Please critique this paragraph I've written for a Civil War piece I'm doing.

[JJLogan]

Caged animals scenting blood turned loose, rushing madly, inevitably up the fuming slope strewn with human bodies, some twisted into ghastly forms. More collapsing on the way. Sound waves of crackling musketry echoing through the sulfurous air, the shifting ensemble of locust clouds swarming, swirling ever closer. The indistinguishable cacophony of men's shouts and cries. Inaudible whispers from the all but dead, begging for mercy in the netherworld, begging for their mother's loving arms. Savage, blasphemous fratricide.

[cafolini]

Actually pretty good. Some metaphors are irrelevant and lower the quality rather than enhance it. I think there is no better critique than editing. So I'll tell you how I'd like it.

Human animals scenting blood turned loose, rushing madly, inevitably up the fuming slope strewn with bodies, some twisted into ghastly forms. More collapsing on the way. Sound waves of crackling musketry echoing through the sulfurous air, the shifting ensemble swarming, swirling ever closer. The indistinguishable cacophony of men's shouts and cries. Inaudible whispers from the dying, begging for His mercy, calling for their mothers' loving arms. Savage, blasphemous fratricide.

[Calidore]

I like your edit, Cafolini. One thing, though: While I agree with changing the second "begging" in the last line to avoid repetition, "calling" clashes with the "inaudible whispers" earlier. Maybe something like "longing" instead?

[cafolini]

I like your edit, Cafolini. One thing, though: While I agree with changing the second "begging" in the last line to avoid repetition, "calling" clashes with the "inaudible whispers" earlier. Maybe something like "longing" instead?

I think it depends on how you interpret the call. But longing also works.

[Steven Hunley]

The human animals dressed in blue were let loose by a bugle call the moment their officers scented blood. Rushing madly up the slope through clouds of cannon fire, through mazes strewn with bodies twisted into ghastly forms, more than half collapsed along the way. Crackling musket fire echoed through the sulfurous air of a man-made hell.
The men in blue swarmed over the men in grey like locusts and devoured them like plague. I thought their cries would have been distinguishable but they were not. The prayers of the dying, begging for His mercy, or calling out for the tender mercy of their mother's loving arms, or cursing their lousy luck as they tried in vain to stop the bleeding, was the same on both sides.

Death makes no distinctions.

The papers called it war. No. The papers were wrong. It was savage, blasphemous fratricide.


(Just call this the long version. Your initial idea was good and your vocabulary is fine, but when writing something dramatic, try to avoid making something that looks like a list. Not matter how powerful the words, a list is just a list. The key to this piece is somewhere in between these two extremes)

[JJLogan]

Thank you, cafolini and Calidore (sounds like a law firm or musical duet!), I like your revision. Like many fledgling writers, I was stuck on "caged animals," and the locust metaphor was admittedly a stretch; I almost never try a metaphor to that extent. Calidore makes a solid point with a dying man whispering and calling.

The piece I'm doing focuses on the American Civil War from the viewpoint of civilians and common soldiers, and I would love to be able to post a few more bits for your review. I should mention that the work contains far more eyewitness quotes than my descriptions, most of which intentionally lack the level of drama shown here.

Thanks so much for your help!

-- Jim Logan

[JJLogan]

I don't see my post yet in which I thanked both of you, and wrote that I found your revisions most helpful. I'm new to this site, so perhaps the message went only to you (I doubt that), or it will magically appear later. If not, thanks again!

-- Jim Logan

[JJLogan]

Thanks, Steven, now I have another version to consider. It looks like all three of you are against "begging for mercy in the netherworld," a reference to hell, rather than "His mercy" presumably at the pearly gates of heaven. This was intended to illustrate the struggle that existed in the minds of so many Civil War soldiers: "If I'm slaughtering people, how can I be a good, Christian person?"

But I do like your choice better here.

-- Jim Logan

[Steven Hunley]

Thanks, Steven, now I have another version to consider. It looks like all three of you are against "begging for mercy in the netherworld," a reference to hell, rather than "His mercy" presumably at the pearly gates of heaven. This was intended to illustrate the struggle that existed in the minds of so many Civil War soldiers: "If I'm slaughtering people, how can I be a good, Christian person?"

But I do like your choice better here.

-- Jim Logan

This idea of a religious person wondering if when breaking a commandment will make them go to hell is a good and tested idea. It applies to all soldiers of all faiths. I'd explore that one too, but with dialogue between two soldiers. There's a universality in the theme that will touch any soldier reading it.

[Diar624]

hi Jim,
i'm a freelance editor and i'd love to edit your work if you need it. you can find my blog with editorial services page at www.apoetsperspective.com.

thanks,
Dominick

[JJLogan]

I appreciate everyone's help with this, but I'm not sure about one phrase suggested, "begging for His mercy." It probably works fine, but I'm wondering if anyone has a different idea for that line.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Actually pretty good. Some metaphors are irrelevant and lower the quality rather than enhance it. I think there is no better critique than editing. So I'll tell you how I'd like it.

