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

Okay, I know some people don't want to read it unless they really really have to, but please do and tell me what degree of suck it is.

I really want to know what others think of it.

So write me back and give an opinion as well as cheking back every once in a while to see if I've added some more!

Jam it back in, in the dark.

While this isn't my typical genre of choice, I thought it was pretty intriguing after the initial explanatory introduction but to be fair, I usually skim through prologues and introductions anyway.

Spoiler:

I thought the initial paragraphs sounded a bit like you were ranting. Particularly this passage:

Quote:

Of course, who cares for a planet? It only supplies the every need, fills the every want, and gives all else it has to offer. Who cares? It’s not as if it will ever STOP giving. It isn’t as if it will ever have nothing left to sacrifice for its greedy children. It’s not as if it won’t turn against them without knowing.

Quote:

Claudius had been in love with her the moment that he saw her. Her flowing blonde hair, her thin red lips, the way her flowing dress curved around her fragile yet healthy figure all helped him on his pathway to romance.

I don't know if this is a personal preference but I tend to stray from using the same adjective within a sentence.

Quote:

“I saw her first, she’s mine!” Claudius had argued.
“But I’m the king!” Alexander with his snotty little attitude hurled at his brother.
“I’m older!” Claudius once again had the upper hand.
“And I am the king whom you will obey!” Alexander shouted, ending the conversation.

Claudius is supposed to be older yet he sounds as if he is the same age as Alexander. Since later on you state that the king is spoiled this is fine, but Claudius is supposed to be "evil" and menacing and should respond as such. Unless this occurred when they were children. If it is, a time frame should be established.

Quote:

Claudius didn’t understand women. Even more plainly, who does? He didn’t understand. She often flirted with him, but he thought she was only joking. She would sit in his lap and talk to him about how much she different things such as why they should have more color options for carpet and whether or not they stood a chance of being the dominant race of the universe.

Did you mean, "She would sit in this lap and talk to him about different things such as..."?

Quote:

It was pure folly. She was the Queen and Empress of the Planet Gaia and all her Surrounding Moons, and he was simply the Heir Presumptive, soon to be the worm that worms into that comfortable chair that conveniently comes with a Golden Diadem.

I rather liked that line. My only concern is the word repetition (worm, worms).

Not really a critique but you spelled “Eusophonice” as “Eusophanice” the last two times. Which is it?

So yea, I’d be interested in seeing where you go with this.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Thanks!
Really. I'll try to edit today.

Claudius isn't necessarilly EVIL as of yet, just a good bit jealous.
The truly EVIL part is yet to come.

Spoiler:

As most of you who have seen it I'm sure have understood, this is a blatant reinterpritation of Hamlet.

For those of you who haven't figured out the logic in the names yet, here it is: (note: some characters have yet to be introduced)

Hamlet's father, Alexander: Later in the play, Horatio makes the comment, "Alexander is dead..." this is where I got his name, althoughwe all know he was talking about Alexander the great.

Gertrude: ever heard of GERD? the stomach problem? what precedes that? The Esophagus. Beautify it a bit and you get EUSOPHANICE.

Ophelia: O, I feel ya. That's how I thought of it. Emotion is a synonym of feeling, thus, you get EMOTIA.

Horatio: His name is John because I can't think of anything else.

Laertes: Lair = Den. Dennis.

Why the strange last names? They all remind you of poison. In fact, the name of Gaia's moon is Poisson (fr. for Poison, I think)

Corny? You bet, but hopefully the plot twists will make up for that.
You may think you know the story, but I'll change it a GOOD bit so it won't be quite the same.

Also, on a side note, this is going to end up a dystopian fiction novel, hopefully.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Okay, I just started reading it, but I'm wondering, how can you tell that a planet is ''tilting in at about 25 degrees''? According to what point of reference is it tilted?

