble getting into it on first reading. Having left the story alone for a few days helped me see one of my mistakes, I think: getting the right emphasis on the highlighted sentence; it isn't automatic. "Her" belongs in italics. Otherwise "her" and "crazy" snag each other. A suggestion, if you don't like italics: Put "crazy" first.
True, the next sentence ought to untangle it. And it does, in a way, but in the beginning confusion usually ought to be avoided. And in a way that next sentence only tangles it more, because we don't know for sure who Phil is, and because (as someone pointed out) "Phil's father's younger brother" has the ring of one of those "I'm my father's grandpa" twisters.
So what happens is I'm still processing the twists, wondering who is who, and I'm already three paragraphs down, and my attention isn't on those paragraphs but back at the beginning, and I'm beginning to get lost.
But as I said before, once it makes sense it's fine.
- Mat Twassel
Mat's Erotic Calendar at http://calendar.atEros.com
From: Conjugate
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 22:29:47 -0600
"mat twassel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ...
Uncle
Stanley wasn't her crazy relative, for God's sake.
I've been looking at the story some more, trying to understand why I had trouble getting into it on first reading. Having left the story alone for a few days helped me see one of my mistakes, I think: getting the right emphasis on the highlighted sentence; it isn't automatic. "Her" belongs in italics. Otherwise "her" and "crazy" snag each other. A suggestion, if you don't like italics: Put "crazy" first.
If I might disambiguate: You suggest, "Crazy uncle Stanley wasn't her relative, for God's sake." At first I thought you meant for Spin to say, "Uncle S. wasn't crazy her relative ...." which loses quite a lot.
True, the next sentence ought to untangle it. And it does, in a way, but in the
It's a poor idea to wait for another sentence to clarify. Many readers who get confused do so and stop, trying to figure out the sentence. I did need to read the sentence a couple of times before getting the meaning, myself.
Conjugate
From: oosh
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 13:38:57 +0000 (UTC)
"Conjugate" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
"mat twassel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ... Uncle Stanley wasn't her crazy relative, for God's sake.
I've been looking at the story some more, trying to understand why I had trouble getting into it on first reading ...
...I did need to read the sentence a couple of times before getting the meaning, myself.
This might be a dialectal thing too. For me, the sentence at issue was clear on first reading. I like it as it stands; but there would be no dishonour in emphasizing "her", as per Matt's first suggestion.
O.
From: Conjugate
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 17:17:17 -0600
"oosh" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ...
"Conjugate" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
"mat twassel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ... Uncle Stanley wasn't her crazy relative, for God's sake.
I've been looking at the story some more, trying to understand why I had trouble getting into it on first reading ...
...I did need to read the sentence a couple of times before getting the meaning, myself.
This might be a dialectal thing too. For me, the sentence at issue was clear on first reading. I like it as it stands; but there would be no dishonour in emphasizing "her", as per Matt's first suggestion.
O.
Agreed. I first read it with the emphasis on "crazy," which dramatically changed the meaning.
Conjugate
From: [email protected]
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: 11 Oct 2002 15:02:14 -0700
The child stares, fixated on the slowly circling, wiggling like an inch worm, tickle finger. He knows it will come, but not from which direction. With gleeful anticipation, he awaits the inevitable. A DrSpin punchline.
"Phil's father's younger brother"�
"We are separated by a large body of water and a common language." W.
Churchill.
Timeline problem?
So, families don't communicate? Phil notes his uncle's silence, and doesn't proudly share his wife's significant accomplishment? Mavis is going to fret for three months? No way. She wants relief.
The crux of the story is uncle's awareness of, and his reaction to the partial nudity . Those brain cells were not damaged by the arterial rupture. Ginny's neatly executed scientific experiment proved this. Phil may not be the only genius in the family. Ginny can obviously hold her own when it comes to monumental tasks performed under duress.
"Come and see me when you get desperate," Ginny said.
What does this tell us of Ginny's, DrSpin's understanding of the human condition?
What appeals to me is that all of the story is not told. The dear Dr allows the reader's intelligence to flesh out minor details. He's given us the armature and the essense of the figure. Our minds, our imaginations complete the work. The artist permits, no, demands we become involved on many levels. I joyfully, eagerly sit at his feet.
