Fontaigne t1_jckxc2t wrote

Layers -> lawyers (twice)

They can probably eventually appeal that, based on incompetent counsel. I can see one of these where a world class Johnny Cochran type takes it on on appeal.

Since wizard locations are distinct from muggle locations, there was no jurisdiction for the muggle government in the magical realm, so taxes would only be due on wealth repatriated to muggle Canada.

They really would have been far better off negotiating as a sovereign entity for establishing diplomatic ties.

But that would have required non-idiots in charge, and this is JKR-land.


Fontaigne t1_jaresy5 wrote

I liked it the way it was. The line feels intimate, like she's confiding in us. The mention of "adrenaline" is the opposite: a clinical detail that isn't personal. The story is personal.

To me, the line is explaining the detail of how she knew he had been scared out of his mind... and thus is to that degree a show.

"Show, don't tell" is a useful reminder phrase, but you need to keep in mind that it's ALL tell. In prose, literally every word is being "told".

The question of Show vs Tell is often a question of what is appropriate for an audience. Do you tell them the person stomped off, or do you tell them the person left in anger? It depends on your voice, genre and audience. Some audiences like to know emotion, and infer action, some the other way.

Largely, Show vs Tell is a question of level and of focus. Depending on style, each level of detail "shown" take 5-10 times as many words. In the middle of an intimate scene, is it worth adding even the twenty words you suggested, that are NOT intimate?

For me, it's perfect. Your mileage may vary.


Fontaigne t1_jaqz4m4 wrote

Reverse the order of the last two phrases for more punch. Ideally, you want the punch line in the last 2-3 words.

Quick and bad version

> despite the implications of this gesture, no silver ring could fix that. There would be no silver bullet.


Fontaigne t1_j9p2zci wrote

You already are.

Everyone has a half million bad words in them, it's best to get them out as quickly as you can... and it looks like you might already be close to running out.


Fontaigne t1_j26anih wrote

>Dale looked at me[, ] baffled[, ] then all around.

>Dale stuck a hand through its face as it sniffed him to scratch his beard.

Looks like it's sniffing him to scratch his beard. Perhaps move the reason earlier?

>Dale moved to scratch his beard, and stuck a hand through its face where it was sniffing him.

>Don't show it [that] you can see it.


Fontaigne t1_iydkmw0 wrote

As attorney for Jack, I'm glad you feel that way. It proves you haven't thought the case through, and your attempt to slander my client in the public eye is both vile and actionable.

There is nothing illegal about purchase or possession of magic beans or beanstalks, so any such claims are merely an attempt to prejudice the jury pool, who have experienced recent predations by cannibal witches. You have managed to distract the public from your abject failure to enforce building code, despite the obvious nature of the attractive hazard presented by a gingerbread house, and the child endangerment that you were therefore party to. And you had the gall to charge Gretel despite her self defense. I prevailed representing her in that travesty of a case, and this case shall fare no different.

There is no trespass, since the place Jack arrived was unposted in all ways, and is not recognized or recognizable as a dwelling under your own local laws. If the giant's house, as it is referenced, were in THIS jurisdiction, then it would violate code egregiously, being especially hazardous and not accessible to healthy persons, let alone the handicapped.

Similarly, the alleged theft is not in your jurisdiction, and those charges will be naturally dismissed via a preremptory appeal, and all references to them will be held from the jury as prejudicial. Any items in Jack's possession on Jacks property are salvage, belonging to Jack.

Which leaves you with a charge of, what, self defense from a crazed giant? Is that illegal in this town?

You've already mentioned trespass. The beanstalk in question was on whose property? It belonged to whom? So who was trespassing, with intent to murder? You are attacking another child, for defending themself against another cannibal, who yelled in front of witnesses that he would "grind Jacks bones to make my bread".

Wonderful case you have there. Yes, please, feel sorry for me. But remember how attacking another child for defending himself against cannibals will look.

When you lose.

Jack destroyed Jack's property, the beanstalk, to defend himself from a cannibal trespasser. The giant was in no danger if he had merely stayed home, and fixed his house to match the building code, instead of attempting to kill and eat my client.

So... good luck with your prosecution.

You will lose, without a doubt.

However, to simplify everyone's lives, we are willing to make a deal.

What do you say about a charge of.... littering?


R Stiltskin, Esq.


Fontaigne t1_iydalow wrote

Which one was the accomplice talking to?

Why would the hero listening be a bad thing?

Seems like there's a story beat missing where the hero manages to convince the villain of something.