Julia Carpenter: [checks a photo of a man] So, who is he? Cassandra Webb: That man is Ezekiel Sims. He was in the Amazon with my mom when she was researching spiders right before she died. That horrible final sentence is a famous writing failure from 2024. We laughed, we cried. We did not watch the movie. Everyone realized that this was poor writing, but I don't recall anyone correcting the error(s). Since we are a writing board, can you use your writing skills and improve it? Can you explain why that sentence fails? When you consider the scene, even the short lead-in reply doesn't really work. It's artificial, but that's an easy edit. Let's see who the Master of Revision is.
Well... is there any revision needed? It's a line of dialogue, and it is something that someone might actually *say*, even if it's wrong.
I've not heard of this and have no context to go on. Just as well... Julia Carpenter:[checks a photo of a man] Who's this guy? Cassandra Webb: Ezekiel Sims. He worked with Mom in Amazon. Julia Carpenter: Complaints department? Cassandra Webb: No. Pest control. You know those warehouses. Spider infestation. Julia Carpenter: Wait! Your mother's name is Webb and her job was killing spiders? Cassandra Webb: I know, right. What ass gave us these names? Anyway, Mom and Ezekiel got it together behind a pallet of small electrical items... Julia Carpenter: You mean...? Cassandra Webb: Yeah. The sequel is guaranteed to have a sex scene and the actress playing my mother is ten years younger than me!
Well, the first thing that jumps at me is the exposition. It's so dead pan, told in such a matter-of-fact way that has so little impact. Cassandra's tone comes across as too flat and unemotional about her own mother's death. the way it's written is also a bit clumsy. Cassandra's line is two sentences: one simple sentence and then this... overly long sentence with multiple clauses. It's that long sentence in particularly that wraps up everything so quickly. As for a fix? I'm really not sure. I'll let the next poster possibly figure that out or add something more useful. I could be wrong about the problem, lol. Just in case anyone is wondering: There is nothing wrong with exposition inherently. It's just this particular case that badly executes on it.
I try to write dialogue in the way I imagine it would appear in someone's head. So, I will give it a try: That's Ezekiel Sims. My mom knew him. She was in the Amazon with him. She was researching spiders there, right before she died.
That's a better attempt. It at least breaks up the sentence and tries to add a bit more emotion to the tone. It feels like it lacked that before.
@Seven Crowns - I like this game! Something that came to my mind was the opening of The Handmaid's Tale - so many commas!! How can we improve it? We slept in what had once been the gymnasium. The floor was of varnished wood, with stripes and circles painted on it, for the games that were formerly played there; the hoops for the basketball nets were still in place, though the nets were gone. A balcony ran around the room, for the spectators, and I thought I could smell, faintly like an afterimage, the pungent scent of sweat, shot through with the sweet taint of chewing gum and perfume from the watching girls, felt-skirted as I knew from pictures, later in miniskirts, then pants, then in one earring, spiky green-streaked hair. Dances would have been held there; the music lingered, a palimpsest of unheard sound, style upon style, an undercurrent of drums, a forlorn wail, garlands made of tissue-paper flowers, cardboard devils, a revolving ball of mirrors, powdering the dancers with a snow of light.
You want to give Maragret Atwood editing advice? Why don't we teach Steph Curry a thing or two about shooting 3s next, haha.
Margaret Atwood found acclaim because of her themes, not her writing ability. I don't think she is a good writer.
But let's give it a go. Here's how I would write it: He and my mom were researching spiders in the Amazon, right before she died. The original sentence doesn't tell us why he was in the Amazon, just that he was with the mother. He might have just been there, which could be the case but as I have no context, I will assume he was assisting her. It also doesn't tell us how long he was there. Did he just show up right before she died? Saying that he was also a researcher suggests that he was there for the whole trip, and doesn't sneakily suggest that he was responsible for her death - unless that implication is intentional.
It's funny that this line is it's own punchline. If you immediately asked someone who quoted it why exactly it's bad, they might have to stop and think for a moment. I don't think rewriting it would fix the problem. For example: It's still too much information in one go. I also don't think pawning the exposition onto her friends is entirely sufficient either, e.g.: I think the correct solution is actual showing. It's a shame when the medium is underutilized. A scene where Webb stands at the border to her mother's cobwebbed study, working up the courage to step in, where the shot is framed by specimens, journals, (perhaps the opening to the scene is panning over these, then the camera hangs on Webb standing at the door) would be more effective in telling part of the story. Or whatever other scene would fit best with her current stage of grief. I don't know, I'm not a director, but I know it's just not something that should be blurted out by a character. Wow Canadian shade being thrown.
C’mon! On the day Offred was kicked off her job, has her bank account seized, she goes home, and her husband wants to make love (on the day the militant usurpers shot and killed the President and took over). But all that is on his mind is “let’s fuck.” (Typical male, but all the male characters in the book are dicks – there’s no humanity) And she hesitates and the dick asks “What’s wrong?” And she answers, “I don’t know.” I don’t know???? The character Offred was so wishy-washy! She had the depth of cardboard.
Well, eliciting a visceral negative reaction is a very effective writing skill, no? I will say about Atwood, there isn't much ambivalence.
