He had been the most brilliant conversationalist illuminati her dowry could afford. “Virtuous,” her three mothers promised in unison, a singing whisper interlaced with the wind softly dancing through the sunlit drapes. In with it swept the fragrance of jasmine blossoms. “We would have chosen him even if our estate were the richest in the City.” In her heart, Paolowina knew only truth could come from her Mothers’ voices.
Morning rays shone down upon their first meeting. There in her mothers’ garden she knelt on the damp warm lichen covered stones as he approached. Her fingers feverishly braided silk and filaments in order to discipline her anxiety from becoming lust or want. The wind shifted and with it, her mothers’ gentle song blew through the leaves of her father

Revision

Does this make it a little more smooth?

quote:

---

The suitor was the finest conversationalist her dowry could afford--an illuminati. “Virtuous,” her three mothers promised in unison, a singing whisper interlaced with the wind softly dancing through the sunlit drapes. In with it swept the fragrance of jasmine blossoms. “We would have chosen him even if our estate were the richest in the City.” In her heart, Paolowina knew only truth could come from her Mothers’ voices.
Morning rays shone down upon their first meeting. There in her mothers’ garden she knelt on the damp lichen-covered stones as he approached. Her fingers feverishly braided silk and filaments in order to discipline her anxiety from becoming lust or want. The wind shifted and with it, her mothers’ gentle song blew through the leaves of her father

---

The first sentence was also a little ungainly to my eye, perhaps because I read conversationalist as a noun, not an adjective, so then I hit illuminati and just go What?

Looks like it's going to be fun though.

quote:

---

“We would have chosen him even if our estate where the richest in the City.”

---

conversationalist illuminati is almost like a title in this instance. I even considered capitalizing.

This is a far out fantasy piece. Unlike anything I have ever read or written. There are ways that "good" people discipline themselves from being idle minded which is the gateway of evil.
nearly all sexually mature characters are conversationalists until they wed in human form and become Flora. Conversations are intended not onl as a discipline to ward off evil, but a way in which souls connect. However during conversations The Evil underlord tries its hardest to corrupt the soul because it is for the sake of uniting souls by which the converse. So a secondary vocation is employed to ward off evil. The suitor here is an illuminati. Every waking hour his hand feverishly scribbles illuminations to occupy his mind. His illuminations become animated and take life. During sleep mothers or other employed wardens that have taken the second life must stand watch over unwed conversationalists to keep them safe from evil and preventing their dreams from becomming real. ((Strange Huh?))

I think that style of narration is too simple and is more suited to Novel-length material, novel prologues for that matter. I am a proponent for being thrown headfirst into the story with as little expostition as possible. None if at all possible.

So long as this is free of logic errors, I would like to just make sure that it is engaging, forward-moving, vivid, and comprehensible. I will be satisfied. Besides the pronoun issue did you see any other issues?

I was not going for an Omni narration so I definately want to make sure this issue is resolved. The POV character is "Her" Paolowina, but I see how this may be hard to pinpoint as her introduction is as the third character. That being said are there any instances that violate that POV?

Here is the breakdown as I intended logically speaking.

1- mention of a male suitor that has been chosen

2-mention of the three mothers' of the MC whom have chosen suitor for their daughter

3-Pov character introduced by name

Thanks again. Hope you come back around. Sometimes I post and forget to come back. I want to make sure of this one.

If nearly everyone in your world is a "conversationalist," then there is really no point in calling anyone a conversationalist. You'd label the exceptions, not the norm. So, that may help you tighten up the first sentence.

You also have to be careful with the term "Illuminati," as you're using it in a way that no one else will understand. In the real world, the people who illuminate manuscripts are simply called scribes, and Illuminati are either members of a world-wide conspiracy, or (historically) members of a secret society in Bavaria circa the late 1700s, or just a group of people who claim superior knowledge/wisdom.

I'll concur with the others; what you're trying to do isn't quite clearly captured in the opening. I like the ideas you're trying to tackle, but at the same time, I still don't know what the primary conflict in your story is. Perhaps outlining the conflict will help sharpen the 1st 13?

For me, the lack of clarity is a reflected in some of the language...it flows pretty smoothly, but it is meaning less than it promises at the moment. I don't a big adjustment is needed, but it's not as clear as it could be.

You mention that you are going for minimal outright exposition, so I won't comment on that.

I agree that "conversationalist illuminati" reads a bit strangely. My suggestion would be either inverting the words (illuminati conversationalist) or having just "illuminati" right at the begining and bringing in conversationlist a little later.

I don't think theres any problem with the word "illuminati" itself. Most genre readers will know its origins, but to me its the sort of time liable to get taken and used in many ways.

Also...

quote:

---

the damp warm lichen covered stones

---

I'm not one to discourage description at all, but you might consider dropping either damp or warm. All of it together is a little long. Also, maybe lichen-covered?

Overall very nicely done. A bit dreamy. definitely interesting.

Good start, good luck, Bob.