19 replies to this topic

[Xenobia]

Hello all:

For those of you who care (and I know there are those who violently don't care, so stop reading this thread right now), my fan novel "Heaven Isn't Too Far Away," is now up at MI6.co.uk.

In addition, they interviewed me about the novel, and that will appearing there shortly.

As always...I live for feedback, so please let me know what you think of it...and in particular the climax of the story.

-- Xenobia

[DanMan]

Just started to read your story and its really great. I'm looking foward to a long series. Your interview was great also.

[Xenobia]

Thanks DanMan for the encouragement!

-- Xenobia

[killkenny kid]

And if you don't care. You sould, or you will miss a damn fine time.

[Xenobia]

I think I better say at this point that I am not paying anyone for these testimonials...this is really very kind. Thanks.

-- Xenobia

[BONDFINESSE 007]

your story is very very good, so now all we need to do is get it made in to a movie i can see pierce in your story so clear as i read it keep up the good work

[Xenobia]

Bondfinesse:

From your mouth to MGM's ears. PB did say he wants something he can sink his teeth into...I think he would enjoy this "meal."

-- Xenobia

[_JW_]

Wow... your story is brilliant! I just started reading and now I'm hooked!

[Xenobia]

Thanks JW!

But fokks come on...there has got be stuff you don't like. Tell me what it is. I can't improve my writing unless I get positive and negative feedback.

-- Xenobia

[_JW_]

Err... well I noticed a couple of spelling errors.

When I finish reading it I can give you some more positive/negatives about the story.

[Xenobia]

Yeah JW...I suffer from the Hooked on Phonics disorder..."Hookt on fonics workt four me!"

Please do give me that feedback. I look foward to it.

-- Xenobia

[_JW_]

Okay... here's some more positives/negatives on the story.

Negatives:

~ Like I said earlier, some minor spelling mistakes. No big deal
~ In dialogue, I noticed that the characters say things like "Do not" instead of "Don't", or "Is not" as opposed to "Isn't" or "I am" instead of "I'm". When I write fiction I try to imagine the characters saying the dialogue out loud. It seems awkward for Bond to always say "Do not worry." when "Don't worry." would be more appropriate. That's not to say that a person wouldn't say 'Do Not', but I don't think they would ALL the time. Does this make sense? Am I quibbling?
~ There are a couple of instances of 'info dumps', where lots of information is dropped at one time. Chapter 39 is an example of this. It just seems like everything happens at once, or too quickly.
~ Just HOW MANY times can Ben Alin and Torch Boy get knocked out? LOL j/k

Positives:
~ You were able to hook me from the beginning and make me want to keep reading the story
~ I liked the exchanges between the Q branch agents and Bond. They were funny and you definately captured their relationship with one another well
~ Some good Bond one-liners
~ I like the emotions Bond goes through as he struggles with his feelings for Amanda. I think you captured part of the human side of Bond... even the icy cool killing machine has feelings too, etc. There was some good character development.
~ Seriously... if and when you decide to write another piece of Bond fiction, bring back Ben Alin and Torch Boy as henchmen for your next Bond villian! They had the perfect chemistry of vileness and bufoonery that could only come from being a Bond villan's underling.

And here's my favorite bit of dialogue from the piece...

***

[Xenobia]

Hey JW:

The contraction vs not contraction debate goes on. I was told Fleming did not use contractions ie Don't and can't when writing. Now, we also all know Pierce Brosnan's Bond does use contractions. The man even said "Yo" in GE for God's sake. I am still figuring out when and where to use contractions. Thanks for that feedback.

As for the "dumping" of info...are you refering to the speech Rocher gives where he lets Bond in on his secret plans?????

As for Ben Alin and Torchboy....don't worry. They will be back. ;-)

And thanks for sharing your favorite bit of dialogue. I was wondering how that particular scene would go over. Thank you letting me know you liked it -- and the Q bits.

-- Xenobia

[$Moneypenny$]

Really LURVED the story, started reading it before I made the Xen/Barbara Emanuele connection (forgive me, I have the intelligence of a newt ). Now I can let you know how much I thought it rocked! Thought your female characterisations were fantastic (Amanda is great), strong without being overtly 'try hard', they leave Christmas Jones for dead (I too am of the opinion that Bond "shot the wrong girl"). Roll on the film version! Loved the Q dialogue too. Ah, what the heck, loved the whole thing! Well done.

[_JW_]

If you were writing fiction in the Fleming style then I would understand your non-use of contraction, but since it was Brosnan... that's what I meant. I knew I could somehow explain it better. Thanks for 'getting it'.

[Jim]

OK - finished it.

What I thought I'd do, instead of giving an overall impression - favourable, by the way - is to concentrate on an individual chapter and draw out of that some general points which I think apply to all, and obviously some specific points to that chapter. The general points are more numerous.