Double Post:

Quote:

Of course, who cares for a planet? It only supplies the every need, fills the every want, and gives all else it has to offer. Who cares? It’s not as if it will ever STOP giving. It isn’t as if it will ever have nothing left to sacrifice for its greedy children. It’s not as if it won’t turn against them without knowing.

I wouldn't use all-caps words like that. Also, it's not as if, it isn't as if, it's not as if? Why not use the same form in all three instances?

Double Post:

Quote:

When the rains came with their fiery vengeance, he had decided that it would be better for the people to stop all outside activity that wasn’t completely necessary to life than for them to go one life as usual with burning carcasses in the streets.

I don't think I understand this sentence. Go one life as usual?

Double Post:

Quote:

The “browns”, as the people call it, were what marked the rains as the Rains of Fire that came every year to destroy what they had worked so hard for all before that.

It was what marked the rains as the rains came? This is a sort-of confusing sentence. I would personally write it something like this, maybe:

''The ''browns'', as the people called them, marked the Rains of Fire, which came every year, came to destroy all that they had been working so hard to achieve.''

It's still a bit clumsy, but I think the meaning is clearer.

Double Post:

Quote:

The fields would be stripped of its fruit before the Rains and the vines destroyed by the Fires.

Their fruit, no? Also, there should probably be a comma after ''Rains''.

The fields would be stripped of their fruit before the Rains, and the vines — destroyed by the Fires.

Double Post:

Quote:

She herself was so excited at the soon pending pain of labor that she failed to recognize the one person not celebrating.

I would say that ''soon pending'' is redundant (if you use the word in the sense of ''imminent'').

Double Post:

Quote:

Claudius Toxikov, the King’s uncle, had been bitter from the start. A tall, rugged, pale, and evil man, Claudius had learned to hate the king.

The ''don't tell, show'' mantra comes to mind. It's okay to tell that he was tall and pale, however it's very weird to just say that he was evil, right off the bat. Why is he evil? Show his actions that make him such, and the reader should be able to realize it, without it being pointed out so bluntly. Right now, it comes off like a fairy-tale with the ''evil'' witch.

Toxikov is kind-of a cheesy name, by the way (maybe that's just me). I understand that you wanted to make a reference to poison, but I think that's just too blunt.

Double Post:


Double Post:

Quote:

This, for obvious reasons, angered Claudius to such an extent as to quicken the old man’s death, which was greatly appreciated by the dying King. He then used his influence over his brother to guide the young child in the right way: his way.

He? It's not very clear whether you mean the dying King or Claudius.

Double Post:

Quote:

He pardoned murderers and condemned random people, simply because he wanted to

''Random people'' doesn't sound like it fits there. I'm not sure exactly what I would use to replace the phrase, but it doesn't match the style of your novel.

Double Post:

Quote:

Later he married her, much to Claudius’ dismay, as a handsome young man of about twenty, much more responsible than he was when he met her. Claudius was distraught.

Again, ''he'' should be replaced with ''Alexander'' for clarity (especially considering that you use ''he'' to refer to Claudius in the next paragraph).

Double Post:

Quote:

“Alexander will get his. He won’t make me miserable!” Claudius thought to himself. “It’s coming for him. I won’t let him get away with that,” he continued.

I wouldn't use ''he continued'' if he is only thinking it to himself. It's not like you can stop thinking for a moment, then continue — the stream of thought is continuous.

Double Post:

Quote:

She would sit in his lap and talk to him about how much she different things

She different things?

Double Post:

Quote:

and whether or not they stood a chance of being the dominant race of the universe.

I would just say ''whether''.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/whether.html


*****

All in all, good job. The style is decent, the writing flows quite well. Also, I know I didn't say much about the actual content of the story, but I like the basic idea. It reminds me of Gankutsuou.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Thanks! I'll take that all into consideration.

Also as you have seen, I have a BIG problem with grammar and making sure that I mean what i say.

Any time you point it out, the more thankful I am that this is here.


