Maaaan, you held on to it for a month and I'm still late to the party – so sorry! I hope I'm not tooo late.
As much as I love getting back into this story again, the beginning didn't suck me in like I remember it doing before. I am resisting the urge to go back and check the original text to see the differences, but my general impression is that this version is a lot more 'conscious' – it's quite evidently an effort on the part of the writer to communicate the story through words, as opposed to just a pure transmission of an existing story and characters using the writer as a medium. I wish I knew what was at play here but that's the most I can give you ... I'm afraid it's not very helpful.
I am very aware of the descriptions of people, places, and things this time around, which I wasn't before. Oddly, I think this is getting in the way of my ability to picture them. Perhaps letting the story flow and only describing things when a description is necessary? The description of Jack early on really felt like 'oh shoot, gotta get this out of the way, ummmm I will stick it here.' I think you could save Jack's physical description at least until that bit where you're comparing him and Clare.
Conversely I seem to remember Clare standing out quite vividly in my mind before with her big cloud of golden curls, and I think I missed that this time around – and didn't she always wear trousers before? I liked that as a character detail and a handy capsule of exposition as to the much more liberated condition of women in this world and, by extension, that this is a different world – it's historical but not our history; it's more different than just '19th century with magic in.'
I really like how even though Jack is the one with the 'action' for most of this bit, you get the impression right off the bat that he and Clare are equals. They work really well together.
The hubbub leading up to the lecture feels authentic but a too long ... unless these people turn out to be important later on, I'd cut maybe half the character interactions in this bit. I'm a little confused why the professor cuts the n off his 'damn' but a few lines later the female student comes out with 'fucked' – does 'damn' without an n sound any different than with? It can't be censorship for sensitive younger readers because that falls away very quickly. I like the sassy female student but there feels something unnatural or stagey about the way she winks after her line – it seems like that would be very challenging to pull off if you were to attempt actually doing it. Maybe the girl next to her could smirk or something; get her involved in a way that's more than just scene-setting.
Most of my other notes are, I think, more screenplay notes than novel notes, so I will refrain for now. Perhaps they will become relevant as I read more chapters and then I can let them out to play. :)
Sooooo happy to dive back into this book! (No matter what contrary impression this long list of notes may give ...)
no subject
As much as I love getting back into this story again, the beginning didn't suck me in like I remember it doing before. I am resisting the urge to go back and check the original text to see the differences, but my general impression is that this version is a lot more 'conscious' – it's quite evidently an effort on the part of the writer to communicate the story through words, as opposed to just a pure transmission of an existing story and characters using the writer as a medium. I wish I knew what was at play here but that's the most I can give you ... I'm afraid it's not very helpful.
I am very aware of the descriptions of people, places, and things this time around, which I wasn't before. Oddly, I think this is getting in the way of my ability to picture them. Perhaps letting the story flow and only describing things when a description is necessary? The description of Jack early on really felt like 'oh shoot, gotta get this out of the way, ummmm I will stick it here.' I think you could save Jack's physical description at least until that bit where you're comparing him and Clare.
Conversely I seem to remember Clare standing out quite vividly in my mind before with her big cloud of golden curls, and I think I missed that this time around – and didn't she always wear trousers before? I liked that as a character detail and a handy capsule of exposition as to the much more liberated condition of women in this world and, by extension, that this is a different world – it's historical but not our history; it's more different than just '19th century with magic in.'
I really like how even though Jack is the one with the 'action' for most of this bit, you get the impression right off the bat that he and Clare are equals. They work really well together.
The hubbub leading up to the lecture feels authentic but a too long ... unless these people turn out to be important later on, I'd cut maybe half the character interactions in this bit. I'm a little confused why the professor cuts the n off his 'damn' but a few lines later the female student comes out with 'fucked' – does 'damn' without an n sound any different than with? It can't be censorship for sensitive younger readers because that falls away very quickly. I like the sassy female student but there feels something unnatural or stagey about the way she winks after her line – it seems like that would be very challenging to pull off if you were to attempt actually doing it. Maybe the girl next to her could smirk or something; get her involved in a way that's more than just scene-setting.
Most of my other notes are, I think, more screenplay notes than novel notes, so I will refrain for now. Perhaps they will become relevant as I read more chapters and then I can let them out to play. :)
Sooooo happy to dive back into this book! (No matter what contrary impression this long list of notes may give ...)