Review Request: For Riches or More (again?)

Responses

  1. TanaNari (Member)

    Posted 3 years ago

    @ Gloomy.

    All of it in a day? Talk about binge reading.

    Anywho- there's no debating that she's guilty of all you listed and more. But in the end she had her free will stolen from her. Granted, her 'free will' was going around killing people for the fun of it. So as far as brainwashed slavery goes, there aren't many targets which are more "acceptable".

    But I still don't see how that's a "happy" ending for her. I can see an argument that it's preferable to the execution she'd receive otherwise... but I rather expected people to see mind control enforced functional enslavement as a fate worse than death. Even if her slavers are about as nice as nice can be.

    I got that reaction from my commenters, but if the larger base is missing the point, then I need to fix the story to make it a bit more clear.

    @BHP- I wasn't the one who brought it up. But you've already openly stated you have a problem with me, though I have no idea what I did to upset you. So I don't think fair is something you're in this for.

    Author of Price.
  2. gloomybear86 (Member)

    Posted 3 years ago

    @Tana: Nothing I read implied that she lost her free will. That's where I drew the "happy ending" comment from. In-universe, Chloe refers to the pairbonding situation as a soulmate connection, and I believe Granny Greenwitch implies a similar relationship. In any case, she isn't upset about pairbonding, she's upset about pairbonding with Cece. Nothing there tells me that a person's will can be consumed, especially since she's still herself enough to fuck with Bea at the end.

    Was this something covered in more depth in the first book?

    Note: All of it in a couple of hours, actually. I'm a fast reader.

    For Riches or More: You can't always steal what you want.
  3. TanaNari (Member)

    Posted 3 years ago

    Nah, the first book doesn't touch on Pairbonds at all.

    Cecelia went from fiercely independent (and psychotic) to downright submissive in what was effectively a single chapter.

    She walked into a conflict yearning for death, because she couldn't stand the idea of *running*. Preferring instead to die on her feet than cower. Only to submit after what was, at best, token resistance.

    Granted, it cut both ways. Chloe was more than ready to kill, and Domenic was at least of the "get her in a cell for life" camp. They, too, were dragged into this effect. So it's more or less mutual. But it was two minds against one, so there was that as well.

    As to Chloe. If I hadn't made it clear her worldview was childishly naive and idealistic by the end there? Then I know I screwed something up bad.

    But Pairbonds are something of a 'mystery' even in the setting. Only a few people ever experience one, and those that do rarely talk about them in any great detail. Most people with opinions don't really know what they're talking about.

    I like the shrouded in mystery thing.

    Author of Price.
  4. gloomybear86 (Member)

    Posted 3 years ago

    Going from psychotic to "willing to work with my soul-mates" is still a far cry from her being mentally enslaved. She was made BETTER by the pairbond, in that sense.

    It's an abrupt character shift, yes, but the way it's written doesn't make it seem like something she's resisting or even something she's against happening to her.

    For Riches or More: You can't always steal what you want.
  5. TanaNari (Member)

    Posted 3 years ago

    Of course she wasn't resisting (past a certain point, at least). Her ability to resist was taken from her.

    Chloe was the only one who understood the implications enough to *try* to resist... and that didn't last very long...

    Author of Price.
  6. gloomybear86 (Member)

    Posted 3 years ago

    Okay. I don't think that's very clear in the text. As written, it seems like an all-around good thing, except that Chloe and Dom are now paired with a (formerly?) psychotic serial killer.

    For Riches or More: You can't always steal what you want.
  7. TanaNari (Member)

    Posted 3 years ago

    Yeah. Sometimes the whole "subtlety" thing means not everyone sees it. I tried to make it clear enough without making it ham-fisted as hell. Plus, there are a lot of people in setting who are Pairbonded and quite happy about it... it is, in a way, meant to be for the reader to decide how they feel.

    True Love (though how 'true' is it when it's forced on you?) and increased power, at the cost of a good chunk of your personal autonomy and free will. Values call, that one.

    Personally, I thought it was at least clear enough that was happening to the three of them was forces well beyond their personal control. No choice, no consent, was given by any of the three any more than Luna chooses to orbit the Earth.