The chapter is not the pørn explosion (and if that doesn't get those who haven't read it interested, what will I don't know) but chapter 39. This I chose because it's one of the longer ones and if there are detail points made, I don't think it will give away too much of the plot.

General points.

The really general point is the style. It reads as a play script, or a screen treatment. The dialogue/description emphasis is, to my mind, out of balance. Everyone says things; there's not a huge amount of thinking going on. True; we don't see "thinking" on screen or on stage, but perhaps there's too much of a temptation to put what could otherwise be thoughts into people's mouths rather than their minds. Example: towards the end of the chapter, there's quite a brusque conversation between Bond and Amanda, and it's played out in dialogue. What isn't happening is the immediate thoughts the characters have to what the other has just said. Fine, so Bond films (especially) are noted for smart (-ish), snappy badinage, but to have everything said is perhaps over-theatric at the expense of exploring descriptions, thoughts, feelings, moods.

Coupled with this is the reliance on the reader's knowledge of Bond - not necessarily the character, but his environment. The chapter occurs wholly in one place, which is described like a "dateline" in the heading - and then no further descriptions are given, save the occasional references to the doors and tables lying about. Obviously, from seeing it on screen, we know what M's office looks like but have you anything to say in how you describe it? From memory, the Dench M office is pale panelled walls, light carpets and soft lighting, a cocoon from the unleashing of blood that emanates from it, the restful eye of the storm etc. The emphasis on poetry at the expenseof prose somehow gives the impression that, although clearly your aimis to see this on screen, and you're writing what you visualise on screen, sometimes the context of the action is lost. In some cases, words might speak louder than actions and I think that if you developed a "sense of place" that will work to an atmospheric advantage.

Which leads on to the next general point. The emphasis on snappy lines above physical geography, which I can understand given the desire to keep the plot moving (if, subject to the first caveat above, you want the plot to be expressed and developed by character word rather than thought/deed/internalised reaction), lead to some confusion about where people were at any particular point in the chapter. At one point Q (who appears to have been demoted to teaboy, by the way) is in the room and then he appears to come in again, or at least not to have left when there's a moment of mass exodus. perhaps that's careless reading on my part, but my view is that if you work on placing the characters where you want them and keep them there (which again, is a result of descriptive writing rather than dialogue), it would be much easier to follow (and less immediately surprising when a character one thought had wandered off is proven not to have). Furthermore, albeit a little point, there's a lot of characters standing up when it's unclear whether they are sitting down! OK - so boring to keep writing - "A sat down and B sat down and C sat down", but I guess the descriptive skill comes through in how you would express that. It was unclear, until you note that Bond sat(or was it stood?), that he was standing (or was it sitting?)at the start of the chapter (unless you mentioned that at the end of the previous one;sorry, can't remember).

But the overall geography is a bit - how can I put this - oblique? Sometimes one is unclear whether a character is coming or going and the trouble is, that reflected my own position in the chapter - wasn't too clear who was where and when and why at any given time.

That's my principal general criticism. Speaking as an editor, I think you would do well to work on "place" as much as deed.

I think your emphasis on dialogue, which flows freely, is perhaps a result of an over-complex plot and the fear that somehow, if you launch into florid descriptions, you will lose the audience's interest in the plot. I can understand that, and I'm not suggesting that I couldn't follow what was going on from chapter one, so...trust the reader alittle more. it's exposition heavy. Relax a little. To that end, and in its current form, you have achieved your aim of writing a Brosnan style Bond piece - they are generally over fussy and too tortuous. Consider the early Bond films - their plots, perhaps FRWL an exception, were simplistic to the point of being laughable, really, and time was taken to relax the audience away from the plot by showing them some things that weren't directly related to it - think the expansive travelogue in YOLT, which isn't ultimately necessary to a film about pinching spacecraft, but in the context of the film it works. The filmmakers are confident enough to ignore the plot for a few minutes and have a visual ramble on something completely irrelevant. It's incredibly confident filmmaking, because the plot is straightforward enough that they can recapture the audience having shown us a bit of Japan, or in thunderball, having shown us some nice fish and the junkanoo. Now, with the Brosnan films, that sense of luxury, that sense of confidence of the environment, is lost - the locations seem immaterial to the action, and it is constant press, press, press and constant plot, plot, plot. The point is - we got it the first time. Overcomplicate the story and one has to keep bringing the audience back to it (eg AFRICAN CONFLICT DIAMONDS, repeated ad nauseam). There's little or no trust invested in the audience. Give us a breather, show us something rather than telling us.

This isn't meant to hijack the thread to rant on, but to be more positive about the written Brosnan - which I think you have captured, and if that's the objective, well done. But a more simple (which doesn't mean simplistic) plot would mean, I think, you could be more confident about letting go of it now and again. This would, in turn I think, perhaps reduce the over-reliance on dialogue to propel the story forwards, give you time to - effectively, stretching the film analogy - give us some travelogue, show us something which ultimately isn't relentless exposition. I think the point is relax - have faith in us. Give us some space to enjoy the environment. Have a structured beginning, middle, end, and a plot (of course) but don't over-complicate it at the expense of feeling confident enough to let go of it now and again. Calm.