IMO, DrSpin has achieved perfection with this literate work. Someone should convey upon him some royal order. A knighthood in the most holy order of illuminators.
Awesome, Sir. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Cal
From: Desdmona
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 21:32:08 -0400
Shut Up, Uncle
By Neil Anthony/DrSpin
Spin~
I'm not sure where to begin. My opinion is more than likely jaded due to living in similar circumstances. The family's solution of splitting up the care of Uncle Stanley sounds like heaven. Tell me where there is such a family where 6 or 7 households agree to do such a thing, maybe they can adopt me. On the other hand, in real life such a solution would probably not be ideal for a person who suffers like Uncle Stanley. These people need routine. Lack of routine adds to their confusion. Still, my credulity wasn't stretched. I can believe such a situation is possible.
There's probably only one thing I find missing in the story: Ginny's frustration. Maybe I'd like to see more of hers to validate my own in this type of circumstance. But I think there's more to it than that. Ginny seems emotionless, either that or the poster child for tolerance. We don't know how she feels about Phil's treatment of her. (I'd be livid.) We don't know how she feels about Uncle Stanley. We don't know if after the discovery of what works to keep Uncle Stanley quiet, if the decision is an easy one because she's at her wit's end or is it because she's flattered that her nudity is so mood altering.We see a lot of action from her, but we see little to no reaction.
I think the climactic scene in the bedroom is extremely sexy. Again, I might find it even more so if we had seen how this made Ginny feel. Was she shocked when she first saw Uncle Stanley? Did she want to cover herself up? Did she blush at first nudity? Did she look at him as she stripped? Was she filled with guilt, rationalization, or excitement?
Maybe adding a sentence or two to answer such questions would change the mood of the story. I can't be sure. It's just an idea that might be worth exploring.
As always, its poignancy leaves me thinking long after I've put it away - one of my favorite qualities of a Spin story.
Thanks bunches for allowing us this chance!
Des
From: DrSpin
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: 13 Oct 2002 10:03:01 -0700
Response time, and 45 in the thread. As Urfe once said, being in Fish Tank is nice because people talk about you (when they're not slithering away down sideshoots). But then duty calls and you have to respond. Thank goodness for the sideshoot. I can dispense with that in one paragraph.
round v around - look, honestly, and without being disrespectful, I don't care. I would if either made any difference to the meaning of the sentence, but they don't, so I don't care. But thank you, Lisa, for the scholarship.
Now, in order ...
Sean:
(whispers "I think I liked it better than some of the Ace Dyson stories")
No need to whisper, Sean. Different style. Lots different. Ace is smart-arse narrative, parody, allegedly humorous. This was one of my "what if" short stories, and I'm astonished that some of the "what if" is actually "what is" for two people who commented. But we'll get to that later.
As a generality, looking at 'Shut Up, Uncle' three years after writing it, I don't think it is as smooth as it should be. I find some the language stilted and awkward. It also contains too much of my bad habit deliberate repetition, which has now (almost) been bashed out of me by relentless and, of course, correct editors. Repetition is a great, great writing tool. The problem is over-use.
Here she was, sitting at the kitchen table folding clean laundry while across sat Uncle Stanley, babbling at her incessantly, shouting frequently and in a stream of words not sequentially or consequently linked.
I'm not sure how consequently fits there. I think consecutively or serially would be better choices.
Agreed. Just me being too clever by half.
I don't quite agree with the timeline. Uncle Stanley had been with them for 9-10 days of a 4 month "visit" when Ginny discovered the secret to keeping him quiet. Two weeks later, Mavis is asking for that secret because she has him next. Next is still 3 months away.
You're right, and other people mentioned this. It was a flaw. Easily fixed, though, with just a word or three.
A general point, however. I think the essence of little short story writing (and 300 word Flash is the most pointed example of it) is to get the motivation right. You can fudge with the timeline, with lack of description, with all sorts of things, but the real issue is the motivation of the characters.
Mat Twassel:
I'm not sure it would be a good idea to try to deliver a rant or two beyond the couple of one-liners we're given, but I'd be interested to see it tried. I'd be tempted to put a rant at the very beginning.
Good point, and I think the most crucial of all that I saw in the thread. The story would have been better had it been so. Not at the beginning, perhaps. Selena nailed it, though, and we'll get to it in chronological course.
