# The twins



## vcnavega (Aug 8, 2012)

Whenever I get a block on the writing of the novel I am working on I write short stories until the flow of the novel starts again. So, here is one more piece. Comments are highly appreciated!
***​
Martha and Samantha were the joy of the Johnsons’ house. The two beautiful children, in spite of being twins, had their features well distinguished. They couldn’t fool anyone. Even the Johnsons never forced them to wear matching clothes, for they knew they would wear accessories to differentiate them from one another. But what really made each of them unique was their personality. Martha was shy, tender, sweet, polite and extremely cute. She was obedient and would do anything to please her parents. Sam on the other hand was a wild child. It was impossible to comb her hair, for she would never stand still. She was not into tiaras and ribbons either, and with her loose hair she looked like a savage witch. She even threatened to pierce her dolls as if they were voodoos of her parents.

Nevertheless, the twins were inseparable. It is hard to say how they manage to play together, but they did. Martha was always the princess, and Sam played the role of her defender. Martha never preached for Samantha to behave like a civilized girl, and Sam never tried to convince Martha to become more spontaneous. They accepted each other as they were. The Johnsons didn’t feel they had twins, as the girls were so different.

On one occasion the children were playing outside, as they always did, when Sam entered the kitchen crying and said to her mother:

- Mum, Samantha is dead.

- What are you talking about, Sam? How can you be dead? You are talking to me. You are not dead.

- Mum, please, come outside and see for yourself.

Mrs. Johnson followed Samantha and found the dead body of little Martha. She had fallen and hit her head on a rock.

- Oh, good Lord, what just happened? – said Mrs. Johnson desperately

- We were playing and Sam banged her head on this rock. – said Sam.

- But Samantha, why you keep saying “Sam”? It is Martha! Can’t you see? It is not you! It is Martha for God’s sake!

Samantha was crying she couldn’t stop crying. Mrs. Johnson didn’t know what to do. She went back home and called Mr. Johnson and told everything that had happened. They called the ambulance, then the cops came, relatives, neighbors, the house was full of strangers, and Samantha kept crying. Mrs. Johnson took her upstairs, gave her a bath, gave her a relaxing tea, and stayed with her until she fell asleep.

Downstairs, people were weeping and mourning the loss of sweet little Martha. Some would say “now she became an angel”, other would say “what will be of Sam now that her sister is gone?”, there were some who offered any help, and in this way they tried to honor the memory of that charming little girl. But suddenly their thoughts and words were interrupted by a vision. Could it be true? Martha was coming downstairs. It was a vision for sure. The dress, perfectly clean; the hair, with its usual braid; the walk, so elegant. But it wasn’t Sam, that was Martha, everybody knew. But it couldn’t be. So, Mrs. Johnson said:

- Sam, this isn’t a joke! Go change!

- Mum, why are you saying that to me? What have I done? My sister just died and you are angry at me? I want to see Sam. Where is her body?

Even the tone of her voice was Martha’s. It was silky as Martha’s. Slow as Martha’s. Samantha couldn’t ever pretend to be like Martha. In a burst of rage, Mrs. Johnson grabbed Sam’s arms and shook her:

- Oh, evil child! Even on the day of your sister’s death you won’t stop your pranks!

- Mummy, stop it! You are hurting me. I didn’t do anything. Sam’s death was not my fault.

Although everybody in the room agreed with Mrs. Johnson that Sam was pretending to be Martha, they thought she was being too harsh on the child. Some would say “take it easy on the child”, someone else said “it must have been a shock for her too”, and there were some who tried to take the child away from her mother. But Mrs. Johnson didn’t allow it. She said:

- No! You all must listen to what I have to say. I didn’t lose one child today. I lost two children. Martha is gone, and this one here says she is not Sam, so Sam is not here either. My twins are gone. If this is not Sam, I don’t want her here. Take this girl away. She doesn’t belong here. For my great fortune my two children were born on the same day. But years later, my fortune has changed and I’ve lost my two children on the same day.


----------



## Cran (Aug 13, 2012)

Once again, *vcnavega*, you have an interesting and challenging idea. 

Overall, this piece can (or should) be tightened up in some parts, and fleshed out (or expanded) in others. I can see that you have some difficulty with prepositions (words like _to_ and _for_), but then so do many native English speakers. 

There are phrases which are not structured as those born to English would speak, but as one who has learned English later. Now, depending upon the voice you want your story to have, this may not be a bad thing. It seems to be a common assumption that every story must be structured in natural or colloquial English. So, before I arrogantly dive in and tear apart these phrases and force a natural English voice into the piece, *it would be worth asking whether Mrs Johnson is a native English speaker, or if she learned English later in life. The same question would apply to the narrator. *

That said, there are some words in English which have quite different meanings, depending upon how the phrase is constructed; _distinguished_ is such a word, and the phrase _had their features well distinguished_ is one that only someone who learned English as a second or later language would put together without realising the confusion of meaning.

When we use _distinguish_ or _distinguished_ as a verb, it means what you want it to mean; _to identify something different or unique_. When we use it as an adjective or adverb it usually means something more like _honoured_ or _respected_ or _above the ordinary_. We would normally say, "_each sister had distinctive features_" in most circumstances; the phrase "_distinguishing features_" is usually reserved for police or legal use.


----------



## vcnavega (Aug 13, 2012)

Well, Cran, I guess the fact of me being Brazilian and English not being my first language compromises my characters' speech as well as the narrator’s.  This is a problem I will have to face as long as I am daring not to write in my own language, Portuguese. Preposition is also a huge problem I will have to face. For instance, “to” and “for” we only have one word “para” in Portuguese, so it is quite difficult for me to understand when to use what; “in” and “on” sometimes I can’t get the difference too.

I wish Mrs. Johnson was a native speaking English. I wish the narrator was a native speaking English. Unfortunately, the writer (me) isn’t. 

Regarding the distinctive features, the point I was trying to make is that Martha and Samantha would never look alike. This is very important to create that impossibility of Sam mimicking Martha. So, it was really important that explanation you gave me. 

So, Cran, I do need your help, I really do.
With gratitude,

V. C. Navega


----------



## Cran (Aug 14, 2012)

OK, I'll tackle this one from the beginning, but it will be a few hours before I can come back to it.


----------



## vcnavega (Aug 14, 2012)

Happily and patiently awaiting your tackling


----------



## Cran (Aug 14, 2012)

One of my favourite sayings is: _It's not a problem; it's a challenge._

And, as a Portuguese-speaking Brazilian setting out to write like a native (or even American) English-speaker, you have a challenge. Don't be fazed by that. Your English vocabulary and comprehension are certainly good enough (and far better than my Portuguese vocabulary and comprehension, which is non-existent); what remains - the challenge - is in the common structure and usage. 

Ideal structure can be empirically taught, even why and where it differs from other languages; common structure can only be absorbed. You can pick up much of it by reading novels, but much more and faster by living among native speakers, or thanks to the internet, by doing what you are doing here: joining in and conversing with native speakers. You'll notice that common written English structure varies a great deal between people, and even from the same person in different circumstances - it might be a semi-formal lecture style (like now), or a colloquial form of short-hand conversational style (_So, how ya going?_); the latter tends to cause more confusion in non-native English speakers, and sometimes even between different English-speaking regions. As if learning another language wasn't challenge enough. 

