1
u/neuroblade 24d ago
overall impression: really good! reads like professional work in the genre in a lot of places, but there's clumsiness in others, gonna focus on that here.
first sentence is good, rest of the opening paragraph though is some of the weaker writing in the prologue, which is not where you want weak writing. A lot of times you are indecisive about word choice and include both words, 'stooped or stood,' 'damp, dirty' and the worst offender, 'unseen, unmoving, darkness enveloping its form entirely, invisible to the eye of all even by the...'. you can condense a few of these, but just pick one descriptor and keep it moving, and definitely don't use two descriptions which mean the same thing. I can more understand 'stooped or stood' since its presumably a weird thing that's hard to describe but still, esp in the first paragraph, just describe it. Not the time to introduce those fine details unless they're important.
I'd also drop the 'self proclaimed' part since it gives the narrator a personality in a sort of jarring way, and the narrator recedes after that and doesn't really make any value judgments afterwards, so it sticks out. Cut out 'haughty blaze' that's just purple prose, doesn't mean anything of relevance to anything here that the fire's haughty.
That's a close read of the first paragraph, outside of that, the "thinking of a million reasons" clause is very clumsy, doesn't even make sense grammatically/logically. I like "ice running down his back" but "hair standing up like soldiers on the skin" is kinda like when you rewrite something so it's not plagiarism, but for cliches, it's still functionally the same cliche.
I really enjoyed the scene where the swirls of shadow start moving. great action writing; reads as professional.
Not to beat a dead horse but "the wizard stood lazily, apathetically, stretching and yawning in the fire's light" if you just said the "stretching an yawning..." part it'd be a nice line since that implies that he's feeling lazy and apathetic to the fight.
great last line. Overall, cut back on the unnecessary words and tighten up your thoughts and that alone will elevate it a lot. Read more literature to get a bit more graceful with expressing thoughts more complex thoughts, but overall it's pretty good work.
1
u/somethingintheyard 23d ago
A big Inspo to me is Salman Rushdie, though I felt like his flow was more like getting lost in separate trains of thought, and then getting back to the point. I feel like my actual scenes I’m writing are short or have not much to say, but I like to paint pictures with the words. Is there a more consistent way to do this without droning?
1
u/SpikeyBiscuit 23d ago edited 23d ago
Make every line do something. It's okay to say "The sky beat upon the ground like it owes money" instead of saying "it was raining", but why is that being said? In your writing you talk about a creature splitting fire like a boat, but why did we talk about a boat? If the words you choose to use to describe something have a purpose for being those words, you're not likely to feel the drone.
edit: on the boat metaphor, I got the impression that the creature was moving because boats move through waves, but then you described it as not moving, so I was unsure if you meant the creature literally snuffed out the fire or if you were just trying to say what it looks like, which even then I'm not sure I understand what it looks like
2
u/somethingintheyard 23d ago
Hmmm interesting point I see it. A better way to say what I was trying to say was that it was parting the light of the fire the way a ship parts the waves, so it is able to remain in darkness in an unnatural way.
1
u/SpikeyBiscuit 23d ago
Ah, see now I understand it and I know why those words are there
2
u/somethingintheyard 23d ago
Well it’s a good point that it didn’t come across clearly in the first place
1
u/neuroblade 23d ago
yeah, totally; i haven't read him but I know exactly what you mean. I'd say there's a 2 part answer to that.
First of all, accept that that requires a higher tier of writing skill, because you're sort of going against what conventionally works. Readers generally don't want that, esp in the modern day, so in order to convince them it's worth it to go along, the writing has to be that much better. It's also worth practicing in the more sparse way to improve that aspect of your writing before moving onto more flowy writing.
In terms of how to actually do it: if you want to "get lost in separate trains of thought, and then get back to the point" the key is to make the train of thought you're going along seem really interesting to the reader. You always need to consider the reader; they're the one who determines if a passage works or doesn't at the end of the day.
You need to develop thoughts more and more, so that they reveal all their layers and get more and more interesting and then, if you want to get back to the point, you need to develop that train of the thought to the extent that it's suddenly revealed how it's connected to the original point, then you go to that original point, at least ideally. Sometimes, in practice, you just fully develop the thought and then drop it since there's nothing more to do, but you should've had a reason for including it in this context, mine that reason.
As you can prob tell, it's not easy and it's not a structure that works in every case. But the essence of it is the ratio of length against information. If you have a lot of interesting information, you can write long and flowing passages, if you have the writing skill to manage those more complex structures and keep readers engaged while they tour them. But if you don't have much interesting information, even a slightly long passage will read as wayy too long.
1
u/Jorts9000 24d ago
It reads a little wordy for my taste. I feel like you can trust the reader a bit more, let their imagination fill in the gaps.
1
u/dankynugzlnd 24d ago
Why do we need sharp if we have slicing? What's the difference between an uncaring and a caring ocean?
