Let's All Meet Up In the Post 2000

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dan Jones

Der Vater absurder Geschichten
Supporter
Joined
Nov 14, 2014
Messages
3,385
Location
I am here to do the thing!
Following on from @HareBrain's hilarious caterwauling that nobody celebrates Christmas / St Swithin's Day / National Pecan Month* / X000th posts anymore, here I am with my 2000th post just to prove him wrong, the daft old rabbit.

This is the opening from my current WIP which I'm tentatively calling Satan In The Woods, but which I don't really like as a title. All comments, teeth and insulting guffaws at my ineptitude are wholly welcome. Except for those I don't approve of. You know who you are.

~

Chapter 1 - The Trial

“Who decides when a man should burn?”

The attendants of the trial considered my opening question to them, their whispered murmurs and shuffling of their clothing gently reverberating through the stone of this rustic old church. Rhetorical though they would know my question to be, I hoped it would give them pause to think. The Dominican Inquisitor, Nastagio di Balino, glowered at me, allowing me the courtesy of finishing my address.

“Is it our Lord God, the Almighty?” I continued, directly addressing the witnesses, three common, local men from this backwater north Italian village. As was to expected, without a satisfactory answer – or knowledge to provide an answer – they bowed their heads rather than dared to hold my gaze. I faced the persons accused of heresy and sorcery respectively and now standing trial, a man, Thomas, and a woman, Benessa of Cuorgné. I repeated the question for their benefit, attempting to translate it into their local, vulgar tongue, prompting some stifled mirth from the gallery.

“May God be our judge!” called Thomas, perhaps desperately hoping that this would somehow appease me. But it was not me who was to be appeased. The woman Benessa remained silent. Doubtless Nastagio would use her silence as a proof of her guilt weighing heavily on her soul. I knew it was out of fear that she would incriminate herself, and I silently thanked her for her discretion. Not all of the ill-educated have the forethought to keep quiet from damning themselves.

“No, my dear Thomas; in the secular court it is not God who is judge, but the esteemed gentleman sitting there, Judge Mavela, presiding over these grave matters, who decides whether or not somebody ought to burn. Therefore it behooves us to ensure that the insidiousness of wrongful condemnation does not taint the purity and solemnity of Earthly jurisdiction, and that the stink of heresy is not wrongfully applied, as I believe it has in this instance.” I approached Thomas, quivering in the dock, hands bound. He was a singularly grotesque individual, possessing a deep, overdeveloped forehead, a misshapen nose and squinting little eyes that seemed permanently creased into an unfortunate-looking sneer, as though he was leering at those around him, and the stench of unwashedness. Given that the Dominican, di Balino, was possessed of a stringent and zealous distortion, this cruel joke of nature upon one already sadly bereft of the wit to properly defend himself, was not a favourable combination for one accused of carrying the sin of heresy. “Signore Thomas, why is it that you refuse to denounce the accused, Benessa of Cuorgné?”

Thomas crumpled his brow in confusion, probably fearful that I too, despite being brought to defend him against these charges, was somehow trying to ensnare him into incriminating himself. I did not follow the question up, and instead turned to the plaintiff, a ragged-trousered tatterdemalion going by the name of Serge. He too was possessed of a grotesque countenance, but not in the same way as the male defendant Thomas. This man bore a strong sense of contempt for this court in his sneer, a grim apathy for the vitality of jurisdiction, and throughout the proceedings he glowered malevolently towards the accused, Jane. I looked at him for a moment longer than he would have liked, peering into him, and while he held my gaze with a scowl for a time, he could not resist looking away after a fashion. I turned to the regional judge presiding over the court, a thoughtful and reasonable secular man of apparent faint nobility, Raffaele Mavera, and gave him a knowing look.

“I’d like to call my first witness, Father Riche,” I said.

The Father, an elderly prebender under whom the local congregation was shepherded, was ushered into standing and swearing the Holy oath as requested by Judge Mavelo, and bent his ear towards me in anticipation of my line of questioning.