The difference will come when you notice that you think in English, rather than mentally translate from Portuguese to English. 

English prepositions are a challenge at some level for most English language speakers and writers; that's why some of us get jobs or paid contracts: to make sure that the best-fitting prepositions are where they should be.

The matter of distinctive features in the context of your story is something we'll look at a bit more in the next post.


----------



## Cran (Aug 14, 2012)

vcnavega said:


> ***​
> Martha and Samantha were the joy of the Johnsons’ house. The two beautiful children, in spite of being twins, had their features well distinguished. They couldn’t fool anyone. Even the Johnsons never forced them to wear matching clothes, for they knew they would wear accessories to differentiate them from one another. But what really made each of them unique was their personality. Martha was shy, tender, sweet, polite and extremely cute. She was obedient and would do anything to please her parents. Sam on the other hand was a wild child. It was impossible to comb her hair, for she would never stand still. She was not into tiaras and ribbons either, and with her loose hair she looked like a savage witch. She even threatened to pierce her dolls as if they were voodoos of her parents.


 OK. Here we have the opening - the hook - and in it, we have various forms of common usage, some of which are empirically incorrect, but are common enough to be understood; and others which might be empirically correct, but conversationally poor. 

_Martha and Samantha were the joy_ - two people, one joy; suggesting that individually they were not such a joy.
_of the Johnsons' house_ - whilst correct, it is the less common form; the empirically incorrect form - _of the Johnson house_, or _of the Johnson household_ - is more often applied. It is patriarchal (_the house or household belonging to Johnson_), but with a long history. 

_in spite of _- yes, but we would tend to use the variant _despite_ in this context: These two beautiful girls, _despite_ being twins ... however (but wait, there's more!): it's possible to interpret this as _the girls were beautiful despite, or in spite of, being twins_; suggesting that twins are not normally beautiful people. Rearranging the clauses can help - _Despite being twins, these two beautiful girls had some distinctive features_. - or, you can avoid annoying twins everywhere by dropping any hint of spite and using another word - _Although they were twins, these beautiful girls had some distinctive features_.

_Even the Johnsons never forced them to wear matching clothes,_ - placing _even_ at the front of the statement is making the suggestion that someone else might consider forcing them to wear matching clothes; or that the Johnsons might be stupid or crass, but not _that_ stupid or crass. If you must include the matching dress bit at all, then let's avoid the possible insult, and any suggestion of force being applied by the parents upon the children (after all, it's not that kind of story). Work along the lines of _The Johnsons never tried to dress their daughters identically_, or _The Johnsons never bothered with matching clothes for their daughters_.   
 
_for they knew they would wear accessories to differentiate them from one another._ - apart from being another example of empirically correct, but commonly poor, the message is redundant and therefore not needed. You've already told your reader that each girl is distinctive; that one can easily be distinguished from the other, and that no one would be fooled if they tried to switch places. And you are just about to tell your reader that the differences are not merely visual, but include behaviour and mannerisms and lifestyle choices, including their accessories. I'd drop this bit altogether. 

_Martha was shy, tender, sweet, polite and extremely cute._ - Now here, you are either repeating yourself, or contradicting yourself, depending upon the reader's interpretation of _cute_ - isn't English fun? - cute is like art; it's purely in the eye of the beholder - absolutely subjective and meaning different things to different people. Go ahead, start a discussion thread in the Lounge entitled _What is Cute?_ or _What do you mean when you call something or someone Cute?_ and you'll see what I mean. You've already said that Martha was _beautiful_; now you've added _shy, tender, sweet, and polite_ - what other qualities did she have that you've hidden in _cute_? 

........

That's the opening par - the hook. We'll look at the next, or hopefully the rest, after a short break.


----------



## vcnavega (Aug 14, 2012)

> Don't be fazed by that.


Dear, Cran (and if you are around, dear Mr. Olly)

I am going nuts about that. I speak Portuguese (of course), Spanish, Italian, English, a little of Hindi, Bengali and Sanskrit. Why am I not writing in Portuguese? I do have a very good Portuguese. But who speaks Portuguese? Besides Brazilians, Portuguese and some Africans nobody in the world speak Portuguese. If I was to write in Portuguese, the path to be known as an international writer would be too long and most unlikely. I would have to be acknowledged as an incredible Portuguese writer to be translated into other languages. So I made my mind to shorten the path. But now I realize it is not that short. I will never write as a native speaking English would. You don’t want me to see this as a problem, Cran, it must be seen as a challenge. I am ok with challenges. But this looks like a problem.

Anyway, I was waiting for a 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] post, where you would tell me what to do with those blue parts, and as it didn’t come, I assumed you want me to deal with those parts by myself. I keep looking at them, some I have some ideas on what to do, some I would just change for some really similar things, and some I don’t have the faintest idea what to do, they seem ok.
And I am writing a novel. A novel!!! If with these stupid short stories I am to rephrase every single sentence, what will happen with the novel? I have 21 chapters written. 21 chapters of bad English of perhaps an interesting story. 

I believe I am a good story teller, but I may not be a good writer, at least not in English. I am sorry, I am just losing my confidence here, I guess all writers do at some point, and I have this good alibi to be weak: I am not writing in my birth tongue.

Anyway, I just would like your honest opinion on how bad that is. Is there any instance in the history of literature of a writer who was successful writing in a language other than his own?
Sorry for venting off,

V. C. Navega


----------



## vcnavega (Aug 14, 2012)

*Big misunderstanding*

Dear Mr. Cran,

Something must have happened. As always I receive an email notifying me a post was placed, and when I went to check it there it was, my whole short story with those blue parts without explanations. But we don’t receive emails when posts are edited, and that is what I believe must have happened. After you placed that post that made me hysterical enough to write all about my lack of confidence, you edited it and posted the first part of your comments, which now makes completely sense for me. In fact, some things seem obvious, things I should have noticed. So, my apologies for not considering this as a challenge, it is a lousy excuse for not being humble and not wanting to learn. You are taking your time to teach me, you are encouraging me, and I must take this chance with gratitude, which I will show through my hard work.

Thanks, and sorry for the misunderstanding,
V. C. Navega


----------



## vcnavega (Aug 14, 2012)

*Sweet *Martha and *restless* Samantha were the joy of the Johnson household. Although they were twins, these beautiful girls had some distinctive features. They couldn’t fool anyone. The Johnsons never bothered with matching clothes for their daughters. But what really made each of them unique was their personality. Martha was shy, tender, sweet, polite and extremely *affectionate*.


----------



## Cran (Aug 14, 2012)

*I hit the wrong button*

Apologies for that mix-up; yes, I'd clicked on [submit] instead of [preview] the first time, so then had to put in my comments as an edit. And then ran out of time to finish the whole piece. Will do that in the next post today. 

Yes, you are a good story teller, and yes, I understand the desire to write and be known in English for its broader reach. 



> Is there any instance in the history of literature of a writer who was successful writing in a language other than his own?