Nat (Father Ignatius):
He might do well to think of details that interest his female readers and not just a masculine audience. For instance, when Ginny puts on a "light housecoat," is the housecoat striped or does it have a floral pattern? And the masculine audience wants to know if it is light in colour, merely, or arrestingly insubstantial?
I don't think so. I tend to run physical description when it's a point, or even the point of the story. It wasn't here. Whether she was pretty or plain, fat or thin, old or young, it just didn't matter. Uncle Stanley was happy to look, whatever.
The rest of Nat's comments are excised. He was, in fact, the original editor. So he's biased. Even better, it's all his fault.
Jeff Zephyr:
Make it a bit longer, add in more of Ginny's reaction to the new situation, not just Phil's acceptance of the improvement. It is Ginny's story, after all. It wouldn't take much imagination to wonder just what Uncle thought about her actions, even though it was solving the problem. Nor a few "close calls" with Phil showing up suddenly.
Which would make it a different sort of a story. Once you start opening these doors to these rooms, you have to keep going until you explore the whole house.
It's a matter of style, Jeff. I'm a writer who likes to leave a lot out.
Conjugate:
Does Uncle Stanley need a greater "fix" as time goes on, getting to see a bit more of what's there?
Ditto. The reader may perhaps surmise.
In fact I recall considering this. But that would have trebled the size of the story, and it felt OK as it was.
I was a little put off by the phrase, "Phil's father's younger brother," though it was certainly unambiguous. It seemed somehow a bit too much. Perhaps "Phil's youngest uncle" would work. Or even "her husband Phil's uncle" says all that is necessary, and ensures that we can place Phil quickly in this drama.
Yes, indeed. It was downright ugly. Your way is much better.
Oh, and hasn't Phil ever heard of headphones?
Undoubtedly. But be careful, lest you argue away a story with yes-buts. Having established his motivation, I can put him aside.
Please Cain:
The story might be strengthened by developing the characters of the married couple. He whines; she resents it, yet remains complacent: why, I don't know.
They felt real to me. He's the alleged creative genius bringing in the money, so he stamps his foot petulantly. She's just nicer than he is, so she tries to comply.
Devise a more pungent opening.
That is a common sense suggestion, but the style of the story didn't seem to push me that way. I certainly know what you mean. I am often under pressure from my editors to cut to the action rather than waffle around "philosophically" in my intro paras. I'm trying to get better at it.
Show me a bad Spin story - you can't do it.
Oh yes I can. But I won't. They moulder away in a dark corner of my hard drive, rejected, scorned, derided.
Bradley Stoke:
I also liked the rhythm of the story. An intelligent use of phrase repetition.
Aha! A repetitious colleague! Sigh. These crunchy editors just don't understand us, do they?
You have developed a style from which others could well learn of not explaining more than you need to and of pushing the story along by scene description.
Again aha! Carry the fight forward, BS, and power to your sword arm.
I wonder how Ginny manages to read with Uncle Stanley around.
Now that's a yes-but, and inconsistent with the above. Eschew yes-buts. What you don't want are black holes of logic. They're fatal. But the odd minor yes-but thing you can get away with.
Oosh:
It was, he was saying, up to her to give him the time and space he required.
Would it be more comfortable to put "It was up to her, he was saying ..."?
It would. Definitely.
If you went into the bathroom and shut the door on him, he'd wait and babble until you opened it. Unless somebody else came by, in which case he'd follow.
I suggest a dash after "opened it", and make the following sentence flow on.
Agreed.
This is so similar to the opening sentence that I wonder if it should be put some other way. I see the point of the repetition, however, which is to mark the contrast with the next paragraph.
Bless you. Come to tea at Bradley Stoke with me and Bradley Stoke and we'll talk repetition till the sun goes down.
Thelia Batau:
the two-week Mavith vithit.
Yeth, the timeline. Everyone is right about the timeline.
Phil wathn't a very nithe perthon (even if hith behaviour did add to the drama of the sthtory).
Motivation.
(Apologies for sticking you with a speech defect, Celia. But once I started I couldn't stop. You know how it is.)
John:
I too found it unnecessarily heavy at the start. The start seems less a place for tight writing, more a place for action.
