#2! Both explanations are good, but #2 reads better to me...clear and confident, it has more punch and the language is more concise. It pulls me in a little bit with a hint as to why you have so much passion for this project. And also leaves me with the impression that you will be going ahead with this regardless of getting a grant...you will find a way, it's that important to you.
I like #2 more than #1 because it gets to the point. However, I would remove the text in parenthesis (text in parenthesis is 'throw away text'). If it is important, then work it into the overall response text. My questions in relation to the response text #2 – why were you looking at a government building in Takaoka? Did your novel concept come before or spring from that visit? I had questions of relevancy for the philosopher and the research scientist, but you answered it after introducing them; perhaps switch that order so the questions don’t have a chance to pop up and take me out of the response. What is the relationship between your visit to the government building, the Palace, the World Fair, and the Catskills? Can that be brought together at the top of the response text? I like the summary at the end of what your novel is about because it answers the question, why is she writing this novel? I also wonder how you came to think of these concepts. Are they (the ‘defy roles’) part of your overall writing curiosity? You don’t specify the dual timeline in the response, but you did in your newsletter. I love the art history angle—is the main character an art history sleuth? It seems like the dual timelines are 1910 and … either after WWII (why?) or modern day (2024?) – what brings the two timelines together? Is that the mystery? Personally, I've read too much lately about WWII and would welcome a break from that era.
So helpful. It’s a complicated web and I only have three sentences (!) — I can only present so much info. Probably better to leave stuff out than to try to be comprehensive. It’s great to get new eyes on all this to see what’s especially confusing or if something seems irrelevant. Thanks!
I like Explanation 2. I like the buildup from art - we all understand art - to cultural ambassador to US - oh, isn't that unusual - to the palace built for the Worlds Fair - that's interesting, I wonder where this is going - and then moved to the Catskills - whaaat??? Each piece is more unusual than the one before, and the unsuspecting reader gets pulled right along to the surprise at the end.
Beginning with the palace in the Catskills in Explanation 1 makes it feel slower. No suspense.
I like the art history angle too. Question: why does the wind god look pixellated around the edges? is it tiny tiles, or was it painted that way?
#2. I love it!
I love your insightful and thoughtful newsletters Katrin. I think number 2 will
appeal to the NEFTA more because of all the historic and scientific research references.
Go with 1910 and then the modern days explanation.
#2! Both explanations are good, but #2 reads better to me...clear and confident, it has more punch and the language is more concise. It pulls me in a little bit with a hint as to why you have so much passion for this project. And also leaves me with the impression that you will be going ahead with this regardless of getting a grant...you will find a way, it's that important to you.
I like #2 more than #1 because it gets to the point. However, I would remove the text in parenthesis (text in parenthesis is 'throw away text'). If it is important, then work it into the overall response text. My questions in relation to the response text #2 – why were you looking at a government building in Takaoka? Did your novel concept come before or spring from that visit? I had questions of relevancy for the philosopher and the research scientist, but you answered it after introducing them; perhaps switch that order so the questions don’t have a chance to pop up and take me out of the response. What is the relationship between your visit to the government building, the Palace, the World Fair, and the Catskills? Can that be brought together at the top of the response text? I like the summary at the end of what your novel is about because it answers the question, why is she writing this novel? I also wonder how you came to think of these concepts. Are they (the ‘defy roles’) part of your overall writing curiosity? You don’t specify the dual timeline in the response, but you did in your newsletter. I love the art history angle—is the main character an art history sleuth? It seems like the dual timelines are 1910 and … either after WWII (why?) or modern day (2024?) – what brings the two timelines together? Is that the mystery? Personally, I've read too much lately about WWII and would welcome a break from that era.
So helpful. It’s a complicated web and I only have three sentences (!) — I can only present so much info. Probably better to leave stuff out than to try to be comprehensive. It’s great to get new eyes on all this to see what’s especially confusing or if something seems irrelevant. Thanks!
I like Explanation 2. I like the buildup from art - we all understand art - to cultural ambassador to US - oh, isn't that unusual - to the palace built for the Worlds Fair - that's interesting, I wonder where this is going - and then moved to the Catskills - whaaat??? Each piece is more unusual than the one before, and the unsuspecting reader gets pulled right along to the surprise at the end.
Beginning with the palace in the Catskills in Explanation 1 makes it feel slower. No suspense.
I like the art history angle too. Question: why does the wind god look pixellated around the edges? is it tiny tiles, or was it painted that way?
Oh this is helpful, thanks. He looks pixilated because of the use of the gold squares. He was hand painted and the gold was applied afterwards.
When in doubt, go for the bigger picture, what the hell - !