In which she fixes an accessory blunder

[zeborah]

I had been uncomfortably aware for a while that it made no sense to give Ermegård a necklace with a pendant to be worn under her partlet: the fashion was for chains - sans pendants of any description - to be worn on the outside of one's clothes. But I needed that pendant for the plot and...

...in the writing of it made it small enough that I just now realised it'll fit on a ring instead. *Rings* are in fashion, rings galore -- not quite as flashy as this, but almost, and the Spider won't notice even if Mikkel Ahlefeldt would have.

This will involve some rewriting (eg it will no longer be able to be looped around the Spider's belt) but has bonus symbolism attached.

[I post this here because I'm convinced that if I posted it on rasfc someone would think that I was asking them to solve my problem, and would tell me that it was perfectly okay to write in a pendant if I wanted to. <head-desk> ]

Comments

[jamesandbluejay.livejournal.com]

In a way, it's like trying to learn how to ride a horse; a casual move (such as mentioning a problem you are wrestling with, or, in the case of the horse, turning to say something to a riding companion) evokes a response from the horse (or other writers who hear that you are wrestling with something and want to join in somehow, even if it is wrong).

There. That should be positively convoluted. (insert vacuous grin at this point. I'm wrestling with stuff too, but I don't want to have to join the WWF [That's the World Wresting Federation, a bunch of muscle bound actors who perform sweatily and bloodily on TV in what they claim to be entertainment].

Anyhow, I feel for ya with the furor over the 'reluctant torturer' on rafsc. All sorts of similes spring to mind -- B'rer Rabbit and the Tar Baby, for one.

James

[zeborah]

When I'm done sulking I'll probably repost all this to rasfc after all because I think it's fascinating that such a small change could have so many different effects.