Yes, many instances, but as far as I know that success came when the writer was _able to think in common English_, rather than translate to English. This takes time and practice; there are no shortcuts. There are also instances which involve collaborations or ghost writers or dedicated editors and translators; this takes time and money. 



> *Sweet *Martha and *restless* Samantha were the joy of the Johnson household. Although they were twins, these beautiful girls had some distinctive features. They couldn’t fool anyone. The Johnsons never bothered with matching clothes for their daughters. But what really made each of them unique was their personality. Martha was shy, tender, sweet, polite and extremely *affectionate*. ​


This is a smoother, more natural beginning - you still have two girls and only one joy, OK. An opportunity to expand on _They couldn't fool anyone; it was impossible to mistake one for the other._ - or _one could never impersonate the other_ - or something along that line. The reason for the added explanation is that there are other ways to fool people, and it seems that Sam at least has pulled off some of those in the past - playing pranks and telling stories, for instance.


----------



## Cran (Aug 14, 2012)

> Nevertheless, the twins were inseparable. It is hard to say how they manage to play together, but they did. Martha was always the princess, and Sam played the role of her defender. Martha never preached for Samantha to behave like a civilized girl, and Sam never tried to convince Martha to become more spontaneous. They accepted each other as they were. The Johnsons didn’t feel they had twins, as the girls were so different.



_the twins were inseparable -_ sure, we often call friends inseparable, couples inseparable, even siblings (brothers and/or sisters); it's only when we combine _twins_ and _inseparable_ that a confusion can arise - so-called _Siamese twins_ or _conjoined twins_ are quite literally inseparable without surgery. The only way I can see past this if you want to keep_ inseparable_ is to add the qualifier, _as friends_, somewhere in the statement. 

_It is hard to say how _- but in the very next sentence, you show us how easy it is to say how they play together. Most of us are aware of the truism: _opposites attract_ - we accept that what might at first seem like incongruent or contradictory personalities can actually complement each other. So, really, you don't need this. 

_they manage to play together_ - simple tense issue here: _managed_ - because the story is written in the past tense. However, considering the preceding comment, this issue is moot. What we end up with is something like: _
They played together_ _(constantly)_. or _They were constant playmates_ (or _companions_). 



> On one occasion the children were playing outside, as they always did, when Sam entered the kitchen crying and said to her mother:
> 
> - Mum, Samantha is dead.
> 
> ...



On one occasion - Another example of empirically correct, but poor in this context. The reason why others might choose Once upon a time, or One day is because we often use the word occasion to describe a positive, even joyous event. A birth or birthday is an occasion. But this is not such a day. I'd drop the clause and pick up the story from -
_The children were playing outside, as they always did, when Sam entered the kitchen crying and said to her mother:_
Again, an opportunity to expand on _as they always did _by adding some qualifier like _when the sun was shining_; otherwise you are suggesting that they never played inside. 
Now, we can avoid the double use of _when_ by splitting into two sentences. 
_The children were (happily) playing outside, as they always did__ when the sun was shining.__ (*) Sam entered the kitchen crying and said to her mother:
_*Sam entering the kitchen crying was an unusual and unexpected event, yes? - you might want a word or phrase here to indicate this. 

We could discuss the pros and cons of the calm and stilted dialog which follows. I'm going to argue that Sam's shock (and in hindsight, the beginning of her transition to Martha) is the reason for the surreal calm, the lack of action or emotional outburst, and suggest that it stays as is. 

............

Oops - out of time for now; real life can be annoyingly interruptive. As the first Terminator said, "I'll be back."


----------



## Cran (Aug 15, 2012)

Something I missed earlier, and again when reading your edit - 


> _Although they were twins, these beautiful girls had some distinctive features_.


This could be clearer; as it stands, they may have the same distinctive features. 

_Although they were twins, each beautiful girl (had some distinctive features)_. or even simpler (_was distinctive_). Simpler again - _They were not identical (twins)._ 

You then expand on their differences in dress and manner, but dress and manner can be changed or faked. 

To make it impossible for one to impersonate the other, we would need some inherent distinctions, such as eye shape or colour - one has blue eyes, for example; the other has brown or green eyes - hard to hide or change that difference without spending money on contact lenses. Another is hairline; one might have a widow's peak, the other not. Noses, chins, ears and lips can also vary and be very difficult to alter without plastic surgery. Finally, Sam is more likely to have picked up one or more distinctive scars; not disfiguring, but easy to find if you know where to look (such as the small star-shaped pale scar just below her left ear, a reminder of the time she fell out of a tree, or whatever), and harder to fake than moles or distinctive birthmarks. 

You can then decide whether, when the personality change is complete, there is also a physical change - _Sam's eyes were no longer green, but as blue as Martha's had ever been_, _and the scar below her left ear had vanished (was gone) ...  _


----------



## Cran (Aug 15, 2012)

> Samantha was crying; she couldn’t stop crying. Mrs. Johnson didn’t know what to do. She went back home and called Mr. Johnson and told everything that had happened. They called the ambulance, then the cops came, relatives, neighbors, the house was full of strangers, and Samantha kept crying. Mrs. Johnson took her upstairs, gave her a bath, gave her a relaxing tea, and stayed with her until she fell asleep.



_Mrs. Johnson didn’t know what to do._ - But then you immediately tell us what she did, first and later. Mrs Johnson was distraught, or felt helpless, but she knew what to do - she knew to call Mr Johnson as soon as she could. 

Oh, and _neighbors_ - which *Olly* thought was spelled funny - is OK; it's the American spelling, which is why SpellCheck wouldn't have picked it up (the way it does with words like SpellCheck).



> Downstairs, people were weeping and mourning the loss of sweet little Martha. Some would say “now she became an angel”, other would say “what will be of Sam now that her sister is gone?”, there were some who offered any help, and in this way they tried to honor the memory of that charming little girl. But suddenly their thoughts and words were interrupted by a vision. Could it be true? Martha was coming downstairs. It was a vision for sure. The dress, perfectly clean; the hair, with its usual braid; the walk, so elegant. But it wasn’t Sam, that was Martha, everybody knew. But it couldn’t be. So, Mrs. Johnson said:



_“now she became an angel”_ - confused tense again; this time it's a quote in present tense - _now she becomes an angel_ - but that is still not how a natural English speaker would put it; more like - _now she is an angel_ - but wait! How common is it for parents and other adults to call well-behaved and beautiful children _angels_ when they are alive? _There she is, my little angel! _So, in their minds and in their words, Martha was always an angel - _now she is *truly* an angel_ - or, _(y)our little angel is called to heaven_ ... 

_“what will be of Sam now that her sister is gone?”_ - the verb _to be_ can really mess people up; this is where we commonly use _become _- _what will become of Sam now that her sister is gone?_ Other people might prefer to phrase the question - _what will happen to Sam now (etc)?_ - or, _how will Sam cope (etc)?_ - but they all mean much the same thing. 

_honor_ - American spelling, *Olly
*
_But it wasn’t Sam_ - You've already told us it wasn't Sam - _Martha was coming downstairs_. - It should have been Sam, but it wasn't. Simplest solution is to drop the But - _It wasn't Sam. It was Martha, everybody could see that. But it couldn't be!_

_So, Mrs. Johnson said_: - Don't need _So_; it's a preamble more commonly used in spoken rather than written stories, and the voice of the narrator doesn't come across as one who uses _So_ in that way. 

