• JayDee@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I do not know where you’re coming from here. Pinnochio wants to be a real boy. He’ll be what he eats, so he’s going to eat a real boy so he becomes one himself. Nothing about that matches curiosity or innocence. Pinnochio has a dasterdly, horrific plan, which he aims to enact. Sly is more apt, if not alittle understated.

      • lath@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        It’s only dastardly to those who know it’s dastardly.

        Pinocchio isn’t human, doesn’t know what being human means and barely understands the concepts of right and wrong as most humans ascribe to. Hell, even we disagree on some points in this regard, let alone a puppet made of wood whose own physical limitations are different from our own.

        Even we still have isolated cannibal tribes who eat human flesh as a way of life. To us, that’s evil and horrific, to them it’s just life. So why wouldn’t a being unbound by our moral standards take that sentence at face value and accept it as simple truth? Why must it be sly and conniving? Because we consider it to be as such? That’s both a foolish and flawed way of thought.

        There are many cultural differences around the world, some of which are fought over zealously, and I can’t help but feel that they blind us to all the varied points of view which exist outside our own restrictive norms.

        Sly might be the only way you see as horrific, yet your own way of life might seem horrific to others.

        To me, the reason you don’t see where I’m coming from is because as a reader, you restricted yourself to a certain perspective. Yours.

    • 007Ace@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      1 day ago

      curious or innocent eyes? That would not imply that he was going to eat children.

      • lath@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        1 day ago

        On the contrary. Knowing it’s a two-sentence horror fanfic provides the unsaid context.

        • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          If you have to tell me your two sentence horror story is a horror story, it’s not a horror story.

          Kinda like you can’t tell people a joke is funny when they don’t laugh.

          • lath@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            Without the third comment in the screenshot telling us it’s a two-sentence horror fanfic, would you have been absolutely certain this screenshot was about a two-sentence horror fanfic?

            • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              20 hours ago

              Yes. I got the horror vibe from the first comment and didn’t need to have it spelled out. Slyly looking at the elementary school obviously implies he’s going too eat one or more kids to become a real boy.

              This is classic ‘show, don’t tell’ writing.

        • djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          1 day ago

          sure, but if you use sly you can get the joke without the unnecessary context.

          The actual reason is probably the word’s association with foxes. “sly fox sneaking into henhouse” is I believe the visual metaphor they were going for.

          • lath@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            1 day ago

            Then I guess it’s not an improvement, but a different way of presenting it.

            Using sly suggests furtive intent. My alternative was intended as a matter-of-fact approach. The former looks to sneak as if to not get caught, the latter pursues openly as if only a natural course.

    • Philharmonic3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Why y’all hating? This person is right! It’s more Apt for Pinocchio to be curious, maybe “wide eyes”? I think it adds to the horror for Pinocchio to not know that it is evil to eat children

      • derek@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        20 hours ago

        The suggested alternatives don’t work though because they’re superfluously suggestive. We have a few ways to fine-tune the story. I’m not sure there’s an inarguable improvement but, to my taste, I see two.

        “Well… You are what you eat!” She replied.

        Pinocchio’s gaze moved slowly toward the school.

        1. It doesn’t matter who the speaker is. If the reader is familiar with the original story and they assume correctly that’s fine. We don’t need the information for our delivery though. Dropping the reference makes for a cleaner read.
        2. Ixnay the garnish. I considered “eager gaze” but that still felt clunky. Communicating the action in a way which mirrors the unspoken internal processing of the monstrous consideration itself leads to a more powerful realization for the reader. It now paints a scene instead of hinting how the reader should feel about it.

        Part of my execution comes down to styling, and I’m particular, but packaging compact work for ease of digestion and letting the words rest as they fall leads the reader succinctly to our intended moment (which, as I understand it, is the purpose of the exercise).