From: djheydt@kithrup.com
In article ,
Capuchin wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 14:38:58 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>In article <8a1grg1jfad685lmlmaatv1mumofegsvbq@4ax.com>,
>>Capuchin wrote:
>>>
>>>The blackjack dealer slid a card from the shoe to the square in front
>>>of me and then took one for herself. My other knew I had a queen and
>>>she a six, but to maintain my disguise as a normal person, I lifted
>>>the corner of mine for a quick peek. The next cards, dealt face up,
>>>were an eight for me and a jack for her.
>>> [Snip]
>>>
>>>What would you do different?
>>>
>>Well: is this the opening of the story, or an extract from later?
>>If it's an extract, perhaps you'd want to introduce "my other" in
>>some not-too-explain-y way. Appparent they can sense predetermined
>>order, which exists in the present, but can't predict random
>>actions that will happen in the future? (This almost makes
>>sense.)
>>
>>I am handicapped in this discussion by knowing damn-all about
>>blackjack--it is blackjack, isn't it?
>>
>>Possibly an opening paragraph might help, on the order of
>>
>>"We walked into the casino, my other and I. I heard the rattle
>>of dice, the nervous chatter of voices, smelled high-quality
>>booze and cheap perfume. But my other fed me the order of cards
>>in the deck, one deck becoming clear as it finished its last
>>shuffle, and [whatever else the other can see because it exists
>>in the present.]"
>>
>>But it's an interesting concept. Go with it.
>
>This is the opening.Yes, it's blackjack. You draw cards until you're
>as high as possible without going over 21, and then whoever has the
>highest hand wins. In casinos, the dealer has to stand on 17 and above
>and draw on 16 or less.
>
>One problem I've had is making sure there's no hint of another
>person/body involved, as in "significant other." I've learned that if
>a reader gets an idea there are two people, nothing will shake it
>loose. Even when told, by other characters' statements/actions they
>see only one person, the reader will still think there are two, but
>maybe one is a ghost, or invisible, or . . .
>
>I considered: ". . . My other way of seeing showed I had a queen . .
>.," . . . "My unseen other eyeball looked through the cards . . .,"
>and . . . "My magic-induced other sight showed . . .," but nothing
>along these lines feels right.
>
>That he only sees things that are fixed adds, I think, on two
>different levels. It prevents him from being omniscient (and leading a
>perfect life), and it makes him wonder if there are people whose
>others can see the future (he doesn't know the source of his 'gift').
>
>There might be a later scene with him in a non-casino card game. He
>knows the next card will give him a full house, but what he's dealt is
>different. He instantly knows his opponent is dealing seconds, but he
>can't call him out on it ("I psychically knew what my next card would
>be" won't win you any friends at the poker table) .
>
No, I don't think so. I think your phrase "my other" works in
part *because* your viewpoint character doesn't specify what
their other is; we only see it doing its thing.
I still think a very short introduction showing the other doing
their thing, observing the present of one or more card decks
before the protagonist is in the throes of the game, might make a
smoother entrance into the story.
Or maybe not. There have been stories before about people with a
personal other, but this is a whole 'nother take. You do you.
I'd like to see other people's take on your opening, but rasf-c
has been moribund for a long time.
(Maybe I'll post a note on rasf-w, suggesting that others take a
look here.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