_said_ is correct, but a bit tame under the circumstances - an opportunity here to inject some emotion.
try _cried, choked, screamed, exploded, erupted_, or something that evokes an outpouring of shock and grief. 



> - Sam, this isn’t a joke! Go change!
> 
> - Mum, why are you saying that to me? What have I done? My sister just died and you are angry at me? I want to see Sam. Where is her body?
> 
> ...





> Although everybody in the room agreed with Mrs. Johnson that Sam was pretending to be Martha, they thought she was being too harsh on the child. Some would say “take it easy on the child”, someone else said “it must have been a shock for her too”, and there were some who tried to take the child away from her mother. But Mrs. Johnson didn’t allow it. She said:
> 
> - No! You all must listen to what I have to say. I didn’t lose one child today. I lost two children. Martha is gone, and this one here says she is not Sam, so Sam is not here either. My twins are gone. If this is not Sam, I don’t want her here. Take this girl away. She doesn’t belong here. For my great fortune my two children were born on the same day. But years later, my fortune has changed and I’ve lost my two children on the same day.


_
tried to take the child away from her mother. But Mrs. Johnson didn’t allow it...
Take this girl away. She doesn’t belong here. _- I can see a contradiction here - Mrs Johnson didn't allow the child to be taken away, then she orders that the child be taken away. 

Even more difficult to reconcile is Mrs Johnson's change in attitude - OK, extreme grief could alter her perceptions and her temper, given the added shock of Sam's personality shift, but a loving mother who has just lost one daughter would fight like a lioness to keep her remaining daughter safe, no matter how disturbed she believed that daughter to be. And if madness has overtaken the mother, has it also affected the father?

_For my great fortune my two children were  born on the same day. But years later, my fortune has changed and I’ve  lost my two children on the same day._ - The wording is very old; we tend to see this in stories set in the distant past, or in comparable fantasy, or in some poetry and folk ballads. As it happens, the sudden madness of the mother is also right at home in some stories of the distant past and folk ballads.  

Right now, I can't think of a good way to bring this up to date. Perhaps *Olly* has some ideas. Or, perhaps, the whole story needs be set sometime long ago? 

The last sections are the most difficult, because they are so important to the story. Solving the anachronism, if the last part cannot be modernised and still retain its strength, would mean rethinking (and in some parts, reversing) the wording and some of the action.


----------



## vcnavega (Aug 15, 2012)

Dear Cran,

I am extremely grateful for all the work you did for me. You made me laugh several times, and I am not an easy person to laugh.

I am thinking in English not only while I am writing, I am thinking in English all the time. My dreams are in English. I caught myself speaking to my Mum in English and I don’t realize it until I see her face staring at me as if she was one of my characters.

I am watching lots of movies and this is how I am keeping my ears tuned to English. I used to travel a lot in my youth, but now I am to take care of my Mum, and I can’t travel anymore.

Next week my brother who lives in USA is coming to visit us. He is the conductor of the Vassar College Orchestra. He is gay and married to a British pathologist. Both of them are coming, so I will have a chance to practice my speech. I hate my accent though.

Anyway, first time my brother read The Twins he thought Martha and Sam had decided to impersonate each other that day, and the accident happened, so it was indeed Sam who died, not Martha. I like this possibility of the reader to have his/her own ending. This is why I won’t have their features so distinctive, as you suggested.

Regarding the wording of the ending being too old and fantasy like, I am ok with it. It keeps the age of the story opened to the reader imagination. I am happy with the story now, but I am also curious to see what Mr. Olly will bring on the table.

I wonder how we can keep working together. I don’t know if I should show you the first chapters of my novel (as I told you I have already 21), or if you’d rather see them after I finish the novel. Maybe I should show you them now, it would help me not to commit the same mistakes in the next chapters. Anyway, please, let me know.

With all my gratitude,
V. C. Navega


----------



## vcnavega (Aug 15, 2012)

Sweet Martha and restless Samantha were the joy of the Johnson household. Although they were twins, each beautiful girl was distinctive. It was impossible to mistake one for the other. The Johnsons never bothered with matching clothes for their daughters. What really made each of them unique was their personality. Martha was shy, tender, sweet, polite and extremely affectionate. She was obedient and would do anything to please her parents. Sam on the other hand was a wild child. It was impossible to comb her hair, for she would never stand still. She was not into tiaras and ribbons either, and with her loose hair she looked like a savage witch. She even threatened to pierce her dolls as if they were voodoos of her parents.

The two children were best friends and played together constantly, combining their different playful moods: Martha impersonated a princess; and Sam played the role of her defender. Martha never preached for Samantha to behave like a civilized girl, and Sam never tried to convince Martha to be more spontaneous. They accepted each other as they were. The Johnsons didn’t feel they had twins, as the girls were so different.

The children were happily playing outside, as they always did when the sun was shining. Suddenly Sam entered the kitchen crying and said to her mother:

- Mum, Mum, a horrible accident happened. Samantha is dead.

- What are you talking about, Sam? How can you be dead? You are talking to me. You are not dead.

- Mum, please, come outside and see for yourself.

Mrs. Johnson followed Samantha and found the dead body of little Martha. She had fallen and hit her head on a rock.

- Oh, good Lord, what just happened? – said Mrs. Johnson desperately

- We were playing and Sam banged her head on this rock. – said Sam.

- But Samantha, why you keep saying “Sam”? It is Martha! Can’t you see? It is not you! It is Martha for God’s sake!

Samantha was crying she couldn’t stop crying. Mrs. Johnson didn’t know how to deal with Sam’s hysteria and she was in shock herself. So she went back home and decided to call Mr. Johnson and told everything that had happened. They called the ambulance, then the cops came, relatives, neighbors, the house was full of strangers, and Samantha kept crying. Mrs. Johnson took her upstairs, gave her a bath, gave her a relaxing tea, and stayed with her until she fell asleep.

Downstairs, people were weeping and mourning the loss of sweet little Martha. Some would say “now she is truly an angel”, other would say “what will become of Sam now that her sister is gone?”, there were some who offered any help, and in this way they tried to honor the memory of that charming little girl. But suddenly their thoughts and words were interrupted by a vision. Could it be true? Martha was coming downstairs. It was a vision for sure. The dress, perfectly clean; the hair, with its usual braid; the walk, so elegant. It wasn’t Sam, that was Martha, everybody knew. But it couldn’t be. Mrs. Johnson exploded:

- Sam, this isn’t a joke! Go change!

- Mum, why are you saying that to me? What have I done? My sister just died and you are angry at me? I want to see Sam. Where is her body?

Even the tone of her voice was Martha’s. It was silky as Martha’s. Slow as Martha’s. Samantha couldn’t ever pretend to be like Martha. In a burst of rage, Mrs. Johnson grabbed Sam’s arms and shook her:

- Oh, evil child! Even on the day of your sister’s death you won’t stop your pranks!

- Mummy, stop it! You are hurting me. I didn’t do anything. Sam’s death was not my fault.