I leant in, taking this gesture as a sign of deafness in one ear. “How long has the plaintiff, Serge, been known to your community, Father Riche?”

He nodded assuredly, his whiskery jowls wobbling as he did so. “He first made an appearance at my congregation not one month prior to this very date.”

“Merely a month? And how long have Thomas and Benessa been part of your community?”

The old man nodded. “Indeed, for all their lives. I knew both their mothers and fathers.”

“And what would you say of their character?”

At that, Nastagio di Balino stood and reproached me with a triumphant look. “Dear judge, ought we not to disregard any testimony relating to the historical assessment of the accused’s character? We all bear the incorrigibility of the sinner; the Evil One acts to infect even the most devout of souls with his strains of depravity, and one cannot rely upon the historical fortitude of the accused, no matter how impeccable, when considering the corrupt nature of the crimes for which these people here stand.”

Judge Mavelo, sitting by the church altar, nodded. “Quite so. You may proceed, Brother Jacobus, without reliance upon the character history of the accused.”

I allowed Nastagio the slightest of wry smiles, before returning to my questioning of the priest. “Father, would you relate to those gathered here today the nature of your own dealings with the plaintiff, Serge?”

“As I said, he appeared at my congregation one month ago, beset by beggary and ill-fortune, and requested alms and food, which we provided him. It was a week into his stay with us, during which time he had attended mass twice and observed it in the matter of a good Catholic, when he approached me, asking for my confidence in a grievous matter.”

“Confidence?” I asked. “Do I infer that Serge requested the sacrament of confession?”

“No, Brother Jacobus. Though Serge was greatly distressed, and ashamed, as befitting one who might request that intimate audience, he edited not ask for absolution. He proceeded to tell me that since arriving at the village there had been those who had been cruel to him. He had proceeded to try to get to know Benessa, whom he considered to be kind, but when he approached her, she was repulsed by him, and touched him upon the hip, whereupon she made his male member disappear!”

There was chatter among those present in the public stalls at that moment: some snickered and stifled childish laughs, while others cried, “Witch!” and, “Sorceress!” and, “The Evil One is among us!” while others still cried, in lower voices, that Benessa was innocent. Judge Mavelo called for hush, and ordered me to proceed. Benessa, meanwhile, remained straight-faced throughout, a picture of dignity and restraint.

~

*It's a thing, honest.
 
This reads quite well and though there were portions I had to read over twice to fully understand; I think that was just me: being me.
There is this paragraph that stands out as possibly being a slight bit of a confused jumble.

“No, Brother Jacobus. Though Serge was greatly distressed, and ashamed, as befitting one who might request that intimate audience, he edited not ask for absolution. He proceeded to tell me that since arriving at the village there had been those who had been cruel to him. He had proceeded to try to get to know Benessa, whom he considered to be kind, but when he approached her, she was repulsed by him, and touched him upon the hip, whereupon she made his male member disappear!”

Maybe it needs fixed or maybe it's just me again.
 
Congrats on the 2000th! Like any self-respecting lagomorph, I'm in a mad rush to get somewhere (Norfolk, in this case) so I'll have to have a proper read later. I just didn't want a silence to be taken as me thinking I was one of those of whom you don't approve. Though perhaps I am.
 
This is pretty good. Two slight nitpicks.
“I’d like to call my first witness, Father Riche,” I said.
Your call but I thought a full stop after witness would work better than a comma.
I faced the persons accused of heresy and sorcery
Surely if someone if accused of sorcery it would automatically be heresy? You are undoubtedly better educated than I so I'll leave that one with you.
Apart from those piddling bits this reads very well. Nice job.
Edit: Yeah, that too.
 
Wow, this is quite a change from MOW. Don't you like sex robots anymore? (I do however note your continued use of penis-removal as a plot device.)

Anyway you've definitely caught what feels like a historically-correct voice. For me as a reader this style would be easier to admire than enjoy - but I'm not your target audience here (I couldn't get through a page of Umberto Eco). Typos aside (distortion - disposition?) your prose is as finely-wrought as ever. If this is the kind of book you want to write then go for it.
 
