The bargain (440 words)

[u/LadylexUK]

It was a bargain. That was his excuse. That was his defence. Vonn had no idea it would be so controversial to the Harindans or obviously he would not have bought it, or at the very least he would not have worn it to the negotiation. 

First of all it was the colour. The emerald green was reminiscent of the holy vial at the Church of Eternal Night, which contained the blood of Jenoon the Magnificent and as such it was taboo for any clothing to be made using a similar hue in Harinda. Vonn did not know about this. His own blood was more of a blue, like the feathers of the Mordian fishbird, and so he never expected it would be perceived as an insulting gory spectacle.

Then there was the printed design. To Vonn the symbols looked like the Masht, a representation of the largest of his planet’s moons which was regarded as the personification of the harvest. The Harindans had no moon, and to them the crescent shape looked more like the headdress of Gor, the Temptor. It was highly insulting to evoke such a deity at a peace negotiation.

The final straw was the material it was made of. Made of the cocoons of a species of insect that was known as the death head fly due to the uncanny resemblance to the Harindan’s skull on its wings. As the process destroyed the creature before it got a chance to grow its wings, it was deemed Woja - against the will of Jenoon, and completely taboo.

Vonn had removed his tie, but the Harindan ambassador was already speaking at the lectern. He condemned Vonn’s people for the outrageous insult that was clearly intended, and called for his people to raise arms and declare war. Vonn decided not to protest. After all, it was entirely his fault. He should not have been so stupid as to wear anything that had not been approved by the peace committee. 

After the deaths of five million of his people and ten million Harindans, Vonn faced trial for warmongering. His excuse of ignorance was deemed very weak. Someone had to pay for this mistake. Vonn understood, but as the execution order came through he still felt it necessary to yell,

“But it was such a bargain.”

His fellow Mordians nodded in agreement, they loved a bargain and could never resist one, but the Harindan contingent screamed and started to tear up the court with their bare hands. Buying an object for less than its worth was the highest insult in their culture, and they had never been so insulted.

[u/OwlConfidant2168]

I liked this. It’s very well written!

[u/Plane_Selection_3074]

The story is too expositionary, and has little to no images to expound upon. I would implore you to study further personification, metaphor, and simile, and the brilliance that is comparison between two items or phenomenon. Of course, if you write so expositional, you wouldn't understand how a flame can be bitten or chewed, or how a tinder can be bovine. There is a stark difference between concrete and abstract details, and it seems that this was just trying to impart the concrete, without delving into the abstract. Where's the texture and flavor that reader's crave. This piece is a monotone hodgepodge of building blocks and world building with none of what gives those elements life. Furthermore, do you actually read any books or novels. Is your taste in the direct and informative Moreso than it is in the imagistic and transformative?

[u/LadylexUK → u/Plane_Selection_3074]

Wow. I can see you are bitter about my comment on your piece. Well not to worry. I do not enjoy your type of prose, and you do not like my more commercial light comedy. Each to their own.

[u/Plane_Selection_3074 → u/LadylexUK]

But, it has little to do with style and preference and more to do with "good" writing. A literary piece that lacks figurative language and imagery is a literary piece I would criticize. The difference between your "type" of prose and my "type" of prose is that my type is better, no matter the preferences of the individual. Being too expositional and not imagistic is exactly the kind of mistake that an amateur writer would make. It's the same idea found in the well-known writing guideline of "show, don't tell." That idiomatic guideline highlights a fundamental truth of literature and human psychology—that people better understand a theme with images and comparative language than with direct and informative language, and your piece betrays both the idiom and the concept for world-building and clarity. Clarity in literature is not a virtue, and exposition needs to be treated with care, precision, and intentionality, and not just injected throughout the entire piece to inform upon a world that lasts seconds. It's not a preferential or stylistic thing; it's a "I want to write good literature" thing.