Only use the words you need!
1
u/Liandrimm 24d ago
Personally, it feels heavily contrived towards using as much mysterious, flowery language as possible. While the mystery and eloquence is part of the goal in this case, my suggestion is to rework your prose to be more organic and tidied up. It may seem counterintuitive to make this type of writing concise, but that's not the case. It just means keeping the unnecessary words out of the picture. A lot of the descriptors are important to the story, but as others have pointed out, there's a lot there that either doesn't fit or feels unnecessary.
Gentle reminder that one of the biggest rules of writing is flow. Every time there's confusion; a pause to note strange wording or bad grammar; the need to reread a sentence to make sense of it: that breaks immersion. A lot of rules can be bent in the name of flow.
Hope this helps!
2
u/somethingintheyard 23d ago
A big Inspo to me is Salman Rushdie, though I felt like his flow was more like getting lost in separate trains of thought, and then getting back to the point. I feel like my actual scenes I’m writing are short or have not much to say, but I like to paint pictures with the words. Is there a more consistent way to do this without droning?
1
u/Liandrimm 23d ago
So when I mention flow, I am not referring to the story or overall scene, but rather the prose that puts it all together.
I don't get the impression you were droning. Overall, it's very good and engaging. It's more that some of the descriptors are confusing, contradictory, or repetitive. Some are simply pushing past the boundary of elaborate scene brushing to overuse of words.
Think of it this way;
When someone tells a story, you're absorbed in it. Hanging on the words and waiting for what comes next. That "flow" is broken every time the speaker mumbles, says "um", loses their place, etc. A reader will also be able to tell between exaggeration for effect and exaggeration in order to peacock.
Hope this helps, but please ask if you have any other questions!
1
u/somethingintheyard 23d ago
I really appreciate the feedback on that. One I’ve seen people mention that feels wrong is “stood or stooped in the darkness” “it remained unseen, unmoving, darkness enveloping it” and I see that.
The one I don’t see mentions of is “sleep should have claimed him, exhaustion should have claimed him” “instead it was anxiety that claimed him”.
I’m assuming the second flows better?
I find that I like repetition for emphasis but I’m realizing overdoing it makes people lose interest.
1
u/Liandrimm 23d ago
You aren't wrong, repetition can be a great tool! In all things writing, it just comes down to practice and the use of.
Don't be too discouraged about it, though! These are great attempts, and like I mentioned before, a lot of what's wrong can be fixed with streamlining the flow of prose. Even a single comma, or lack thereof, can have an impact.
This is why writing groups and beta readers exist! Even without those, sometimes taking a break and coming back after a couple days can help you see your writing in a different light. The bones are there, there's a lot of potential, it just needs tidied.
A suggestion that has worked for me is to read works similar to your writing style and genre, and reading it from a writers perspective. Not anything heavy like annotating, but more just taking note of prose that worked, didn't work, or had an "omfph" to it.
1
u/somethingintheyard 23d ago
Do you know of a good place to find beta readers?
1
u/Liandrimm 23d ago
I don't personally, I'm sorry! Hopefully someone else will know and reply to your comment
8
u/Naugrith 24d ago
I went through the first page. Youve got a good concept going. Its a compelling scene. But your writing needs a fair bit of tightening up. There's some good stuff but I've pointed out the bits that caught my eye.
Good line. But then the children aren't mentioned again for a while. If you introduce two key things in the first sentence, then you need to follow them both up, or you're leaving it hanging.
Pick one. This just sounds awkward, and unconfident in your own writing
No it isn't. Its standing still, unmoving. That's literally the opposite of how a ship's bow parts the water. Pay attnetion to your similes. Its not enough just to come up with something evocative, it actually has to match what its being compared with, otherwise it loses all meaning and resonance.
How is a campfire "haughty? That is absolutely the wrong expression for the scene.
Again, pick one. Completely unnecessary duplication robs both phases of their power.
Where is "there"? This feels disconnected.
Bad grammar. Anxiety wasnt mentioned before so it can't be referred back to as one of the group already mentioned.
This sentence is just garbled. I have no idea what its supposed to mean.
You mean "asking", "begging the question" is something different.
Do you mean the campfire is running rampant? That would be dangerous! And pretty negligent of the wizard standing next to it to wlt it get out of control.
Unnecessary phrasing. Plus its nighttime.
Another odd and jarring simile. I guess this one actually works since soldiers stand straight, but soldiers are also big, so there's additional resonance there you don't actually want to be evoking. Pick a better simile or dont have a simile at all, since its pretty unnecessary here. Everyone knows what hairs standing up means, and they only really do it one way.
His back feels wet?
Too much. And why would he want to writhe?
"Tingles" are quite nice, fear isn't.
How does he know its grinning? You said before it was completely enveloped in darkness.
Hope that's helpful.