Although everybody in the room agreed with Mrs. Johnson that Sam was pretending to be Martha, they thought she was being too harsh on the child. Some would say “take it easy on the child”, someone else said “it must have been a shock for her too”, and there were some who tried to protect the child from her mother’s rage. But Mrs. Johnson didn’t allow it.

- No! You all must listen to what I have to say. I didn’t lose one child today. I lost two children. Martha is gone, and this one here says she is not Sam, so Sam is not here either. My twins are gone. If this is not Sam, I don’t want her here. Take this girl away. She doesn’t belong here. My two children were born on the same day. But years later, I’ve lost my two children on the same day.


----------



## Cran (Aug 15, 2012)

> But what really made each of them unique was their  personality...
> ...and Sam never tried to  convince Martha to become more spontaneous.


_But_ - don't need it anymore, because there is nothing to counter. _What really made (etc)_
_become_ - I'd highlighted this one before, but forgot to put in the explanation; once again, in this instance _to be_ is the more natural form. 



> Martha and Sam had decided to impersonate each other that  day, and the accident happened, so it was indeed Sam who died, not  Martha. I like this possibility of the reader to have his/her own  ending. This is why I won’t have their features so distinctive, as you  suggested.


Fair enough, but it means your brother did not read the earlier definite statement - 


> Although they were twins, each beautiful girl was distinctive. It was *impossible to mistake one for the other*.


Something cannot be both impossible and possible. Even if the girls had decided to switch roles for their game on that day, their mother should have noticed immediately. She would have asked when Martha appeared in the kitchen, "why are you dressed like Sam?" Remember, at that point, Mrs Johnson had not suffered any shock. 



> It keeps the age of the story opened to the reader imagination.



Not really. You've already established a modern setting -


> They called the ambulance, then the cops came,



What it does do is raise the question I asked in the beginning - _is Mrs Johnson one who learned English later in life?_ Under emotional stress, even the most advanced ESL speaker tends to revert to their birth language structure. 

Once the wording is sorted out, the punctuation throughout the story needs looking at.


----------



## vcnavega (Aug 15, 2012)

Ok, you made me laugh again, and you can’t be fooled, you pick on every single detail.

I edited on the previous post the things you pointed out (took out the “but”; changed the “become” for “be”; got rid of the “for my fortune” at the end).

Regarding punctuation I am clueless. In Portuguese we use commas everywhere, and when I use them in English my software complains. I don’t why. So I take them out. And then for the software it is fine. But you people don’t breathe? I guess I need to learn the rules of punctuation in English then.

By the way, what about my novel? Is it too early to see it?


----------



## Cran (Aug 15, 2012)

_Well, it's a grey day without a laugh_. 

Punctuation - yes, there are rules, but there also ways to break the rules in creative writing, and have a better story. Much of it comes back to knowing the voice, and when it's natural for that voice to breathe, or to break for emphasis. 

A novel - that will likely be a bigger project than I can take on board right now. Why not post an excerpt or chapter in the _Writers' Workshop_ and see what the regulars have to say about it?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Aug 15, 2012)

> The two beautiful children, in spite of being twins, had their features well distinguished. They couldn’t fool anyone.


Cran is very right about the word distinguished and in his comments. Personally I find 'distinctive features' still a bit formal in tone, remember Mark Twain's advice, go for the cheap words, the readers don't pay extra for the fancy ones. I would phrase it. 'The two beautiful children, despite of being twins, looked very different'.



> Once again, vcnavega, you have an interesting and challenging idea.


I would agree, this is your strength and I can imagine you being very helpful to some of our members who can get stuck in this way, however, this has an air of something missing for me, there is no explanation of the events and no obvious conclusion. The mystery is the story of course, but personally I wanted a little something extra.

Now I am going to copy the story onto 'word' and read through a bit more closely


----------



## Olly Buckle (Aug 15, 2012)

> Sweet Martha and restless Samantha were the joy of the Johnson household. Although they were twins, each beautiful girl was distinctive. It was impossible to mistake one for the other. The Johnsons never bothered with matching clothes for their daughters.



Why would they bother with matching clothes anyway? From the previous sentence I might have expected them not to bother with clothes that differentiated the girls 


> What really made each of them unique was their personality.



‘each of them unique’ is a bit like a double superlative, unique is unique, it does not need to be each of them, or for that matter both of them



> Martha was shy, tender, sweet, polite and extremely affectionate. She was obedient and would do anything to please her parents. Sam on the other hand was a wild child. It was impossible to comb her hair, for she would never stand still. She was not into tiaras and ribbons either, and with her loose hair she looked like a savage witch. She even threatened to pierce her dolls as if they were voodoos of her parents.



That last sentence is a bit stand alone, the previous description of Sam is of her physical self rather than her personality, and then a single, extreme, example


> The two children were best friends and played together constantly, combining their different playful moods:



Okay, I am going to give you a ten cent word, sorry Mr Twain, try this,’ ... played together constantly, their differences _complementing_ each other.’ I would then start the next sentence ‘When’, as it is an illustration of this.


> _When_ Martha impersonated a princess, (comma, Lost and) Sam played the role of her defender. Martha never preached for Samantha to behave like a civilized girl, and Sam never tried to convince Martha to be more spontaneous.



Preached for sounds as though you were trying not to say ‘tried to convince’ twice but couldn’t come up with a natural phrase, I would go for ‘Martha didn’t want Samantha to ...’, change everything, after all they are different. 





> They accepted each other as they were. The Johnsons didn’t feel they had twins, as the girls were so different.



That is a bald statement, and at times they must have felt they had twins, if only on their birthday, I would qualify more, ‘Sometimes the Johnsons barely felt they had twins



> The children were happily playing outside, as they always did when the sun was shining. Suddenly Sam entered the kitchen crying and said to her mother:



‘The children were happily playing outside, as they always did on fine days, when suddenly, Sam came into the kitchen crying and said to her mother:’ 
‘Always when the sun is shining’ is from dawn to dusk, ‘come in’ is much less formal than ‘enter’ and it is a child.



> - Mum, Mum, a horrible accident happened. Samantha is dead.



- What are you talking about, Sam? How can you be dead? You are talking to me. You are not dead.

- Mum, please, come outside and see for yourself.


This seems very bald, I know she was crying, but not enough that she had any difficulty being understood, this is her twin, almost part of her, I want her distraught to the point she can barely be understood and totally inconsolable.



> Mrs. Johnson followed Samantha and found the dead body of little Martha. She had fallen and hit her head on a rock.
> 
> - Oh, good Lord, what just happened? – said Mrs. Johnson desperately
> 
> - We were playing and Sam banged her head on this rock. – said Sam.


And I thought that was a bit bald, no description of how she was lying, why she fell what sort of rock, and then her mother says “Oh Good Lord” without even an exclamation mark. Any woman I know would have a lot more to say than that!


> - But Samantha, why (do) you keep saying “Sam”? It is Martha! Can’t you see? It is not you! It is Martha for God’s sake!





> Samantha was crying she couldn’t stop crying. Mrs. Johnson didn’t know how to deal with Sam’s hysteria and she was in shock herself. So she went back home and decided to call Mr. Johnson and told  (him)  everything that had happened.