    And, yeah, I can see you being in the 'it's not a horrible death made mostly of fire like she deserved' camp. Even agree with it, in that I want the story to be ambiguous enough for people to draw their own life lessons from it.

    But I just can't see how people can think that result is legitimately 'happy', even for those who would consider the Pairbonds a good thing. I'd love to see an argument in the direction of why it's an unambiguously 'happy' ending for her?

    Maybe I just put more value on the concept of free will than most people?

    Author of Price.
  8. Tempest (Member)

    Posted 3 years ago

    Tana, if its up to the reader, by your own words, and it is by the nature of writing, then shut the fuck up arguing.

  9. Tartra (Member)

    Posted 3 years ago

    @Tana - It's a difference of opinion. Gloomy, the reader, read what you wrote a certain way and gave his review based on that. You can either edit your chapters to address his feedback or let it go and say, "Hey, I guess it just didn't click with this guy. Oh well, can't win 'em all."

    Remember, he gave you four stars and a very positive review. The way you keep picking at this issue is pretty needlessly confrontational.

    The Other Kind of Roommate — Like Fight Club meets X-Men meets The Matrix meets Superbad.
  10. Billy Higgins Peery (Member)

    Posted 3 years ago

    Tana, you have gotten into so many flame wars these past couple days. And you can blame it on the 'nutjobs' who disagree with you, the 'sjw's who apparently don't know anything, but this is why a lot of the members of this community have a problem with you. The thread you specifically refer to, which can be found here, is the root of much of my umbrage with you.

    You are a problem. And you can deflect on that front as much as you want, but many members of this community know that you're a problem. None of what you're saying will change that.

    "Any number of hitlers, are still not my problem." -Tempest
  11. TanaNari (Member)

    Posted 3 years ago

    Not arguing. Debating. Learning. You're allowed to discuss things without it being a 'confrontation', people.

    If Gloomy can explain his thoughts and points in a way I can use to go back, edit, and improve upon my story... then I'd be screwing myself over as a writer NOT to hear his points and make my own counterpoints.

    That's how improvement happens. What a sad world we'd live in without the ability to debate with one another without it being seen as an attack.

    Author of Price.
  12. Tartra (Member)

    Posted 3 years ago

    You've made your counterpoints. Now end it.

    The Other Kind of Roommate — Like Fight Club meets X-Men meets The Matrix meets Superbad.
  13. Tempest (Member)

    Posted 3 years ago

    As a bunch, we are pretty bright, Tana. We can tell the difference between argument and debate. This has been an argument right since you said something. As has pretty much every thread you have been in.

    You can admit what we all know, or carry on pretending. But you ain't fooling no one.

  14. TanaNari (Member)

    Posted 3 years ago

    Well. No one's forcing you to talk to me.

    But free speech means not just the right to say something. It includes the rights of others to disagree and offer their own statements. If Gloomy's willing to discuss the finer points of literary technique and help me find ways to improve the story and make my points clearer, who are you to silence that?

    In a mature, adult world, it would go 'here's what I think', followed by 'I was going for something else, actually', followed by 'eh, came out more like this' eventually culminating in 'ah, so this is what I can change which will let me hit the mark I aimed for rather than what I hit, instead'.

    I'm not accusing Gloomy of having the wrong opinion. I'm saying I don't understand his opinion and want to know more so I can adapt and improve. We've established he didn't catch the 'tone', because he didn't feel it was that well established. Now I'm showing where I did include those tones and hints (subtle though many were). If we keep progressing, perhaps it'll lead me to locate the exact things I can do to add those points and strengthen the message.

    That's how science works. You don't try to prove a theory. You seek to *destroy* a theory, and only if it proves unbreakable can you believe it to be true. Until something does eventually disprove it.

    Author of Price.
  15. FrustratedEgo (Member)

    Posted 3 years ago

    There's a lot going back and forth here, and while it hurts my head to keep up with the subtleties I will point out three things.

    One, this forum is mostly used by writers, which means everyone here should be aware that word choice changes message tones.

    Two, what was intended to be said in the 'spirit of the word' may not be what was received in the 'letter of the world; if we adopt legal rulings to the situation.

    Three, if a message is being received in a negative light by multiple people, the common denominator is the person writing the message.

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.