Hello! I want some opinions about my novel in progress...

I'm going to go on a limb and say that Neus is being a bit of an ass.

I'm not saying "don't listen to him." But I am saying that it is delicate process to "constructively criticize" and that Neus would do well to preserve his tact.

Take heed, Neus. Choose well your words, else they may fall on deaf ears.

Originally Posted by neus

Is this an online game? Is it? Because you don't actually expect people adults to pay money for a book based on an online game?

A simple "this references an online game" would suffice. Also, who said he expects people to pay money for a book based on an online game? Assuming motive is not a good way to criticize another individual.

Originally Posted by neus

As Aardark has noted, you need to set a frame of reference for the planet's tilt.
Secondly, the sentence structure is butchered. I cannot read that in a single breath. It feels like you are showing information down my throat when I have barely begun reading this novel. Start easy, and add information later.
As well, planets do not die. Consider your word choices carefully

You're right. Planets don't die. On the same note, humans do not "die" either. Instead, it is more appropriate to analyze the point in which the cerebral cortex ceases to function, as it is the key to maintaining the network of electrical impulses that make up a "personality". However, when a soldier gets shot in the heart, their cerebral cortex may still function, yet it is that moment that we declare "death".
It should be well noted that to “die” is a term loosely used to describe the connotative expiration of something that, commonly, is alive.

Originally Posted by neus

Planets do not sit. Humans sit.

Refer to above analysis.

Originally Posted by neus

“And has seen it not last long at all”.
Right then. Have you actually tried to read this text out loud? No? Well, I’m recommending you should. I have an inkling that it would be a most enlightening experience.
You need to remember that people are going to read your writing – not analyze it. When one reads, they expect a smooth flow of information. They don’t expect to get choked on words placed haphazardly after a comma.

I happened to read it myself and find nothing of error. In fact, I have a tendency to not read aloud when reading a book. I'm inclined to believe that doing so bothers other people. As such, I had no problem interpreting the meaning of that particular passage, since it is easy enough to understand.
But perhaps that's just me...

Originally Posted by neus

I can follow the metaphor up the deforestation bit, but what’s this about the planet’s offspring? Care to elaborate how a planet can reproduce? Or is this another one of those things that “sound right, but who cares if they don’t make sense”?

I like how you make it sound as if agreatguy6 is thinking "this sounds right, but who cares if it doesn't make any sense?".
There is little to be said here. I will simply refer you to my first analysis.

Originally Posted by neus

Well, perhaps a Teletubby should! Who knows!
If you wish to write informally, you need to do so during the entire text – you cannot just randomly start anywhere you feel like because you’re bored.

Actually, Orson Scott Card, throughout his novel "Ender's Game", constantly switches between first and omnipotent third person, thereby assigning character bias. If I were the author, I'd find it insulting how often you assume my motive. In your criticism here you claim that the author does it because he is "bored", in essence that he does it for no reason whatsoever.
I will again refer to my first analysis.

Originally Posted by neus

My, oh, my, aren’t we assertive!
Perhaps I ought to look up to you, oh great narrator. Perhaps I ought to worship you, and possibly kiss your literary ass.

Or maybe I am a tad offended by your callous attitude and prose that reads like a common bar story.

...
You know, I can only find this passage to be "callous" and insulting if I view myself as a "greedy child" of Gaia, since it clearly affronts said people. Since I don't happen to live in Gaia, I simply see it as a statement about Gaians and not about myself. That, aside from the fact that I don't consider myself to be a "greedy child" of Earth, even.

Originally Posted by neus

Perhaps. Perhaps you ought to write. Write, oh, yes write. Write, and write well. Write like this. This, I say. Say, I, this. This, so that you may be clear. Clear, oh, yes, so clear. As to your seriousness. Oh, the grave seriousness. Seriousness of your intent, you see. Oh, the glorious intent! Whatever should we do without it. *sigh*

Just … don’t. Stop making a fool of yourself. You are writing a novel, not a cartoon. If you are making a movie script – come out and say it. If you would like a movie script to be based on your book, come out and say it. If you would like an anime series to be based on your book – COME OUT AND SAY IT. This faggotry will not fly with anyone that has a brain.

...
Somehow, it sounds like you think that the author ISN'T writing a novel, that instead, he's tricked us into believing that he is, for his own devious mischief.
I still fail to see why it appears that you're so insulted by this, neus.