A cold fish this Johnson woman, she didn’t rush back in and grab the phone, looking desperately for support, she went back in and made a decision. I think you are failing to enter into your characters properly.


> They called the ambulance, then the cops came, relatives, neighbors, the house was full of strangers, and Samantha kept crying. Mrs. Johnson took her upstairs, gave her a bath, gave her a relaxing tea, and stayed with her until she fell asleep.





> Downstairs, people were weeping and mourning the loss of sweet little Martha. Some would say “now she is truly an angel”, other would say “what will become of Sam now that her sister is gone?”, there were some who offered any help, and in this way they tried to honor the memory of that charming little girl. But suddenly their thoughts and words were interrupted by a vision. Could it be true? Martha was coming downstairs. It was a vision for sure. The dress, perfectly clean; the hair, with its usual braid; the walk, so elegant. It wasn’t Sam, that was Martha, everybody knew. But it couldn’t be. Mrs. Johnson exploded:
> 
> - Sam, this isn’t a joke! Go change!
> 
> ...


I would replace ‘my two’ with ‘both’
- No! You all must listen to what I have to say. I didn’t lose one child today. I lost both children. Martha is gone, and this one (lose here) says she is not Sam, so Sam is not here either. My twins are gone. If this is not Sam, I don’t want her (Lose here). Take this girl away. She doesn’t belong here. Both my children were born on the same day, now I’ve lost both children on the same day.

It is not a ‘But’, birth and loss are consecutive, independent events.

I have tried to give you a crit from a slightly different angle, hope it helps.


----------



## Milhouse2011 (Aug 15, 2012)

Vcnavega, this piece has great potential as a psychological thriller. I'm not an expert on writing by any means but I'll put this out there. I would look at giving the overall story a sense of ambiguity. This was used to great effect in "A tale of two sisters" and in a somewhat simplified way in "The uninvited" and it would give the relationship between a twins an interesting perspective for readers.


----------



## Cran (Aug 16, 2012)

I agree with you, *Olly* (I had the _preaching for_ earmarked originally as one of the _to/for_ preposition issues, but forgot it in the later part of the process).

Yes. Good Lord! We've barely touched on punctuation. 

I held back on the _go for the simpler words_ advice; partly because I felt I was already tearing enough out of what is essentially a good idea; and partly because I wonder if we do that too often - recast the voice to conform to our common native English speaker. 

You're right about the dialogue and the overwhelmingly surreal calm - fleshing out would help. But there are instances in life when traumatic shock can cause one to become an automaton or even catatonic. It's a tougher path to take, but that may be why it's worth trying it.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Aug 16, 2012)

People who were not initially native English speakers or who speak fluently English as a second language often use it (or mis-use it slightly) in very interesting ways, some of our best writers and poets grew up speaking Welsh, Irish, or Scots Gaelic or dialect, I can understand your reluctance to 'correct' too much, Cran. Such things are often partly what give an author his 'voice'.


----------



## vcnavega (Aug 16, 2012)

Dear Mr. Buckle (sorry, I can’t call you Olly) and Cran,

When both of you started working on my stories I didn’t want to justify why I had chosen a phrase, because I thought I wouldn’t have that chance with the readers anyway. If the phrase was not clear for you, it wouldn’t matter if I explained it to you the reader wouldn’t have access to that explanation. But now I think if I explain that to you, you may help me to rephrase the sentence, so the reader will understand what I wanted to say. So now I will start justifying my choice of phrases, something I considered not so humble of my part, but what a hell, sometimes we must be bold.  



> Why would they bother with matching clothes anyway?



Every time I think of twins, especially babies and children, I think of them wearing matching clothes. Both of you seem not to agree with this concept I have. Does it happen only in Brazil? I think it is very common for the parents to match twin’s clothes. I was only trying to make the point that those girls never used them, to reinforce the idea their appearance were different. 




> _What really made each of them unique was their personality. _


 
_
Their uniqueness was perceived in their personality._


Does it sound better?




> _Martha was shy, tender, sweet, polite and extremely affectionate. She was obedient and would do anything to please her parents. Sam on the other hand was a wild child. It was impossible to comb her hair, for she would never stand still. She was not into tiaras and ribbons either, and with her loose hair she looked like a savage witch. She even threatened to pierce her dolls as if they were voodoos of her parents. _


 

It was much easier for me to describe Martha, to find adjectives for her. For Sam I had to describe her by her actions, maybe I was out of vocabulary (I am opened to words if you can help me with some). So I just imagined her as this savage witch placing pins on her dolls when she was angry at her parents and pretending it would make them hurt.

The two children were best friends and played together constantly, their differences complementing each other. When Martha impersonated a princess Sam played the role of her defender. Martha didn’t want Samantha to behave like a civilized girl and Sam never tried to convince Martha to be more spontaneous. They accepted each other as they were. Sometimes the Johnsons barely felt they had twins, as the girls were so different.

The children were happily playing outside, as they always did on fine days, when suddenly, Sam came into the kitchen crying hysterically and said to her mother:

- Mum, Mum, a horrible accident has happened. I think Samantha is dead. We were playing hide and seek outside, we were running, and then there was this rock, Sam stumble on it. Hurry up Mum, I think Samantha is dead.

- What are you talking about, Sam? How can you be dead? You are talking to me. You are not dead, Sam. I can’t understand what you are saying. Calm down sweety.

- Mum, please, come outside. I am not kidding. Please, come with me and see for yourself.

Mrs. Johnson followed Samantha and couldn’t believe when she actually found the dead body of little Martha. She had fallen and hit her head on a rock. There was blood all over the place, and Martha wouldn’t move. There was no doubt, Martha was dead. 

- Oh, good Lord! What just happened in here? Oh, my little princess! – said Mrs. Johnson desperately, while embracing Martha’s body.

- I told you mum, we were playing and Sam banged her head on this rock. Sam is dead, mum, Sam is dead! – said Sam.

- But Samantha, why do you keep saying “Sam”? It is Martha! Can’t you see? It is not you! It is Martha for God’s sake!




> A cold fish this Johnson woman, she didn’t rush back in and grab the phone, looking desperately for support, she went back in and made a decision. I think you are failing to enter into your characters properly.


 
Well, in my first version I wrote:



> _Samantha was crying; she couldn’t stop crying. __Mrs. Johnson didn’t know what to do._


But Cran said:



> _Mrs. Johnson didn’t know what to do._ - But then you immediately tell us what she did, first and later. Mrs Johnson was distraught, or felt helpless, but she knew what to do - she knew to call Mr Johnson as soon as she could.


Of course I wanted to make clear she was confused and desperate and the first thing she had in mind was to call for her husband’s support and guidance. I would accept some suggestions here. I myself have experienced this kind of situation – a dead body of a member of my family on the floor, calling paramedics, doing CPR, putting my feelings apart and doing what I had to do. How do you want me to describe this?

- No! You all must listen to what I have to say. I didn’t lose one child today. I lost both children. Martha is gone, and this one lose here says she is not Sam, so Sam is not here either. My twins are gone. If this is not Sam, I don’t want her either. Take this girl away. She doesn’t belong here. Both my children were born on the same day, now I’ve lost both children on the same day.
 