This is the edited version before I saw the last comment:

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by agreatguy6

Thanks! I'll take that all into consideration.

Also as you have seen, I have a BIG problem with grammar and making sure that I mean what i say.

Any time you point it out, the more thankful I am that this is here.


This is the edited version before I saw the last comment:

Vrixton, vrixton, vrixton, vrixton...vrixton. you and your extra large words that are barely understandable...you've done it again and i commend you for a job well done so far...keep it up...your friend. erica:biggrin:

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Uhm, right, well then. Aardark has (I assume) read your novel and considered it worthy of his time to comment. I shall follow in suit, placing my firm faith in his judgement. Let's see, now ...

[To be edited in after I've typed it all up. I've accidentally pressed the enter key, and there's no going back now. May take a few hours, depending on my attention span.]

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by erock12

Vrixton, vrixton, vrixton, vrixton...vrixton. you and your extra large words that are barely understandable...you've done it again and i commend you for a job well done so far...keep it up...your friend. erica:biggrin:

Thnx ERICA!!!!!

So...........................
:eyebrow:
I think I just posted the whole Idea for it on this Yahoo Group, but I don't think I hit the submit button. So fuck that, I'm not writing it over again.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Keep in mind though, that you have said novel. You cannot go back on that, and because of it, I will treat this text as a proper novel. Anyways, let’s begin.

Quote:

Gaia

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?

Quote:

Spinning wildly in space, tilting at about 25 degrees, third planet from Sappho, the planet Gaia was practically dying.

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.

Quote:

There it sat, the seas polluted, the rivers likewise; air gradually rejuvenating itself from thousands of years of over industrialization and the moons following in its footsteps.

Planets do not sit. Humans sit. If the seas and the rivers are polluted, then you shouldn’t need a separate thought to mention that. Speak about its “bodies of water” or perhaps more simply just “water”. The sentence seems inelegant the way you’ve written it. And what’s this about the air? Slowly rejuvenating? Why did you change stride mid-sentence? First everything was dying, and then “oh, no, changed my mind – everything’s going to be allright lol”. Stick to your train of through firmly. A sentence for a thought is a good rule of thumb.

Quote:

Gaia has seen its golden age, and has seen it not last long at all

“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.

Quote:

She has seen her beautiful face marred by deforesting and smelled the horrid stench of her dying offspring.

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”?

Quote:

Of course, who cares for a planet?

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.

Quote:

It only supplies the every need, and gives all else it has to offer. Who cares? It’s not as if it will ever STOP giving. It’s not as if it will turn against its greedy children without their knowing.

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.

Quote:

Some people cared. They had to. They had no choice but to care.

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.

Quote:

It wasn’t their job, they just enjoyed living the life they lived and would do anything to keep it that way.

Heh, yes. People are usually motivated by the duty they owe to their job. Oh, yes – I must have sex with this woman, because – man, what if I lose my job? That would be horrendous!

Quote:

They didn’t live on Gaia; they lived somewhere else, somewhere far away

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.

Quote:

. Those that did live on Gaia didn’t give five sars worth whether or not the planet lived or died. They had options. They had inhabitable moons that could sustain them in case of an emergency, and best of all, they could get there in a matter of minutes.

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.

Quote:

The King cared. He cared a lot, but not enough to do anything about it.

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.

….


If you’re going to write, you better have a thick skin son. Whatever the hell this thing is, I am not going to waste any more of my time with it. Suffice to say, you need some major editing.

There are some published authors on the board. If you are serious about this novel, I would suggest sending them a polite PM, asking for their sincere critiques.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by neus

If you’re going to write, you better have a thick skin son. Whatever the hell this thing is, I am not going to waste any more of my time with it. Suffice to say, you need some major editing.

Heh, well this material certainly isn't going to be published, but considering his age, well. I would say that he writes a hell of a lot better than most fourteen-year-olds, so the potential is definitely there.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Yay! Some people willing to pick apart every sentence and murder it!!!