Originally Posted by neus

Perhaps, *gasp*, in a GALAXY far far away?
Oh, my!
It does matter where they are from. You may not care, but it makes for a lousy flow of information if you do not specify.

I happen to believe that in this particular sentence, where they live doesn't really matter. In fact, I think specifying such information would actually spoil the sentence.
"They didn't live on Gaia; they lived somewhere else, on Nebula266 in sector 4 of the Alpha quadrant. Because it matters. And because you should know."

Originally Posted by neus

People are the same people everywhere. You can’t expect Gaians (not all of them, anyway) to be cruel and emotionless about their home planet. A normal person tends to care for his or her residence. With this sentence, you have immediately made me lose any kind of emotional attachment I may ever feel for a Gaian.

"They" is a term often used to categorize a large group of people in which a general consensus stands. It is also often used to separate the groups "we" and "they", forming a subtle push for the reader to side with "we".
Somehow, I don't think you're supposed to feel any emotional attachment to the Gaians, unless specific characters are indicated by the author.

Originally Posted by neus

I like pie. I do. I just don’t like eating it. Not all the time, anyway. Some of the time. Maybe. Yeah. Ok. If I’m paid well enough.
Yeah. That works.

This is not the way to make a character seem irresolute.

I'm inclined to believe that the portrayal of the king's irresolution isn't the point of the passage. Such a trait for what appears to be an important character, more often than not, takes more than a single sentence. I am not readily going to assume that the author thinks that a single sentence suffices to describe a trait of personality that a major character harbors.


As you can see, I chose to instead criticize Neus, and not the written piece. This is because I find it far more interesting to analyze human behavior than it is to analyze works of fiction, which in themselves ultimately have a statement to say about human behavior. This is because a work of fiction is written by humans, for humans. If it does not apply to us as humans, the tendency is for us not to care.

I also didn't criticize the work because I'm all tired from analyzing Neus. So maybe I'll criticize it later.

Maybe.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by neus

Delicate process? DELICATE PROCESS?
My good sir, have you ever written? Have you ever recieved a critique?
From personal experience (yes, plenty of it), and from speaking with my friends and other authors, I can tell you that I am most greateful when someone takes the time to write a scathing opinion on one of my works. In fact, I thank the said person for devoting their attention and talent to help me.
As you have seen, agreatguy6's post above, he was greateful as well. Had I malicious intent while writing the critique, rest assured, good sir, agreatguy6 would have replied in turn.

If I'm not mistaken, his response had a slight touch of sarcasm in it.

But maybe that's just my interpretation.

Originally Posted by neus

Oh, no, good sir. I do not mean to say that one should read books aloud. In fact, as you've stated, it would probably bother many a people around the reader. Not to mention, it would also probably frustrate the reader because people generally read slower when pronouncing each word aloud.

I meant that the author should read his text aloud so that he may better understand how the audience will read his novel. You see, when an author writes, he becomes very familiar with the intent of each of his sentences, and cannot see their imperfections. A good method to avoid glancing over those mistakes is to read the text out loud.

When the author does this, he becomes acutely aware of run-on sentences and improper grammer - the sentence just doesn't sound right. It doesn't flow, and it requires an odd intake of air to speak completely.

For example, try speaking this:

"The yellow road wound around the mountain like a snake, coiling and never ending so that the poor traveller had to take many stops where he rested for the night and replenished his supplies before continuing along."

Of course this is a run-on sentence - it rambles on and on. In more subtle examples, you would not notice this by simply reading. When this sentence is read aloud, you should hit a verbal "stumbling block" around the "so that the poor traveller" part. It alerts one to the presence of improper style and gramar.

So, returning to agreatguy6's original sentence,
"Gaia has seen its golden age, and has seen it not last long at all."
Can you honestly tell me that you can speak it out loud, without problems and completely naturally? I find that the part after the comma is impossible to read in the same breath. It just doesn't flow. And any other reader would notice this as well.
Given enough of these "reading stumbling blocks", a reader will put the novel, exhasparated and bored.

Actually, I did happen to read out loud the passage you gave as an example, and the only place I "stumble" is in the word "replenished" which I tend to switch for the word "replenishing". This is on part due to the fact that, as you pointed out, it is indeed a run-on sentence, a sentence which in my mind I readily change to "where he rested the night, replenishing his supplies before continuing along."

When I read a text, I peripherally scan the words next to the word I am currently reading. This allows me to cue the upcoming words in my mind so I don't get confused as I read it. Perhaps it's just me, but this is why I tend not to trip up on sentences unless they fail to comply with the rules of language altogether. Initially, this was a skill I thought all people developed, but again, maybe that's just me.