> I have tried to give you a crit from a slightly different angle, hope it helps.


Of course it did, Mr. Buckle. I wouldn’t expect less from you. Still I have those things I’ve pointed out, I’d like you to review, and tell me how I should deal with them.

Another thing I told Cran and I am bringing to you now is about the novel I am writing. I have 21 chapters written and I am afraid I am committing that same mistake you pointed out:



> this has an air of something missing for me, there is no explanation of the events and no obvious conclusion
> I think you are failing to enter into your characters properly


My novel is full of lack of explanation of the events and no obvious conclusions and I keep failing on entering into my characters properly. Perhaps it happens because things are too obvious to me and I am too lazy to make them obvious to the reader. Anyway, I was wonder if I should have my novel started to be checked now that I am still writing it, so I could avoid committing these and other mistakes in the next chapters I am going to write. When I asked Cran to have a look at it he answered me:



> A novel - that will likely be a bigger project than I can take on board right now. Why not post an excerpt or chapter in the _Writers' Workshop_ and see what the regulars have to say about it?


 
Regulars?! Oh, gosh! I am so shy, and I already feel comfortable with the two of you. Besides, I understand you seem to be busier than Cran. So your answer would be the same, wouldn’t it?

Another thing you said to me, and it took me by surprise, but also interested me was:



> I can imagine you being very helpful to some of our members


 
My method of learning is teaching. When I was studying Hindu Culture I end up writing 25 books on Hindu Culture, very didactic books. I was taking notes, studying, but at the end, my notes were so well organized that they became really good books. I made difficult subjects easy understandable for any person. I guess I am a good student and I good teacher. I just don’t know how a Brazilian could help native speaking English to write in their own language. What do you mean by me being helpful to some of the members of WF?

Well, I guess that is all, for now,
With all my gratitude,
V. C. Navega
PS: Oh, one more thing. Do you think it would be possible for a reader to think that in that day Martha and Samantha impersonated each other, and was indeed Samantha who died? Cran doesn’t think so.




> _
> Although they were twins, each beautiful girl was distinctive. It was *impossible to mistake one for the other*. _Something cannot be both impossible and possible. Even if the girls had decided to switch roles for their game on that day, their mother should have noticed immediately. She would have asked when Martha appeared in the kitchen, "why are you dressed like Sam?" Remember, at that point, Mrs Johnson had not suffered any shock.


 

I wish I could keep that mystery I wanted the reader to have that doubt in mind.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Aug 16, 2012)

> Dear Mr. Buckle (sorry, I can’t call you Olly)


Thank you, I take that for respect. It is unusual for me to be addressed that way, I am normally only called that by tax inspectors and policemen  But that does not mean your South American good manners are not appreciated

"So now I will start justifying my choice of phrases, something I consider not so humble on my part, but what the h*ll, sometimes we must be bold."

You have the basic concept that communication is the transfer of an idea from one person’s head to another’s, the more precisely that is done the better the communication. So don’t see it as justification, see it as a chance to improve communication, when I ask why they would have matching clothes I am not unaware of the connection between twins and matching clothes, I am asking why these people would apply it? Take this concept from the end of the next paragraph “The Johnsons didn’t feel they had twins, as the girls were so different”. Why would such people match clothes? 
May I suggest you combine it with the matching clothes remark. Not only will it add clarity, but the next paragraph is, otherwise, about the girls, not ‘The Johnsons’ as a whole, it puts things together that should be togrther

“It was impossible to mistake one for the other. The Johnsons didn’t feel they had twins, as the girls were so different, and did not bother with the usual conventions such as matching clothes for their daughters.”

Generally you are very good at this sort of construction of the parts to make a cohesive whole, many people separate things so much their meaning becomes unclear, it would not need perfect English to tactfully point this out to people.


One thing I did want to draw your attention to , Nicky, the one who probably greeted you when you first joined is an ESL author who writes and is published in English, Her native language is Flemish. It can be done!

I shall return.


----------



## TinyDancer (Aug 16, 2012)

wow that was twisted, I wish you wrote more it was interesting! who was it really though..thats what I keep wondering.


----------



## vcnavega (Aug 16, 2012)

I like people to have their own opinion on who actually died. My own opinion, if I was the reader, not the writer, would be that Sam was so shocked that her sister died, that she decided to become Martha. She liked Martha more than she liked herself, so she just went crazy and decided to die and let Martha live on her.


----------



## Sebastian Darkwood (Aug 16, 2012)

should be longer


----------



## vcnavega (Aug 16, 2012)

Well, I have my strong points, and my weak points

As Cran said:


> _Once again, vcnavega, you have an interesting and challenging idea._


And as Mr. Buckle said:


> I would agree, this is your strength and I can imagine you being very helpful to some of our members who can get stuck in this way, however, this has an air of something missing for me, there is no explanation of the events and no obvious conclusion. The mystery is the story of course, but personally I wanted a little something extra.


Right now I am working on a novel and I am in desperate need of help on my weak point – stretching things.


----------



## Cran (Aug 16, 2012)

vcnavega said:


> I like people to have their own opinion on who actually died. My own opinion, if I was the reader, not the writer, would be that Sam was so shocked that her sister died, that she decided to become Martha. She liked Martha more than she liked herself, so she just went crazy and decided to die and let Martha live on her.


That was my feeling, also, except that Sam's change to Martha need not have been a conscious decision, but an extension of the almost supernatural bond that many twins seem to share; and that was why I included the physical changes, suggesting more than a simple emotional breakdown on Sam's part, but that the moment of death and their mutual bond led the essence of both girls to share Sam's body. 

I had no problem with you pointing out that the Johnson's didn't match clothes for their daughters; it was only a wording issue on my part. No problem because the matching clothes bit is very common*, but it is most common with identical twins, and my understanding of the Johnson girls is that they are not identical twins but fraternal twins, because that is the most common way that it would be_ impossible for one to be mistaken for the other_; something which makes their _features_ (eyes, ears, nose, lips, hair, chin, face or body shape) _distinctive_. The only other option would be some form of permanent and easily visible physical damage to one of the twins. 

*_many people think it's _cute_; others have a different view. _

_Features_ do not normally include mannerisms or personalities; these can also be distinctive, but with practice and intent, they can also be altered. So, if the only differences between the girls are in the way each normally behaves, and what clothes and hairstyles they prefer, then it is _not_ impossible to mistake one for the other. As I said before, something cannot be both impossible and possible. 



> _Their *uniqueness* was *perceived* in their *personality*._


This is a perfect example of what *Olly *pointed out earlier, and where many would also say, "don't". 

The statement is _passive_ (not _active_), and it unnecessarily uses complex (or ten cent) words.
You don't want too many of these in a short story, _unless_ (again) it _fully suits the voice_ of the character** or narrator - and it's less likely to appeal in a narrator. The broad advice is to use the simplest words which convey the message. 