You all have no Idea how happy this makes me.

(Hmmm... sounding a bit masochist, are we?)

I truly do appreciate it. It takes a true person to tell another how much their work sucks. Believe me, sometimes I wonder.


Oh, and I thought that I should mention, Shakespeare is now hereby proven to be a bad english model.

Thnx once again!
Die Vierzehn Einjahres

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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?

Quote:

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

First of all, good sir, please spell my name correctly. I am not oblivious to the inner workings of the English language, and have chosen not to capitalize the first letter of my name for a reason. I only ask that you respect this.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

People generally do pay money for novels. Unless they get them from a library, an exchange of currency for text almost always occurs.

Quote:

It should be well noted that to “die” is a term loosely used to describe the connotative expiration of something that, commonly, is alive.

You're perfectly correct. And you would do well to recognise my implication that the word "die" in that sentence was neither descriptive nor informative.
Perhaps he could speak of decaying forests, of arid mountains and lifeless rivers. Simply stating that a planet is "dying" is inadequate - the reader does not understand exactly what is happening. Thus, I spoke: "consider your word choices carefully".

Quote:

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...

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.

Quote:

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.

It is a rather reasonable assumption to make because agreatguy6's metaphor makes very little sense. "Offspring" was a poor word choice because of the way the sentence is structured. One would expect these offspring to be similar to the of the first part of the sentence - a large, real part of nature (ie, a forest). Perhaps inhabitants or citizens would have been more fitting.

Quote:

Actually, Orson Scott Card, throughout his novel "Ender's Game", constantly switches between first and omnipotent third person, thereby assigning character bias.

Ah, you see, constantly is the key word here. agreatguy6 has used an informal voice in a single paragraph in the entire novel so far, and it seems very out of place.

Quote:

If I were the author, I'd find it insulting how often you assume my motive.

The problem here is that you've probably never been an author. 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. You fail to understand that it is not the job of a criticizer to encourage the writer. Our job is to provide as harsh and fair of an opinion in the hopes that the writer fixes these errors.
Ultimately we want his audience to recieve the book well. If an audience member stumbles a thousand times through the book and cannot make sense of the plot - do you think they will pay for another book of the same author? Of course not.

Quote:

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.

*nods*
Exactly. I do not believe he has chosen to switch to an informal voice for any specific reason. Perhaps he has not acquired or honed a strict style or he is simply bored. Either way, it just doesn't fly.

Quote:

...
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.

I am mocking his informal tone. So far, the rest of the novel has been written in a voice quite unlike the one presented in this passage. This sudden change is unnerving and it distracts one from the message.

Quote:

...
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.

Well, had he specified that this was, in fact, not a novel, but simply a short story horrendously based off Hamlet, I would not have wasted my time to read it. Novels, as a form of communication, are well written and enjoyable to read. This was not the case with "And The Poet Wrote In Blank Verse" and I am rightfully outraged.

Quote:

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."

The sentence in question is: "They didn’t live on Gaia; they lived somewhere else, somewhere far away".
As it stands, the sentence seems more like a beggining to a children's story - it would be ridiculous to find it in a novel. A casual mention of their origin would have enhanced the sentence.
"They lived on Phobos, millions of light years away, but still close enough to care."
While his sentence seemed childish for not being informative enough, yours seems to mock the reader by providing too much information. A balanced approach enhances the sentence and does not unnecessarily draw the focus on itself.

Quote:

Somehow, I don't think you're supposed to feel any emotional attachment to the Gaians, unless specific characters are indicated by the author.

I suppose emotional attachement was poor word choice on my part. I meant to say that agreatguy6's sentence colors the Gaians so callous that they do not appear to be human at all. There is a difference between a great lack of caring, respect and love and being inhuman. What's more, he would do well to explain the reason behind this attitude. Perhaps their society is so technologically advanced that they can simulate a healthy world with less effort than it takes to keep their home planet in a healthy state?
This is a perfect example of the old addage - "Don't tell me - show me". He shouldn't state that the Gaians don't care - he should show through examples and let the reader come to his own conclusion.