Julia Carpenter: [checks a photo of a man] So, who is he? Cassandra Webb: That man is Ezekiel Sims. He was in the Amazon with my mom when she was researching spiders right before she died. It's funny, isn't it? The "That man is Ezekiel Sims," is terrible. All she needs to say is: "Ezekiel Sims," or, "That's Ezekial Sims," etc. There are a few interesting ways to vary those words for voice and emotional effect. (You'd need the whole scene to know if that was necessary.) The one thing she doesn't need to explain is that the photo is of "a man." As if her friend thinks it's a horse or a dog or something. . . I suppose you could justify it with the delivery. "That man . . . is Ezekiel Sims. But it's the long sentence which utterly fails. Keep in mind, there aren't any grammar errors in it. There are some great fixes above! The forum knows its stuff.
For me, the only thing to attend to is to separate the "right before she died" from "researching spiders", to avoid implying researching spiders was the direct cause of her death (though it could well be!). I might do something like: Julia Carpenter: [checks a photo of a man] So, who is he? Cassandra Webb: That man is Ezekiel Sims. He was in the Amazon with my mom right before she died. She was researching spiders. Or possibly@: Julia Carpenter: [checks a photo of a man] So, who is he? Cassandra Webb: That man is Ezekiel Sims. He was in the Amazon, researching spiders with my mom right before she died. Grammatically the rest of it seems OK. I guess the tone is fairly basic and not overly "conversational" but it could work as a component of voice or emphasis on certain things, or depending on what the actual situation in the Amazon was (who was researching, and who was just "there"). It's hard to say much more without the rest of the text.
I agree with this 100%. The line is set up like a story and a punchline. When you tell a joke, the form is always: slow buildup, quick quip at the end. This follows that exact form except that the joke is "she died," and that's dark humor, but still amusing. This would also be funny: He was in the Amazon with my mom when she was researching spiders right before she exploded.
Here's my fix. It's still exposition. That's just the nature of the lines. Julia: [checks a photo of a man] So, who is he? Cassandra: Ezekiel Sims. My mom and him were researchers at <university>. Julia: Spiders, right? [out of politeness, tries to hide a grimace] Cassandra: You remember . . . [looks away] In the Amazon. He was with her when she died. "Mom and him" is wrong grammatically, but it's what a person would say, not SpiderGPT. <University> is just a placeholder. Put some specific place there, the less cliche the better. I'm not sure you can fix it all in one line. Maybe two might work? There were some smart fixes up above. The problem is that the sentence ends like a punchline, so it's always going to be funny. If you frontload the dying, then it takes away the jokiness, but I think the line loses its purpose. It's supposed to be dramatic and end with the death. There is still the problem that the line was meant to be quick. I've definitely padded the word count out another 50%. As was mentioned above, there might not be a fix. It's a one-line infodump held together with multiple phrases and ending out of nowhere with "she died." ------------------ If this is a fun exercise and seems entertaining, I can come up with some more. God knows there are a zillion sketchy lines out there. It's good practice and we don't have to worry about stepping on anyone's toes here by being merciless.
Julia Carpenter: [checks a photo of a man] So, who is he? Cassandra: Ezekiel. Cassandra: Ezekiel Sims. Cassandra: He was with Mom. Cassandra: Researching spiders. Cassandra: Right when she died. Cassandra: [long pause] Cassandra: In the Amazon. Julia: [slaps Cassandra upside the head]
I really liked coming up with an answer and seeing what the others thought of it. Hope there is more! [Edit: I replaced "if I was right" with "what the others thought of it" because that's more accurate of what I meant. I don't think there is an objective answer like there is with maths or other similar subjects. Though people can still widely agree upon an opinion!]
I agree. I think all of us have an ideal solution, if we could just express ourselves, but that's only an ideal for us. Hopefully, we can get a large audience to see it our way, haha.
Whoops, looks like I missed this one. Unless I can still try? I'm no screenwriter, but I'll give it a shot! *cracks knuckles* Let's start with the original quote: Yikes. Well, Julia's line is an obvious lead. You may as well say "Cassie, you know this guy?" etc. Cassandra's two lines aren't much better. "That man is Ezekiel Sims" ... nobody talks like that. You'd say "That's Ezekiel" if you don't know him well. If you're familiar with him (e.g. a relative or close friend), you might have a nickname for him. "That's old Simmy, Julies!" etc. Her second line is a mess, as pointed out above. How would I change this ... well. How about this? Julia: [picks up a photo of a man; recognizes his face with a start/gasp] You know this guy? Cassandra: That-- [sighs; "may as well" expression] That's ol' Simmy. My -- my mother was researching spiders in the Amazon. [swallows a lump in her throat, looks away] Julia: Oh gods, Cassie ... [lays comforting hand on Cassandra's shoulder] I'm so sorry. Cassandra: [determined, "I started this, I may as well finish it" expression] Jules ... he was in the Amazon with her when [shot of tear sliding down Cassandra's cheek] ... when she died. Julia: Oh, Cassie ... [gives Cassandra a hug; Cassandra's facial expression is up to you. Despair? Grief? Determination to find this Ezekiel? Maybe all three? You choose.] ========= Or, of course, it could go this way (if you want to make Julia an 80s "Valley Girl"): Julia: [checks a photo of a man] Ugh! He's, like, grody to the max. Who's that dweeb? Cassandra: [flatly, no expression] Ezekiel Sims. He was in the Amazon. With my mom. She was researching spiders. And she died. Julia: Like, whatever. Gag me with a backstory. Cassandra: [gives up, transforms into Madame Web and spins Julia into a cocoon, a la Shelob in LOTR] *shrugs* I haven't seen the film or read the comics, so I'm not sure if Cassandra can do that. But superpowers are superpowers, they don't have to make sense.