**_I wrote a short story (_Retribution_, published in _Motley Press_) that included one character - a scientist - who could only converse in ten (and sometimes fifty) cent words, and who needed a translator - an engineer - to explain his babble to the others. _


----------



## JustinSaysHola (Aug 17, 2012)

I know you already have a few people being very helpful to you in regards to your story. I just wanted to add in that I love the story idea. The only thing I would like (this is personal preference mind you) is if the story had a bit more ambiguity. Such as, since they were playing outside and Sam was crying, both of there faces were covered in dirt and blood and tears, so it was hard for there mother to be 100% sure which one was which. Just an idea.

Also, good luck on the novel, I feel the same way, in that writing a short story or two helps when I'm stuck on a larger project.


----------



## vcnavega (Aug 17, 2012)

Dear justinsayshola,

Thanks for jumping in. Any idea is always welcome. We wouldn’t have that chance if our works were published, our readers wouldn’t be talking to us and giving us ideas. In WF we are fortunate enough to hear other people’s opinions and I am very happy to know how my little “The Twins” has been stimulating people’s imagination.

I am thinking about adding in the beginning of the story the fact they were actually *identical twins*, not just fraternal twins as Cran thought. 

I thought I had made that clear, but as you also suggested me to do something with their faces so their mothers wouldn’t be sure who was who, I guess I need to make that clearer.



> The only thing I would like (this is personal preference mind you) is if the story had a bit more ambiguity.


Ambiguity is all this story is about. If I fail with it, I’ll fail with this story. So, please, don’t bother about making more comments. They are highly appreciated.

*Two people with same bodily features but very distinctive behavior. One of them dies. The other one start acting as the one who died. Who died after all?*


----------



## vcnavega (Aug 17, 2012)

*Ten cent???*

Dear Mr. Buckle,




> Okay, I am going to give you a ten cent word, sorry Mr Twain, try this,’ ... played together constantly, their differences _complementing_ each other.’ I would then start the next sentence ‘When’, as it is an illustration of this.


 
Forgive my ignorance, but I don’t know what a “ten cent” is.

When I tried to rephrase a sentence (of course with the intention to make it better) Cran said I did it again. And I keep not knowing what it is, and why I shouldn’t use this. 

_Their *uniqueness* was *perceived* in their *personality*_
 


> This is a perfect example of what *Olly *pointed out earlier, and where many would also say, "don't".
> The statement is _passive_ (not _active_), and it unnecessarily uses complex (or ten cent) words.


Can you explain it to me?

Again, apologies for my ignorance,
V. C. Navega


----------



## Cran (Aug 17, 2012)

*Ten cent words*

Sorry about that - it's a saying with a long history in publishing and writing circles. 

Before the internet, printing for newspapers and magazines was restricted to mechanical printing presses and lots of paper. One of the jobs between writer and reader was that of the typesetter, who literally set the type-plates; wooden frames in which tiny reversed letter blocks (like the top bits of old typewriter keys) were placed until the frame was full - that meant even the spaces between words had to be added with shorter blank blocks. 

Then the frame was placed into the printing press for the next print run. Each frame held the text and blanks for one page; the text was always set out in columns (the number of columns varied according to the type of publication it was - large newspapers had up to eight or more columns per page). 

There were two ways to measure a story in newspapers and magazines in those days: one was in _column inches_ (the more column inches a journalist or columnist could get in print, the better that journalist's or columnist's reputation); the other was by _word count_. Any writer not working for a weekly wage (often called "on staff" - you would sometimes see "staff reporter" or "staff columnist" next to the byline) was paid "by the word". 

However, counting up the individual words would have been a long and tedious task, so a simple averaging system was devised. In printing, therefore, "a word" became a standard measure; one of the common standards was _five letters_ or letter spaces. Once you worked out how many five-letter words fit on a column line, you could then calculate how many words filled a column inch, and from there, how many _words_ were in the article and what payment should be made to the writer. 

For a long time, a _word_ (in this sense) was worth on average five cents, or one cent per letter space - some publications paid more, some paid less. So, a nine or ten letter word would cost the publisher ten cents, and would more likely be a word that most of its readers would have more trouble understanding. 

Worse, a _ten cent word_ would often not fit well in a narrow column; it would have to be hyphenated and continued on the next line in the column. Editors and publishers and typesetters did not like having long columns of print with lots of hyphenated words; they made the article harder to read; and the extra hyphens added to the column inches, therefore adding to the payment. 

Shorter words were popular; _ten cent words_ were not.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Aug 17, 2012)

I had not heard that explanation, Cran. Presumably novelists were paid by numbers of copies sold.


"I never write metropolis for seven cents because I can get the same price for city. I never write policeman because I can get the same money for cop." Mark Twain.


----------



## Cran (Aug 17, 2012)

*Olly*, it was different for hardbound books, and for what the Americans called _dime-store novels_ (book-sized, often serialised magazines) - no columns, although word count was still based on a standardised measure. Whether the standard word measure was used in the US in Mark Twain's time, I couldn't say. But Mr Twain also had a reputation for good humour, and for not insulting the intelligence of his reader; he wouldn't have said that most of his readers might have scratched their heads over _metropolis_, but understood _city_; frowned over the use of _policeman_, but be comfortable with _cop_. 

Mark Twain was popular, not only because he wrote imaginative stories, but because he wrote in the language of his readers. 

Book writers were usually paid by word count or page count for the manuscript, and then by royalties based on numbers sold.


----------



## Cran (Aug 17, 2012)

vcnavega said:


> I am thinking about adding in the beginning of the story the fact they were actually *identical twins*, not just fraternal twins as Cran thought.
> 
> I thought I had made that clear, but as you also suggested me to do something with their faces so their mothers wouldn’t be sure who was who, I guess I need to make that clearer.
> 
> *Two people with same bodily features but very distinctive behavior. One of them dies. The other one start acting as the one who died. Who died after all?*



Well, if they are identical twins, then they have _identical features_ - _features_ refers to their physical attributes, which is why I inferred that distinctive or unique features meant that they did not physically resemble each other. Mannerisms and cosmetic appearances can easily be changed with practice and intent. That also means the idea that it was _impossible_ to confuse one for the other is misleading; quite simply incorrect. Because for identical twins, it is _not impossible_, and there is a history in fiction (and in real life) of identical twins with different personalities switching places. It's a different story; it's _The Patty Duke Show_ with a death.


----------



## vcnavega (Aug 18, 2012)

Dear Mr. Buckle and Mr. Herlihy,

Thanks for the explanation on the cents. I have also several other things to review on this story. 

I am a bit frustrated with small things… I still don’t get the difference between “in spite”, “despite”, and “although”

And really frustrated with big things…the fact they were identical twins not being clear

I am having a big family reunion, it is my mum’s birthday, my brother who lives in USA is visiting us, my other brother who lives here is coming with my nephew and niece, it is hard to focus on my work right now. While I am with them I am rephrasing sentences in my mind, thinking about the next chapters of my novel, it is like having a lover…

Anyway, as soon as I find some peace, I will work on all you’ve been so kindly teaching me.

Always grateful,
V. C. Navega


----------



## Cran (Aug 18, 2012)

Happy Birthday to your mum!


----------



## iambum (Aug 22, 2012)

I like it how weird it is. I like how it ends. You have gift. Imma keep reading all your works. Im an instant fan


----------