I think this is true of the whole book except, strangely enough, the pørnucopia.

Specific points (chapter 39, remember?)

First para. contains what could be construed as offensive comment about the nature of international politics. Remember - Mr Bin Laden was CIA trained, after all.

Third and fourth para - OK, picky and a bit demeaning to refer to spelling, but I'm very sure that a H-Bomb could do damage to a dessert. I know chocolate mousse gives the wife wind, but that's going a bit far. Did you mean desert?

Fourth para also a case in the general point - character asks us to imagin the damage. Why not let the imgination fly and tell us the damage?

Still on the first "page" as it appears in printed form), "public dole" is an Americanism. Sorry - not wishing to make an ultimately sterile point, and by no means criticising your otherwise admirable capturing of British idiom throughout the rest of the book. Then again, if this is a Brosnan ond, given Robinson's remark about "D M Zee" in DAD, it's entirely within character for him to be - shall we say - transatlantic!

When you refer to "R asked stupidly" - I was unclear. Is it R asking something in a stupid manner - ie he has some sort of speech defect - or that the question is stupid. Presumably, given the question, the latter. If so - who is thinking him stupid - you or Bond? If Bond, why not turn it around into an internalised reaction - like :-

"Are you accusing Q?" R asked.
Bond considered this a stupid question...

I know Bond rolls his eyes in response, but that's a bit camp...another point on the BrosnanBondO-Meter (sorry, bit cruel). But it's the general point number one again - don't be afraid of telling us reactions which aren't expressed.

Moving on, wasn't entitrely sure (as I've already noted) why Q has been demoted to fetch and carry and message relayer. Nice to have them all there, in a MI6 scene - but you might want to give them something a bit more likely to do!

When you have Bond having a think about Amanda still being thought of as an innocent, do you mean..."let us hope yout luck runs out after all this is over" - maybe a typo on the "is" anyway, but I thought it a curious sentiment. I suppose in the context of the rest of the book, it makes sense, but this may be a point where, deviating wildly from my general observation I know, you might want to draw the reader back to why Bond might be thinking that way. Something prefacing the bit in italics like..."Considering her [actions? I forget what] with/at [whoever/wherever], Bond thought "You have been lucky...."". Something like that , which I think would emphasise your overall point about the conflicted and conflicting relationship between Bond and Amanda which still comes over extremely convincingly.

(Even though I'm still not sold on Amanda)

Not sure "knick your suit" is a British expression. May be wrong but I've never heard it.

[Jim]

OK - 10,000 character limit exceeded. (That's the post, not the story!!)

Continuing on...

When the Cotton Exchange explosion happens, wouldn't they hear it? Again - they tendency to have characters reacting to others' reportage, rather than events I think works slightly against the understanding of the clarity of the plot. Maybe that's just me.

M's question of "where" in response to the information is a silly question. Unless the Dench M has been hitting the booze again (was it just tea in those cups?). If that's the implication - again, another capturing of a BrosnanBond element!

Silly little point, but in the final line, isn't it "airborne", not "air born", unless you want to imply that Bond is some sort of heavenly body. Don't go there...

All other points derive from the general points already raised.

Summary

1. Little doubt that you have a knowledge of brosnanBond and an enthusiasm for it. That isn't meant to disparage. This is convincingly a BrosnanBond story, and meets your objective entirely. You plainly have a persuasion to that style of Bond, and that Bond in particular. there is no doubt that the Bond here is Brosnan and nobody else and it's plain that you understand the man and the character he plays inside out (not intended as a double entendre, but feel free to play). It convinces as coherent to the current Bond idiom.

2. But learn to trust us. Don't overcomplicate things by too much relentless exposition. Give us a frippery, a nothing, an amuse-bouche, something that goes nowhere. Let us exhale.

3. I did enjoy it - as a depiction of a BrosnanBond story it works. But - and this is intended as constructive - give us a bit more geography and try not to overburden the reader with plot - too much plot means more capacity for holes. Maybe strip the BrosnanBond down a little.

On that image, I must depart.

Hope this helps.

[Harmsway]

Jeez. You certainly took your time with that one.

[Xenobia]

Jim:

Trust me I will privately thank you in greater detail later, but for now suffice to say I thank you from the bottom of my heart for all the great advice you have given me.

Suffice to say here, someone else of literary calibur has read the story and made the same critques. Revisions have been made and will continue to be made so I thank you for your detailed remarks.

As for stripping down the Brosnan Bond...note well the pørn chapter. *ahem.* Just kidding.

I really felt like I had to give a good amount of dialogue or at least some sort of exposition to explain why Bond feels as he does about Amanda. But your point is well taken.

All my love --

-- Xenobia

[Jim]

My pleasure.