The Girl in the Alamo -- Part One

[Brya]

What do you think of the first part of Kenner's story?

[Agravaine]

First thing's first: it's a SPaGtastic mess, especially the historical note. Random changes in tense, unnecessary verbiage, the whole shebang. Similarly, I'm not certain of some of the diction -- is blood really "slimy," or is it more sticky? Shrug.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with Beatrice's perception of death. I think children have a better understanding of death than is generally acknowledged. She's able to tell how long her brother has been dead and she's grown up on a ranch -- I find it hard to believe that she understands the mechanism but not the consequences.

Things I hope to see in future installments:
-- Some sort of grappling with cultural identity, American v. Texan v. Mexican.
-- Some sort of mention of religious identity. For example, is Papa an early atheist, which is why Beatrice has no theological explanations for death at her fingertips?
-- Moral ambiguity! I'm hoping "Hero" is not a symbolic feminine-national embodiment of the Alamo defenders and their inevitable death, but rather a death of heroism itself.

In any case, I'm really excited to see where this story is going.

[LordTBT]

I hate to say it, but this is just plagued with historical inaccuracies.

There were no American (United States military) forces. And the word "Texan" didn't exist. There was the Texian forces, though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texian

To make matters worse, it's claimed the Mexican Army was 5,000 strong in the history note, when it was really 2,400. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Alamo

Also if we're going for proper naming accuracy, "Beatriz" is the Spanish derivation of "Beatrice", which is the Anglo version of the name.

The switching between Spanish/English is just incorrect. You have Mexicans speaking Spanish to characters, and your characters reply to the Mexicans in English, and the Mexicans somehow are perfectly capable of comprehending the English.

Finally, the "Texan drawl" is a bit cliche, and historically impossible at this point. The region was largely French and Spanish for centuries, until it became Mexican land (meaning Spanish was still the main language) for approximately 15 years in the early 1800s.

The Southern American dialect of English was practically non-existent here; in fact the first group of Anglo-American settlers to Texas were from Louisiana, which remember - had only been free from French control for two decades.

Sam Houston and Stephen Austin were from Virgina, they were New Englanders. No drawl there.

If you're going to write historical fiction, it's imperative you're actually familiar with the history of the events, places, and people. Especially when you make glaring errors in the historical note. Research helps.

[Kenner]

Aggy:


I wrote this several years ago, and I didn't look over it before I sent it to Ash. I'm sorry about the spag, I thought she had the edited version..


TBT :

Forgive me for not being perfect.

The story was based on a dream I had, and the historical note was simply supposed to be a brief thing to give people an idea of what happened. I'm not a historian and if there are errors, it's because the research I did do might have either been inaccurate or I simply didn't look closely enough. As for the numbers of the army, that was with research. it might have been wrong, but that was the number I found when I did look into it.

And as for switching between spanish and english, well then hey, I could write it all in spanish and then no one could understand it an we'd all be happy.

Aside from the inaccuracies in the historical note which I can't excuse if they're wrong, the STORY is historical FICTION. That means it's not true. That means I can do whatever I want with it. That means I can introduce green little men from mars and zombies if I like.

[Agravaine]

Hey Kenner, chill out. It wasn't a personal attack on you, and he does raise some valid points. While it is historical fiction, obvious (and pointless) historical inaccuracies can really jerk the reader out of the story.

And before TBT points this out in more scathing terms, yeah, poor research is your fault and is something for which you can expect to be held accountable.

[Kenner]

I'm sorry.... I apologize, for my apparent hostility. It's been a very long and rather rough month and I realize that my story isn't 100% up to par. I do appreciate constructive criticism.... but I as well as everyone else, like it delivered in a slightly more gentle manner. And TBT's reply got under my skin. would it hurt him to point out something he DID like amid everything he found wrong?

Again... I apologize for my 'non chill' moment.

As I said before, it's been a long month.

[Agravaine]

I hope March is a better month for you.

[LordTBT]

Wow, I think I just spotted a flying pig out my window. Agravaine got my back on something!

Kenner, your first reply sent off a giant red flag *awoogah awoogah* alert for me.

I wrote this several years ago

More of a question to the director here really and not yourself: why is the 'new' Terrouge using stories written years ago instead of freshly written content?

The story was based on a dream I had, and the historical note was simply supposed to be a brief thing to give people an idea of what happened. I'm not a historian and if there are errors, it's because the research I did do might have either been inaccurate or I simply didn't look closely enough. As for the numbers of the army, that was with research. it might have been wrong, but that was the number I found when I did look into it.

I'm not criticizing the concept of the story, or even the idea of the story. Be as creative as you want! I'm just stating that if you're going to write historical fiction, meaning you are basing your story around real events, you appear more credible if your 'facts' are actually accurate regarding that point in time. And if someone familiar with the history (like me for example) reads the story, scratches their chin, and says "Hey, that's not right", then, as Agravaine said, it jerks the reader out of the story. And when the facts are wrong in the historical note, why would anyone want to read beyond that?

That means I can do whatever I want with it. That means I can introduce green little men from mars and zombies if I like.

Absolutely. You could absolutely have undead zombies siding with the Texian forces. But if you say there were American forces there, without detailing that in your version of history, the US military sided with Texas, it comes across as poor, do you see?

[Ashen Fox]

More of a question to the director here really and not yourself: why is the 'new' Terrouge using stories written years ago instead of freshly written content?

Partially? Because I see nothing fundamentally wrong with using older content. As I'm sure you could tell by the fact that the issue was a month late (again, my apologies on that note) it was a bit of a difficult transition for me in general, and any and all articles were welcome.

[Agravaine]

Wow, I think I just spotted a flying pig out my window. Agravaine got my back on something! ?

Frighteningly, I came close to posting an almost identical comment, flying pig and all.

Maybe we're not so different after all, you and I....

Yeah right.

[Kenner]

The story was never published in the terrouge mag before. Therefore it's not 'old' to terrouge, it's simply old in my files. I grabbed it because it was a finished story.