Quote:

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.

No, I do not believe it is his primary intent to color the king as irresulute, but it definitely given some attention. By elaborating (informatively, briefly and with proper style) on this aspect of King's personality, we would understand the motivation of his actions - actions that impact the very course of the plot, and are not secondary in any way.

Quote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quite frankly, here's my biggest critique. SHOW NOT TELL. You have a habit of voicing the narration as if you're really not sure, and is if you keep adding things to clarify. This style just bores us, the readers. We don't care what you're *telling* us. We want to *see* it.

Quote:

Claudius didn’t understand women. Even more plainly, who does? He didn’t understand. She often flirted with him, but he thought she was only joking. She would sit in his lap and talk to him about how much she different things such as why they should have more color options for carpet and whether or not they stood a chance of being the dominant race of the universe.

Again, some showing here is necessary. Telling the narration from a past point (this happened, and therefore this) makes it stagnant, and makes her character weak. YOU NEED TO LOOK HERE:!

Check out the "TOC about writing", (google it)
read specifically: Mistakes in Writing, A checklist for critiquing science fiction (I bet you'll find a lot of things that you're doing here), Writerisms and Other Sins, and hell everything else on that page. It's gold.

Axe your intro, it's crap. We don't want a cartoon like overlook of the world. SHOW US why it is like that. Show us that it's in ruins. Only narrate in such a broad sense if ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. If in the first few paragraphs of your novel it's not EXTRAORDINARILY important information, save it and show us what we want to see - the characters.

FELIPE NO

I completely agree, lightwamth.

As for the other 2 who have spent much of the page hacking at each other,
I would say that both of you really do need to take this outside.

Perhaps Freud would have something to say.

Anyway, I've never seen a show that had a planet named Gaia (then again, I don't watch cartoons anyway) and now that you mention it, it is a good bit cliche.
Any suggestions on changing it?

I really do appeciate all that is said (although it can ALWAYS be put in better words) although it appears that the two of you are more interested in being right.

Anyway, I'm going to go back to my draft in a few weeks and maybe you'll find it better.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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?

He wrote a lot of unoffensive things!
Totem and Taboo is one.
The Psychopathology of Everyday Life is another.

Yes, I do remember Gaia Online now.

Is H'triae any good?

Seems simple to me, besides the fact that it's almost Eart'h Spelled backwards.


Side note: Hamlet isn't a playwrite. Shakespeare is. Hamlet is a play.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

no it is not any good. Never ever dare use an apostrophe in naming anything in a novel. It's overdone, it's cliched. NO apostrophes, NO dark Stone of Evil, No Great Wizard to Save Everyone in the Pinch of Time. Lord of the rings did it. Robert Jordan did it. Guy Gavriel Kay did it. Try to find something else to grace your novel with.

Think about the culture of your world. How did THEIR language develope? What sounds are predominant? Try to convey how they VIEW the planet in the word itself. A harsh place? Something with k sounds or whatever. Soft and magnificent? lots of vowels with a g or whatever. You decide.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

The problem with that is that I don't want it to sound TOO MUCH like a fantasy novel, because I'm trying really hard for it not to be.

The strange thing is that this book plays on the idea that there is ONE planet out there that has intelligent life A LOT like us.

Here's all I got left:
Kish
Hek
Krak
Coccaine (psych)
ummmmmm...........
now for some serious stuff:
Szhent
Gni (pronounced ny)
Ny
Symfir
Earth II

The last one I like.
It's easy.
Besides, for all I know, the people might be descendents from a rogue Earth colony.
Htriae

maybe just taking out the apostrophe will help.

lightwarmth, I hadn't read your post when I wrote the new version:

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I'm closing this and moving it to my own thread.

This is getting too big for a poll thread, in my opinion

I was speaking idiomatically.