Just an fyi:
Wikipedia seems to think there was at least a time when sorcery and heresy were not wholly synonymous.

Witchcraft - Wikipedia

Witchcraft in Europe between 500-1750 was believed to be a combination of sorcery and heresy. While sorcery attempts to produce negative supernatural effects through formulas and rituals, heresy is the Christian contribution to witchcraft in which an individual makes a pact with the Devil. In addition, heresy denies witches the recognition of important Christian values such as baptism, salvation, Christ and sacraments.
 
Just to say I've had a quick read of this, Dan, but I want to spend a little more time on it and allow preliminary thoughts to percolate a bit. I'll try and get back to you in the next day or so (unless I'm like HB and in the not-approved-of group...). Meantime, congrats on the 2,000!
 
Following on from @HareBrain's hilarious caterwauling that nobody celebrates Christmas / St Swithin's Day / National Pecan Month* / X000th posts anymore, here I am with my 2000th post just to prove him wrong, the daft old rabbit.

Who in the UK would celebrate St Swithun's day? We don't need that kind of water!

This is the opening from my current WIP which I'm tentatively calling Satan In The Woods, but which I don't really like as a title. All comments, teeth and insulting guffaws at my ineptitude are wholly welcome. Except for those I don't approve of. You know who you are.

Little Red Riding Satan?

Chapter 1 - The Trial

“Who decides when a man should burn?”

The attendants of the trial considered my opening question to them, their whispered murmurs and shuffling of their clothing gently reverberating through the stone of this (the?) rustic (old - rustic suggests old to me) church. Rhetorical though they would know my question to be, I hoped it would give them pause to think. The Dominican Inquisitor, Nastagio di Balino, glowered at me, allowing me (but allowed me (?) I would suggest that glowering implies he's so displeased, he'd be reluctant to let him finish. As you've written it, it reads as if the glowering is encouraging him to finish - which might be what you want, in which I'd say you need a 'daring me to finish' in there) the courtesy of finishing my address.

“Is it our Lord God, the Almighty?” I continued, directly addressing the witnesses, (splice) three common, local men from this backwater north Italian village. As was to (be) expected, without a satisfactory answer – or knowledge to provide an answer – they bowed their heads rather than dared (to - delete) hold my gaze. I faced the persons accused of heresy and sorcery respectively and now standing trial, a man, Thomas, and a woman, Benessa of Cuorgné (fab name). I repeated the question for their benefit, attempting to translate it into their (local, vulgar - I think it sounds better if you switch the order of these two words) tongue, prompting some stifled mirth from the gallery. (I'm thinking that the accused would be a bit miffed that their counsel was making fools of them - is that intentional?)

“May God be our judge!” called Thomas, perhaps desperately hoping that this would somehow appease me. But it was not me who was to be appeased. The woman (either this, or Benessa is cleaner, but I like the style of calling her this, distilling her into a woman as opposed to a person and makes me think of how he views her) Benessa remained silent. Doubtless Nastagio would use her silence as a proof of her guilt weighing heavily on her soul. I knew it was out of fear that she would incriminate herself, and I silently thanked her for her discretion. Not all of the ill-educated have the forethought to keep quiet from damning themselves.

“No, my dear Thomas; in the secular court it is not God who is judge, but the esteemed gentleman sitting there, Judge Mavela, presiding over these grave matters, who decides whether or not somebody ought to burn. Therefore it behooves us to ensure that the insidiousness of wrongful condemnation does not taint the purity and solemnity of Earthly jurisdiction, and that the stink of heresy is not wrongfully applied, as I believe it has in this instance.” (Now I think Counsel is a blowhard who likes the sound of their own voice - also his loyalties seem divided, as if he's setting up Thomas.) I approached Thomas, quivering in the dock, hands bound. He was a singularly grotesque individual, possessing a deep, overdeveloped forehead, a misshapen nose and squinting little eyes that seemed permanently creased into an unfortunate (-looking Delete) sneer (I adore this description. It's so mean!), as though he was leering at those around him, and the stench of unwashedness. Given that the Dominican, di Balino, was possessed of a stringent and zealous distortion, this cruel joke of nature upon one already sadly bereft of the wit to properly defend himself, was not a favourable combination for one accused of carrying the sin of heresy. “Signore Thomas, why is it that you refuse to denounce the accused, Benessa of Cuorgné?”