Spoken like an editor. But I accept the criticism. Look, I'll even confess - often when I start a story I meander around a bit until I find the path. These days editors pounce on it, and I revise accordingly in version 2.0. But I wrote this story three years ago, and I could get away with much more then.
You asked a lot of questions at the start. I think you're far too good a writer to concern yourself with we'd think to be the answers, but ... well, they were the only thing about your story that annoyed me.
Thank you. And I think you're absolutely right. Blame Des. She badgered me for a Fish Tank submission, and I had to come up with a rationale.
Well, not 'badgered'. Des would never badger.
What it doesn't have is much anatomy. You didn't need it, did you. You know more about tags than I, but wouldn't voy and exhib be apropos?
It didn't need it. See above. I forget what tags it had, but it would have had some. And yes, they would be the right tags.
Tesseract:
I wish my problem was as well behaved as Stanley. Unfortunately, he has Alzheimer's and I don't think anybody prancing in the nude would help.
Interesting. RL situation #1.
It's not a complicated story and drawing out the setup wouldn't add to the story.
Quite so. See my comment above about doors, rooms, and the whole dang house.
Altan:
[ ...] and it was decided he would live with and be cared for by the various family households for four-monthly periods in turn. [ ...]
Should that be four-month periods? I guess not, but I hesitated on this when I read it. Maybe just "for four months in turn"? I'm not quite sure.
Hmm. Tell the truth, I'm not sure, either. Anybody? Anybody?
A second suggestion: it sounds improbable that Phil would not figure out what is going on.
Agreed. But it's not only a yes-but but also at least an extra door and room, probably more.
Selena Jardine:
This story is all smoke and mirrors.
You bet.
Phil is a budding Uncle Stanley.
Interesting. Didn't occur to me at the time, but I can see it once you point it out.
You say that Uncle Stanley has an amazing vocabulary and only now and then shouts an obscenity. You give us only examples of the latter. We need to see the former. "Eidetic quixotic quotidian cunt!" Or something.
Where were you three years ago when I needed you? That's brilliant. Love it. If I'd had the cleverness to have done it at the time, I certainly would have.
It frustrates me now to realise how much fun I would have had with that.
I think I'm going against the stream here, so we must have a very high-minded bunch responding to your story, but I would put in at least a description of Ginny's body.
Nope. I stand firm on that one. Once I describe, I'm divorcing too many readers from the that-could-be-me approach. In this story, it just wasn't necessary.
Mat Twassel again:
I've been looking at the story some more, trying to understand why I had trouble getting into it on first reading. Having left the story alone for a few days helped me see one of my mistakes, I think: getting the right emphasis on the highlighted sentence; it isn't automatic. "Her" belongs in italics. Otherwise "her" and "crazy" snag each other.
Yes, and I'm mystified about why I didn't do it. Perhaps I did, when it first ran on ASSM.
Absolutely the emphasis is on "her".
cmsix:
Nat: Everyone is so goddam down on Phil. He seemed to me to be the realest character in the story.
He did seem real. Everyone reacted so strongly because he was a real turd.
Motivation. It was necessary that he be a turd. About Uncle Stanley, anyway.
So tell me - you're trying to write, and the kids or the dog or the cat are at your ankles, or the guy next door is tinkering with his trail bike, or your hopeless brother is upstairs playing Megadeath at many decibels. You're calm, even-tempered, relaxed? A nice guy? Not, even for a regrettable moment, a turd?
Cal:
What appeals to me is that all of the story is not told.
Ah, me too.
The dear Dr allows the reader's intelligence to flesh out minor details.
It would be useful.
He's given us the armature and the essense of the figure. Our minds, our imaginations complete the work. The artist permits, no, demands we become involved on many levels.
Cal, you can come to tea at Bradley stoke, too.
I joyfully, eagerly sit at his feet.
Where you will not be required to do any such thing. Tea, scones, clotted cream, and some rural home-made strawberry jam. Except it only happens in August, as I recall, during the three decent weeks of weather in the English seasons.
Desdmona:
My opinion is more than likely jaded due to living in similar circumstances.
RL situation #2.
Still, my credulity wasn't stretched. I can believe such a situation is possible.
I am extraordinarily flattered.
There's probably only one thing I find missing in the story: Ginny's frustration. Maybe I'd like to see more of hers to validate my own in this type of circumstance. But I think there's more to it than that. Ginny seems emotionless, either that or the poster child for tolerance.