Human animals scenting blood turned loose, rushing madly, inevitably up the fuming slope strewn with bodies, some twisted into ghastly forms. More collapsing on the way. Sound waves of crackling musketry echoing through the sulfurous air, the shifting ensemble swarming, swirling ever closer. The indistinguishable cacophony of men's shouts and cries. Inaudible whispers from the dying, begging for His mercy, calling for their mothers' loving arms. Savage, blasphemous fratricide.

It may be nitpicking, but a musket is technically a smooth-bore muzzle-loading long gun. In the Civil War both muzzle and breech loading long guns were used, but almost all of them had rifled (grooved) barrels. Rifled muzzle-loaders (most famously the Kentucky and Pennsylvania long rifles) were used by the Colonial armies in the Revolutionary war (the Brits were still using mostly smooth-bore muskets). By the Civil War, both sides were armed with rifles.

Technically the rifled muzzleloaders should be called either "rifles" or "rifled muskets." The breech-loaders (e.g. the Henry) should be called "rifles."

[JJLogan]

Not really, Nick, but thanks for trying to be helpful. As one who majored in history with a focus on the American Civil War Era, and has read probably three hundred books about the war, including at least 25 on Gettysburg, alone, I'm pretty strong in this area. If you read any book about the subject, or letters, diaries, or news accounts of the day, you'll see how the word "musket" and "rifle" are used interchangeably. They didn't try to be that technically correct, so I'm not worried about it.

Further, although most guns were "rifled muskets" by 1863, plenty of the old style smooth-bores were around. That's what the famous Irish Brigade used at Gettysburg. In the first year of the war, few rifled muskets were available. As for the rifled musket in Colonial times, there weren't any in use because the "bullets'" irregular shapes and sizes were not compatible. Not until French Capt. Claude Minie (add accent over the "e") developed the "minie ball," and an American improved it just a few years before the Civil War, did the rifled musket become practical.

As for breech-loaders, very few were in use in 1863, primarily issued to cavalry, such as John Buford's division at Gettysburg.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Not really, Nick, but thanks for trying to be helpful. As one who majored in history with a focus on the American Civil War Era, and has read probably three hundred books about the war, including at least 25 on Gettysburg, alone, I'm pretty strong in this area. If you read any book about the subject, or letters, diaries, or news accounts of the day, you'll see how the word "musket" and "rifle" are used interchangeably. They didn't try to be that technically correct, so I'm not worried about it.

Further, although most guns were "rifled muskets" by 1863, plenty of the old style smooth-bores were around. That's what the famous Irish Brigade used at Gettysburg. In the first year of the war, few rifled muskets were available. As for the rifled musket in Colonial times, there weren't any in use because the "bullets'" irregular shapes and sizes were not compatible. Not until French Capt. Claude Minie (add accent over the "e") developed the "minie ball," and an American improved it just a few years before the Civil War, did the rifled musket become practical.

As for breech-loaders, very few were in use in 1863, primarily issued to cavalry, such as John Buford's division at Gettysburg.

I prefaced my comment by acknowledging that it was nit-picking, and I defer to your more extensive reading in historical accounts of the Civil war. I am no expert in Civil War history, but I do have a fair knowledge of firearms history and technology. I have collected (and shoot) a few muzzle-loaded rifles (flint-lock and percussion-cap), including a pair of Colt and Remington percussion cap revolvers, both of which were used in the Civil War. I sometimes use black powder (the stuff used in the Civil War), but mostly use Pyrodex, which is a modern and less explosive and smoky modern equivalent. The re-enactors I know use black powder (without bullets of course) because they love the smoke, which must have made it difficult for the combatants to see what was going on through a literal equivalent of the expression "the fog of war." The vast majority of muzzle-loading long guns used in the Civil War were, in fact, "rifled muskets." Some very poorly equipped troops may have had to make do with smooth bore long guns (and I'm not talking about the shotguns some certainly used to good effect at close range), and even fewer may have used smoothbore single shot pistols (even flintlocks).

You can still go out to some of the Civil War battlefields and collect (where allowed...forget about some historic places like Gettysburg) and use your metal detector to find spent bullets (including Minnies) and even cannon balls. I've purchased a handful of such fired bullets from relic collectors, all of which have the imprint of riffling grooves. Except for the ones that were never fired...

So feel free to refer to rifles as muskets without the need to add the qualifier "rifled." As you say, numerous writers of the day called them "muskets" or "rifles" and They didn't try to be that technically correct, so I'm not worried about it. But then again, I think about the numerous modern media discussions (especially by folks who have never even shot a daisy BB gun) of firearms-related matters that are far from "technically correct," and the question I am left with is why can't they be technically correct. I'm sure that, then as now, there are many journalists (and other writers) who have no problem with this. Just my two cents...

[Nick Capozzoli]

Geez...I forgot while going off on my riff on rifles that I liked your paragraph...it seems to mimic the momentum of the hillside struggle and there are some nice images, like fuming slope. I even like the sound of the word "musketry." Sounds more like the loud popping sound of these old black powder guns that the very explosive supersonic cracking of modern firearms. I entirely missed the fact that I liked the word, which was probably why I focused on it and went tangential...

One other comment on the bullets themselves. The rifled muskets and pistols did shoot lead balls (properly sized of course). The conical bullets did stabilize better and were more accurate, but of course as you said they were harder to make in the correct sizes and were harder for troops to come by.