So far there is an archaic feel to the syntax of the narrator which I like a lot, but I did have to slow down reading it as it has a complex structure and rhythm. Re Character... I'd expect he or she is a miserable old sod who despises his clients - or perhaps his task at defending likely criminals.

Thomas crumpled his brow in confusion, probably fearful that I too, despite being brought to defend him against these charges, was somehow trying to ensnare him into incriminating himself (A-haaa, as did I; I have the witless thought patterns of a heretic, then, too! ;) ). I did not follow the question up, and instead turned to the plaintiff, a ragged-trousered tatterdemalion (#LOVE) going by the name of Serge. He too was possessed of a grotesque countenance, but not in the same way as the (male defendant/Thomas). This man bore a strong sense of contempt for this court in his sneer, a grim apathy for the vitality of jurisdiction, and throughout the proceedings he glowered (more glowering) malevolently towards the accused, Jane. I looked at him for a moment longer than he would have liked, peering into him, and while he held my gaze with a scowl for a time, he could not resist looking away after a fashion (I though 'after a fashion' meant 'in a way'. If it does then the end of the sentence doesn't make sense to me without a specific 'fashion' being defined). (I turned to the regional judge presiding over the court, a thoughtful and reasonable secular man of apparent faint nobility, Raffaele Mavera, and gave him a knowing look. This is the only sentence I've not really liked. It contains a bit too much over-description and I think you could lose quite a lot of it. I'd also be more intrigued if he just said 'I turned to the Regional Judge and gave him a knowing look' as the other stuff gets in the way, IMO)

“I’d like to call my first witness, Father Riche,” I said.

The Father, an elderly prebender under whom the local congregation was shepherded, was ushered into standing and swearing the Holy oath (caps for Oath?) as requested by (Judge - remove, perhaps) Mavelo, and bent his ear towards me (ouch!) in anticipation of my line of questioning.

I leant in, taking this gesture as a sign of deafness in one ear. “How long has the plaintiff, Serge, been known to your community, Father Riche?”

He nodded assuredly, his whiskery jowls wobbling as he did so. “He first made an appearance at my congregation not one month prior to this very date.”

“Merely a month? And how long have Thomas and Benessa been part of your community?”

The old man nodded. “Indeed, for all their lives. I knew both their mothers and fathers.”

“And what would you say of their character?”

At that, Nastagio di Balino stood and reproached me with a triumphant look. “Dear judge (would 'judge' not be capitalised, too?), ought we not to disregard any testimony relating to the historical assessment of the accused’s character? We all bear the incorrigibility of the sinner; the Evil One acts to infect even the most devout of souls with his strains of depravity, and one cannot rely upon the historical fortitude of the accused, no matter how impeccable, when considering the corrupt nature of the crimes for which these people here stand.”

Judge Mavelo, sitting by the church altar, nodded. “Quite so. You may proceed, Brother Jacobus, without reliance upon the character history of the accused.”

I allowed Nastagio the slightest of wry smiles, before returning to my questioning of the priest. “Father, would you relate to those gathered here today the nature of your own dealings with the plaintiff, Serge?”

“As I said, he appeared at my congregation one month ago, beset by beggary and ill-fortune, and requested alms and food, which we provided him. It was a week into his stay with us, during which time he had attended mass twice and observed it in the matter of a good Catholic, when he approached me, asking for my confidence in a grievous matter.”

“Confidence?” I asked. “Do I infer that Serge requested the sacrament of confession?”