I also don't know why you insist on calling me "good sir". It's almost... mocking, as you might put it.

Originally Posted by neus

The problem here is that you've probably never been an author.

...

Have you? And if you have, has your literary work sold well? While we're at it, what defines the word "author"? What is it? What does it take to be one? Because if all it takes is to publish a book, why, anybody can do that. What is the difference in skill between an "author" and a "recreational writer"? Is there one at all? Can a "recreational writer" have more skill than an "author"?

In the connotative sense of the word, no, I haven't been an author. I haven't published a book, nor have I written with the fervor or passion that I believe one requires in order to write a novel.

But does that mean I know nothing about the English language? More specifically, does it mean I know nothing about how to criticize a work of literature?

For an English class in my sophomore year of high school, I was instructed to write three poems based on one theme. On a whim, I submitted one of the poems to Poetry.com. Thereafter, I was contacted to have my work published in two books, was invited to an awards ceremony, and was asked if I would agree to have my work recorded onto a cd with the twenty best poems (among thousands).

I will end that on the note that Ebert and Roeper have never made a movie in their lives. Yet they are considered to have the most influential opinions of movies to date.

Originally Posted by neus

Speaking for personal experience, I can tell you that I am very thankful and glad when a person devotes their time to point out my logical fallacies and style inconsistencies.

As am I.

Originally Posted by neus

You fail to understand that it is not the job of a criticizer to encourage the writer.

I know full well that such a thing is not the job of a criticizer.

Originally Posted by neus

You've shown that you care more to troll a thread than to follow its intended meaning of providing an opinion to agreatguy6's writing.

Define to me a "troll" and I will point you to Megalith.

Originally Posted by neus

Good sir, you have contributed nothing to this thread. In no way have you provided constructive criticism to the work at hand. You have chosen instead to criticize a person who has, unlike you, donated their time, care and attention to the topic at hand.

...

Had I been agreatguy6, I would be offended and insulted by your attitude. You've chosen to devote your attention, in his thread, to a completely irrelevant matter, and have completely neglected his plea for help.

...

In the beginning, I said "I'm not saying 'don't listen to him.' But I am saying that it is delicate process to "constructively criticize" and that Neus would do well to preserve his tact."

I stand by that.

You say "Don't tell me - show me"? Well, I revealed exactly why it is that agreatguy6 might not want to listen to your criticism. By showing, not telling. I pointed out what exactly I found to be problematic with your analysis, and to it I posed a counter-point.

I also said "Choose well your words, else they may fall on deaf ears." and that, too, I still stand by.

I'll relate this to an analogous story. Because everybody loves analogies. Say for example your friend sets you up for a blind date. For the sake of expediency, we will say that she looks like a whore.

And that's exactly what you tell her. "You look like a whore." Do you think she's going take lightly that "criticism" you have of her attire? Likely not. In fact, she's probably going to ignore whatever else you have to say to her.

Humans have developed the complex communicative system of "language", and it has developed much in time. But it's not a perfect system. When you say that someone looks like a whore, they aren't going to just take you literally, because the way they see it, you are drawing parallels between themselves and something that has a negative connotation to it (in this case, a whore), and as such, it as if you are implying that they don't just "look" like a whore, they "are" like a whore. Even that which you do not say, that which is assumed, must be taken into account.

Originally Posted by neus

"Perhaps I ought to look up to you, oh great narrator. Perhaps I ought to worship you, and possibly kiss your literary ass.

Don't tell me that this was directly related to your criticism. Words like this almost demand not to be taken seriously.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Gaia Online

Aside from that, it is an overly used name for a planet. Particularly in Japanese animation.

Like everyone else, I'm going to suggest you flesh out more of your plotline and characters. The format in which you choose to write is an informatively unbiased tone, which often comes out as drab and boring. It is a good habit to cure the monotony with character dialogue, however, there is little that is spoken in your story. Unless you feel that you must obey to Hamlet through both plot and writing style, then I would advise you infuse a bit more of your own flavor into it. Even then, Shakespeare's Hamlet has a good deal of spoken dialogue. It is, after all, a playwrite.

Point in case, if the narrator doesn't care, the usual result is that the reader doesn't either.


On a side note, pointing to Freud in any circumstance of behavior is a good way to make people feel insulted. One does not often take pride in possessing his claims.

How ya doing, buddy?