View single post by Poet
 Posted: Thu May 17th, 2007 09:46 am
PM Quote Reply Full Topic


Joined: Sun Aug 20th, 2006
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom
Posts: 183
Hi Billy

Firstoff, I have to say that I preferred the first version as a work in progress - it seemed to have more conflict and something more important to say about a whole bunch of issues, and for me, I think you could do more with it; this one doesn't seem to be going somewhere as interesting.

The Deacons vote him in or not; because it's a fine line, there's no space for me, as an audience, to debate it. Here, I could easily see the justice of either decision, and all characters' views, whereas previously I could see the humanity of both points of view - the Minister's and the paedophile's - and it left me with a human dilemma. I resented the Minister's hypocrisy whilst sympathising with his desire to protect his flock (the good man taking a decision I hated) and equally I could admire the honesty and desire to reform of the paedophile, whilst reviling him for his previous actions (the bad man taking a decision I admired).

This version doesn't have that irreconcileable problem; I don't think I'd be debating the issue in the bar afterwards as I would with the first.

However... this one is perhaps more of an interesting backstory to explain some preceeding action. What do I know - but this feels like a denouement to me and (dare I say it) possibly not as original as your first draft.

Sorry mate - I really liked the first version, but this one, whilst nicely crafted here and there (I liked the eraser-clapping touch of life) left me a little bit cold. Also - I struggled a bit to keep all the character relationships / age-timelines in my mind, and I think anything that makes a reader/audience work too hard maybe needs rethinking?