“No, Brother Jacobus. Though Serge was greatly distressed, and ashamed, as befitting one who might request that intimate audience, he edited (I've not heard edit used this way before, is it correct. I can see the sense in it but it made me pause) not ask for absolution. He proceeded to tell me that since arriving at the village there had been those who had been cruel to him. He had proceeded to try to get to know Benessa, whom he considered to be kind, but when he approached her, she was repulsed by him, and touched him upon the hip, whereupon she made his male member disappear!”

There was chatter among those present in the public stalls at that moment: some snickered and stifled childish laughs, while others cried, “Witch!” and, “Sorceress!” and, “The Evil One is among us!” while others still cried, in lower voices, that Benessa was innocent. Judge Mavelo called for hush, and ordered me to proceed. Benessa, meanwhile, remained straight-faced throughout, a picture of dignity and restraint.

What you've gone and done is written a noir period piece! I'm impressed at your fusion of the historic and the noiristic ;) I like the run-ons and I like the wordiness but I think it often gets in the way. I didn't really find Jacobus a pleasant POV and I assume that is purposeful, and that there is some degree of corruption going on here. When I was reading it, it made me think of The Tempest, and that if there were a prequel to it, showing Prospero's exile, that the court case would come across like this. So that's a nice bit of intrigue. I think the only problem is if Jacobus is meant to be a good egg. There's very little here to suggest he is. He seems either full of himself, or deceptive.

Not too tatterdemalion for a first draft :D

pH
 
“I’d like to call my first witness, Father Riche,” I said.
Your call but I thought a full stop after witness would work better than a comma.
Yes, good spot. Agreed, upon second reading this would be better.

Wow, this is quite a change from MOW. Don't you like sex robots anymore?
I wanted to do something completely different, and this story idea has been bubbling at the back of my mind for months now. It's historical fiction (with a smidgen of a fantasy twist) and requires a lot of research. I think I'll be returning to science fiction after this book!

(I do however note your continued use of penis-removal as a plot device.)
Yeah, I realised that too. What the hell's up with that? Freud would have a field day. But this guy is at least only in this one chapter, just to get things going. The "use" of "sorcery" to "remove" the penis was quite a common thing though, so this would have been a typical, um, complaint. Thanks for the other comments, too. I think when I redraft I'll try to make it as accessible as possible without losing authenticity. I hope to make it entertaining as well as true to style.

Just an fyi:
Wikipedia seems to think there was at least a time when sorcery and heresy were not wholly synonymous.
This is set in the mid 14th century, when the sorcery phenomenon was just gaining traction, especially in the Holy Roman Empire. You're right in that there is a difference ("Franciscan" Dolcinites were heretics, not sorcerers - but sorcerers might be heretics by denouncing the Church through their deeds, for example), and the difference is important for the purposes of the book.

Little Red Riding Satan?
My, what a big horn you have, Granma.
upload_2016-11-29_23-59-16.png


What you've gone and done is written a noir period piece! I'm impressed at your fusion of the historic and the noiristic ;) I like the run-ons and I like the wordiness but I think it often gets in the way.
Cheers - as above, I'll try to make it more accessible on second drafting - I have a tendency towards the prolix in first draft mode, but I can cut back upon second glances.

I think the only problem is if Jacobus is meant to be a good egg. There's very little here to suggest he is. He seems either full of himself, or deceptive.
He is certainly very sure of his capabilities, and knowledge, and techniques in the application of his learning. This is important for his character, as the book is about somebody who is cocksure (but does things for good reasons, as you'd see if you could see the rest of the chapter) and who has their beliefs of the world shattered by things he can't explain. I'd argue he is a good egg, who is full of himself. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

Not too tatterdemalion for a first draft :D
Well I can certainly live with that as an assessment.
 
OK, I've had another read through, and thought about it a bit more. This is going to be lengthy, I'm afraid.

First off, I haven't the faintest idea how witchcraft and/or heresy trials were conducted in C14th northern Italy -- the nearest I've come to it is The Name of the Rose, which is somewhat more complicated in the trial scene, and The Hour of the Pig which is C15th France, but is all about trials, so might be worth a gander if you've not seen it. (I've actually written two courtroom scenes plus one long trial in my C15th-Italianesque fantasy, but mine concentrate on the prosecution, and I've not bothered about historical accuracy so much as emotional truth as it's an invented world.) So if you've done research and you're confident about it all, ignore my comments. However...

