Post History
I am in the process of editing a short story. It is science fiction of the "if this goes on" kind: I take a social trend I see, and paint its event horizon - a troubling future. 1984 and Fahrenheit...
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2019-12-12T21:57:39Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/46968 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T12:35:02Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/46968 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
I am in the process of editing a short story. It is science fiction of the "if this goes on" kind: I take a social trend I see, and paint its event horizon - a troubling future. _1984_ and _Fahrenheit 451_ are classical examples. I have received two seemingly contradictory critiques from beta readers: one says > This is too much, this is a strawman, you are weakening your argument by presenting the extreme edge of the phenomenon you wish to engage with rather than its mainstream. The other says: > This is not enough. If you give that phenomenon free reign, it would go much further, get much worse than what you present. You weaken your story by keeping it too tame, by not going far enough. How do I listen to both my beta readers here? What is hiding behind the contradictory critique? **I can see how there is truth in what each of them says, but how do I combine the two?** Perhaps exacerbating the problem is the fact that this is a short story. I have very limited space to set up what I have set out to explore.
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2019-07-28T17:33:41Z (over 5 years ago)
Original score: 15