You're quite right. But to dig deeper into Ginny would have open up those doors and rooms.
As always, its poignancy leaves me thinking long after I've put it away.
Tea and scones for Des, too. Can this be arranged, BS?
Thanks to all. I abbreviated much, and it's already way too long. The Fish Tank is a wonderful thing. Give Des all the support she needs, people. Do it.
DrSpin
also writing as Neil Anthony at Ruthie�s Club http://www.ruthiesclub.com
From: dennyw
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 19:33:21 -0700
On 13 Oct 2002 10:03:01 -0700, DrSpin <[email protected]> wrote:
(about Nat)
Even better, it's all his fault.
This could be very widely generalized.
:)
From: Father Ignatius
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: 17 Oct 2002 13:51:55 -0700
DrSpin <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]> ...
Response time, and 45 in the thread. As Urfe once said, being in Fish Tank is nice because people talk about you (when they're not slithering away down sideshoots). But then duty calls and you have to respond. Thank goodness for
chutes
Well, not 'badgered'. Des would never badger.
Maybe she'd beaver, though.
four-monthly periods in turn. [ ...]
Should that be four-month periods? I guess not, but I hesitated on this when I read it. Maybe just "for four months in turn"? I'm not quite sure.
Hmm. Tell the truth, I'm not sure, either. Anybody? Anybody?
Four-month is preferred. "Four-monthly" is distracting because it sounds like four periods of a month each which raises all sorts of pointless "But ..." quesions in the reader's mind.
recall, during the three decent weeks of weather in the English seasons.
It is not often that I have to chide you about unreasonable optimisim, but here is an example.
From: dennyw
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 15:56:29 -0700
On 17 Oct 2002 13:51:55 -0700, [email protected] (Father Ignatius) wrote:
DrSpin <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]> ... Response time, and 45 in the thread. As Urfe once said, being in Fish Tank is nice because people talk about you (when they're not slithering away down sideshoots). But then duty calls and you have to respond. Thank goodness for
chutes
shoots.
(branches, shoots - all tree parts; note that threads branch, and shoot off all directions)
Note that all the comments archived here were culled from active discussions occuring in the Usenet newsgroup alt.sex.stories.d. If you want to contribute to the discussion, please join us in ASSD and say your piece. Everyone is welcome.
If you do not know how to read Usenet newsgroups, there is a nice, free web interface on Google: http://groups.google.com/. If you have any problems, send us email. If we're lucky, we'll get you set up and contributing in no time!
If you have not done so, please read the Comment Guidelines. We ask that all comments include two positive remarks and two suggestions for improvement. Please, try not to repeat!
From: spd3432
Re: Shut Up, Uncle, by DrSpin
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 07:19:04 -0700
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 08:43:11 -0400, "Desdmona" <[email protected]> wrote:
I enjoyed the story immensely. It was short enough to be read through quickly, yet long enough to get the job done. (whispers "I think I liked it better than some of the Ace Dyson stories")
Positive -
1) I can envision Ginny abandoning her shopping cart repeatedly to chase after him in the store. I'm so glad my kids have outgrown that stage.
2) The "scientific" testing she did to confirm her hypothesis in regard to keeping Uncle Stanley quiet.
Possible improvements -
1) I'm not sure how consequently fits there. I think consecutively or serially would be better choices.
2) I don't quite agree with the timeline. Uncle Stanley had been with them for 9 - 10 days of a 4 month "visit" when Ginny discovered the secret to keeping him quiet. Two weeks later, Mavis is asking for that secret because she has him next. Next is still 3 months away. If these families had been sharing the responsibility for Uncle Stanley for years, they already know what he's like and I don't imagine any of them, let alone the next to be stuck with him, would be asking how well they were getting along. I would guess that Mavis and her family would want to have no contact with Ginny and Phil until only a few weeks before Uncle Stanley was set to move in with them and then it would be to make arrangements for his transfer. I could see two months later after Mavis has opened the discussions for the transfer that Phil lets slip "Actually, it hasn't been all that bad. I'm not sure what Ginny has done, but I seldom hear his ranting and screaming anymore." Taken that far, I see Mavis dropping by for coffee with just under a month to go before Uncle Stanley leaves.
sean