To me this doesn't read as real from a practitioner's viewpoint, and it's far too redolent of an American TV courtroom drama, with all the grandstanding, objections, and playing to the jury -- there's a profound difference between how an advocate speaks when trying to persuade several more-or-less ignorant laymen on the one hand and a single experienced, not to say cynical, judge on the other. Obviously, you don't want to make the scene as boring as real-life trials invariably are, but if you want it to be founded in reality I'd urge you to make it less baroquely bombastic and more matter-of-fact and cut to the legal chase -- you can still impose drama onto it, and actually increase the tension by so doing, because if you were hoping to impart any tension here, it's utterly lacking for me.

In that vein, I definitely feel you need to increase the pace a little. I'm not one who insists on everything moving at the speed of light in the opening chapter, but this strays too far the other way for my taste with the lengthy descriptions of characters who will, presumably, pay no further part in the novel after these opening scenes. If you're going to describe anyone, it shouldn't to my mind be the accused, but the prosecutor, whether or not we see this man himself again.

Legal issues which gave me pause:
  • I'm not convinced the two accused would be dealt with in the same trial if they are charged with two very different offences even if the arraignments arise out of exactly the same incident.
  • I don't think this would be a secular matter in medieval Italy, requiring a secular judge in such a case, and certainly not when there are churchmen acting as prosecutor and defender and the trial is being held in a church and not the noble's usual court -- often a specific chamber in the castle. (I think technically the Church never burned anyone during the years of the Inquisition, since those found guilty were handed over to the secular authorities for punishment, but I'm sure that came after conviction in the Church courts, so there perhaps would have been a dual procedure of some kind, at a later date at least.)
  • I'm fairly sure the judge wouldn't be called "Judge [Name]". That's for formally appointed full-time judges, not local lords who act as justices for the area, which I imagine is the case here. Similarly, I doubt he'd be described as "the regional judge". I know Italy didn't have the same feudal system as England, but by and large judicial authority comes from rank and landholding, with jurisdiction only over a relatively small area of ground and law, it's not an administrative/bureaucratic title and unit.
  • "dock" feels very wrong here. I don't know when the concept first arose, though the word itself is only Elizabethan, but it feels a much later development, and anyway would refer to the "box" in which the accused stands in a proper court -- in a church, they'd be just standing to one side.
  • why on earth is he questioning his own client before bringing witnesses?
  • since the prosecution always goes first, the townsfolk will already have heard the charges and prosecution evidence, so why is Jacobus bringing out facts here already known, and why is there laughter at Father Riche's evidence about the missing member as if it's just come up? (Ooops, pun not intended!)
  • "plaintiff" is the term for the originator of a civil action, and I've never seen it used for a complainant in a criminal case, which this is.
  • clearly I've not seen the prosecution evidence, but I doubt very much that the case would proceed on the word of one outsider unless there is a good deal of local animosity towards the two accused, and I doubt even more that whoever was dealing with the issue would have drafted in such a prosecutor and defender to a backwater place like this, unless there is actually some kind of Judicial Inquisitors' Circuit, and the two are going round to everywhere possible doing the same thing over and over again -- which would necessarily tell in the way Jacobus deals with the trial and di Balino.

Historical issues which you might want to check/think about:
  • what language is the trial being conducted in? If it's Latin, I doubt the local lord would be proficient, and certainly none of the peasants would understand a word. I'm not sure if there was at this point a standard Italian language, so who is doing the bulk of the translating?
  • "Benessa of Cuorgné" -- why "of Cuorgné"? (The accent is the wrong one, by the way.) I'd expect that to be used of either someone of rank or an incomer, and she's clearly neither.
  • "gallery" -- would a humble Italian church actually have a gallery? Any of the public watching would be sited well back in the nave.
  • "Signore" would be used as a sign of rank, and surely never used for a peasant other than in mocking.
  • "ragged-trousered" not in the C14th, when laymen wore hose.
  • a prebendary (I've never seen the noun "prebender") is a canon/member of the chapter with a stipend from a Cathedral or collegiate church, which seems at odds with this chap in the back of beyond who is clearly a priest.
  • "a good Catholic" -- would he make the distinction when there isn't a major non-Catholic denomination at this point? I'd have thought "good Christian" was more likely since at this point the two are synonymous.

As a general point, the names you've used seem all over the place, with the English Thomas rather than Tomasso/Tomaso, Riche which doesn't sound Italian to my ears (and isn't a name I've ever come across), and the French Serge not Sergio; the judge's name seems to change every paragraph -- Mavela, Raffaele Mavera, Mavelo -- and who on earth is "the accused, Jane"?!

I've noticed quite a number of nit-picky things, which need looking at. I'm happy to go through with a red pen pointing them out if you want, but as this seems to be a first draft and you're likely to be changing it drastically, I'll hold fire for the moment.

I think that's everything that had come to mind. Anything that's not clear let me know. And despite my niggles, it's an interesting beginning, and I look forward to seeing more.
 
Apologies if I, uhm, do something on your millennium fireworks, but unlike much of your other stuff, this didn't really work for me, I'm afraid. There were a lot of names and long paragraphs with some perhaps over-enthusiastically rich language. To catch my attention, I'd have to engage quickly with the MC himself, or the stakes, or maybe the setting or some idea. But none of those really come across at the moment. Yes, some people's lives are at stake, but not the MC's, to whom this seems merely a job and a chance to perform (I don't get any other sense, though I might have missed it). I'd like some insight into him, or some insight from him.

It doesn't feel, from what we have here, that it's necessary for the story to start at this point. Why not after the trial? Or at the verdict? What is necessary about this scene? (I might not have worried about this if it had moved faster and drawn me in.)

I probably wouldn't have picked up a tenth of TJ's excellent points myself, but I could tell it needed some work to feel historically real. Name of the Rose might not be exactly the same time, but it does capture the feel of medieval Italian religious/inquisitorial concerns perfectly, from what I recall. If you haven't already done so, it might be worth reading.
 
Great crit, TJ, as thorough and as helpful as always. As always, some of the things you've picked up are because the excerpt is just that, and with the context of the rest of the chapter would hopefully make more sense.

Anyway, some responses, which hopefully will lend clarification.

First off, I haven't the faintest idea how witchcraft and/or heresy trials were conducted in C14th northern Italy -- the nearest I've come to it is The Name of the Rose, which is somewhat more complicated in the trial scene, and The Hour of the Pig which is C15th France, but is all about trials, so might be worth a gander if you've not seen it.
I've done my research, and think I'm on firm enough ground with the process about how things are brought to trial; won't go into it here as it's a bit length, but we can share over PMs if you like. As we're both fans of TNOTR, I won't comment on that; I've not read THOTP - I'll take a look.

To me this doesn't read as real from a practitioner's viewpoint, and it's far too redolent of an American TV courtroom drama, with all the grandstanding, objections, and playing to the jury -- there's a profound difference between how an advocate speaks when trying to persuade several more-or-less ignorant laymen on the one hand and a single experienced, not to say cynical, judge on the other. Obviously, you don't want to make the scene as boring as real-life trials invariably are, but if you want it to be founded in reality I'd urge you to make it less baroquely bombastic and more matter-of-fact and cut to the legal chase -- you can still impose drama onto it, and actually increase the tension by so doing, because if you were hoping to impart any tension here, it's utterly lacking for me.
I did wonder how many liberties I was taking with respect to the behaviour of Jacobus.

In that vein, I definitely feel you need to increase the pace a little.
I agree. I'll tighten up subsequent drafts.

If you're going to describe anyone, it shouldn't to my mind be the accused, but the prosecutor, whether or not we see this man himself again.
I'm not sure about this. I take the point about describing the prosecutor, but I wanted to keep Jacobus's descriptions of the accused, as it shows how he views these people (with a detached fascination, rather than empathy, even though he's defending them) - this might get a bit lost without context.

I'm not convinced the two accused would be dealt with in the same trial if they are charged with two very different offences even if the arraignments arise out of exactly the same incident.
I got halfway through writing the rest of this chapter and had exactly the same thought. What's more, is that the drama was all jumbled by having two defendants. So, poor Thomas is being ditched, but I'm pleased he had his moment in the sun with this crit. Benessa will remain the sole defendant.

I don't think this would be a secular matter in medieval Italy, requiring a secular judge in such a case, and certainly not when there are churchmen acting as prosecutor and defender and the trial is being held in a church and not the noble's usual court -- often a specific chamber in the castle.
I'll double check my facts, but if the (perceived) offence is brought to the local official then it would be a local trial but the local jurisdiction is within their rights to ask for support from the Church in the form of theological experts, if the trial was related to a theological matter (which this is). The Church would then put in place timings for the trial. I can fact check on this though.

As to the general legal issues, I of course defer to your expertise, and assume that you get a thumbs up unless I've quote the crit below.

"ragged-trousered" not in the C14th, when laymen wore hose.
It's not the Churchman being referred to as ragged-trousered, but the peasant.


As a general point, the names you've used seem all over the place, with the English Thomas rather than Tomasso/Tomaso, Riche which doesn't sound Italian to my ears (and isn't a name I've ever come across), and the French Serge not Sergio; the judge's name seems to change every paragraph -- Mavela, Raffaele Mavera, Mavelo -- and who on earth is "the accused, Jane"?!
Thomas was a popular name of the time, and wouldn't have been Italianised, or Francised etc (Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Becket, Thomas de Bayeax, all the same given name). The character Serge is a traveller who was worked his way east from the French kingdom. Point taken on the Judge's name (it's supposed to be Mavelo) - it might be Autocorrect was trying to figure out what on earth I was trying to type.

As for Jane, I'm going to have to blame that on the gin. No idea.

@HareBrain thanks for the feedback. I am being knowingly verbose here, partly in trying to convey the sense of a character who is slightly full of himself (as @Phyrebrat spotted, above), and also in trying to get across historical stuff. But I've probably gone too far. I'm not going to worry about it too much yet (I'm suffering all the usual doubts about my ability to pull this off anyway, so I'm not going to fuel my diffidence further until I come to the second draft stage, probably) but will definitely take the point that I need to drastically tighten and improve pace for the next time around. For now, I'm just wrestling with getting down plot and character. As for The Name of the Rose, I've read it twice!
 
Something else I've thought of, which might help highlight the difference with NOTR as far as verisimilitude goes -- but this might be just me -- is the narrative style. This is meant to be a 14thC lawyer telling us his story. But it's done in a very modern manner. NOTR begins with a rambling introduction which seems more in keeping with what I imagine to be the narrative modes of the time: it reads as though it could really be a long memoir written by an elderly monk. Is yours meant to be a written account made afterwards? Is he telling a friend? In neither case could I imagine him starting in media res like that.

I might be peculiar in even asking the question of how/why he's narrating this, but it's something that often occurs to me with first-person when I'm not fully engaged with the story. So maybe this wouldn't bother me if the pacing was faster or the MC more likeable etc. But it might be worth thinking about.
 
Is yours meant to be a written account made afterwards? Is he telling a friend? In neither case could I imagine him starting in media res like that.

Interesting observation. I didn't particularly want to open with a rambling info dump, and I suppose that it is very modern in that respect, which might jar against the period feel. I'm not against fusing the modern with the historic - and part of the rationale for the book (without wishing to sound too poncey) is that it's a book for our times.

Maybe I could have a written prologue by Jacobus, explaining why things start where they do - but again, prologues are supposed to be passé, aren't they? Perhaps one in this instance is justified...
 
Well, like I said, the question tends only to occur to me when I'm not properly engaged in the first place, so rather than risk prologue-rage, your best strategy is to make sure I am (and other readers too, I suppose, if you think that's worth your concern).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads


Back
Top