An odd little fantasy story inspired by many things. An editor told me it reminded her of Jack Vance, which is funny cause I've never read Jack Vance.

Anyway the usual..I'd like some full-reads but will take comments on the begining as well, especially if you dont mind talking about it. The whole thing is about 5k.

Lightmaster Aronos and Zorthas the Dimensionist had come a long way, but finally they were here. They had come at last to the Ruins of Vorestos, legendary gateway to the City of the Night. Tall crumbling pillars and enruned plinths of stone stood all about them beneath the darkened sky, some bearing markings that even the two mages could not decipher.
“Well it’s been a long trek old friend, but we finally made it,” Zorthas said, his iridescent eyes alight with excitement.
“Yes, I had my doubts along the way, but we found it at last,” Aronos replied. His shining white and gold garments stood stark against the darkness of the night. “We are most likely the first people to set foot here in millennia.”

[This message has been edited by Merlion-Emrys (edited May 02, 2008).]

Biggest problem with this, in my eyes, was your retelling. The dialogue between the two tells me exactly what the narrator told me in the first sentence.

Also, dialogue is contrived. They don't speak like humans. Give them personality, flair--I don't care to read about dull, character-less men. And if your story is about dull, character-less men, maybe it's not a story worth telling? So give them life.

First, I am terrible with POV, so I could be wrong, but I was getting the 3rd Omni as well.

quote:

---

Lightmaster Aronos and Zorthas the Dimensionist had come a long way, but finally they were here. They had come at last to the Ruins of Vorestos, legendary gateway to the City of the Night.

---

This read odd. I wish I could give you more. All I can say is I felt the need to combine the two.

quote:

---

Tall crumbling pillars and enruned plinths of stone stood all about them beneath the darkened sky, some bearing markings that even the two mages could not decipher.

---

I am a simple man, so big words scare me, plinth, I thought it was another word for column, but its not, it refers to the blocks the columns sit on. This may not be the case for most readers I don't know. Its just something to watch out for, making sure you are not using obscure words for the sake of variety. should there be a comma after them, ?

quote:

---

“Well it’s been a long trek old friend, but we finally made it,” Zorthas said, his iridescent eyes alight with excitement.

---

I didnt feel his excitement. His dialague should give me the impression of excitment without you haing to add about his eyes being excited.

quote:

---

“Yes, I had my doubts along the way, but we found it at last,” Aronos replied. His shining white and gold garments stood stark against the darkness of the night. “We are most likely the first people to set foot here in millennia.”

---

Again, I am not getting excitment here, it seems matter of fact. I would literally have chills up and down my spine. I know bad cliche but I would, if I was the first person to step somewhere in a millennia.(don't make them have chills though)That was just my way of saying I would be excited. The description of the garments seemed out of place.(I'm guilty of that as well, a striking image though, but who is seeing it?POV)

I hope this helps.
Also you might want to mention how many words the piece is at the top.

Lightmaster Aronos and Zorthas the Dimensionist – this is a big indigestible lump right here. The names, yes, okay, two names that come newborn with nothing attached to them. But I don’t know what being a “lightmaster” or a Dimensionist” entails. So, at this moment they are kind of useless words. Do we really, really need that informationless information here?

You want to begin with A and Z’s arrival at this legendary gateway. Okay. How about showing it? Or, conversely, tell us about the legendariness of the gateway – in an interesting way. Don’t make it a dry history lesson or I’ll wander off to some other story.

I like Z’s iridescent eyes, but show them in action rather than the – I’m sorry – kind of lame way you do. In the deep shadow of the niche, Z’s eyes gleamed with an iridescent greenish light. Or something. Mine’s kind of lame too. You can do much better if you put some more thought into it. Yes, iridescent eyes alight with excitement is kind of confusing. Are they always iridescent or is it the excitement making them so? Better to use them in action so the reader can tell more easily.

I agree, their verbal exchange is not pregnant with possibilities.

If no one has been here for a thousand years, they might be taking stock of the food and water they have left and wondering whether they can find any once they pass through the gateway…or something.

Okay – ruins of Vorestos – gateway to the city of night – sounds a little like something out of Lord Dunsany’s tales.
Anyway, What “Exactly” is Vorestos – is it a gate in a wall around the city of night? A pass in the mountains leading down to the valley where the city of night lies? Is it a city itself of the land of the city of night and we’re seeing just the gate in the wall of that city Vorestos?

Can you see my confusion? Your description of pillars and plinths “all around” them does not help me construct in my mind what you are seeing in yours.

Now this is merely my opinion. Others may see this quite differently.

That was a bit much for me. Repetitive, I guess is the point. Your readers are smart enough to get it with one use of the two separate words/phrases to indicate how long it's been (or even just one of the words/phrases.)

I think you're doing a lot of things right - you refer to them as mages closely enough to when you introduce them that i know the two characters are mages. You want to describe the environment they're in, though I agree with previous posters that the environment description is heavy on the descriptive words, but not doing enough to paint the picture. The contrast of shining garments and stark night is good, etc.

I do not have time to read more, sorry I can't offer.

quote:

---

One final thought - while some things may be viewed as stylistic choices, use of passive voice, 3rd omni, etc. - the truth is there are style choices that are more common these days. If you choose to buck the trend, that's completely fine, but it may make your work more difficult to market. Then again, maybe you'll find the niche for your style and sell all your unpublished works. Who knows. Just be aware that both the crits and general feedback here on Hatrack is more likely to lean toward the way common usage in publishing today. That's what we know, that's what we're good at.

---

Yes, thats true to a point. And I understand that is where people are coming from, and I compensate for that as I read and use the feedback I recieve. However, a lot of it is also about finding the right market or target audience. Much fantasy and science fiction, by nature, tends to some times "buck the trend."

Two things though that I find particularly interesting...not accusing you specifically of anything, just commenting...
One, as I've mentioned before, there is for me a bit of irony in the fact that submission guidlines etc put a lot of pressure on writers to be original and submit material that is totally new and different. And yet, we're simulataneously admonished to all follow the same guidlines and make many of the same stylistic choices that are elevated some times to the level of "rules." I just find it ironic.

Second...I'm not sure I understand why you mention 3rd person. Its my understanding that third person is the prefered "person" to write in (several markets I've seen specifically encourage it.) For purposes of short stories especially I'm not sure I see a meaningful difference between "3rd person omniscient" and whatever it is they call the other version of 3rd person. As both writer and reader I see little difference between them.

I liken it to the difference between the "presentation" style of acting common in the 1940s and 1950s and today's style that's deep character immersion, a trend often attributed to Marlon Brando and his ability to get so deep into the character that you didn't notice the actor anymore. That was revolutionary back then.

Anyway, the difference between 3rd omni and 3rd limited is not a huge difference, but the caution is this - in today's markets, readers expect to go deep into the head/experiences of the point of view character. Most writers these days end up doing 3rd limited with multiple points of view, going deep into each, rather than full 3rd omni.

As for the new and different - I think you're mistaking style for content there. Editors want to see new and different subject matter, or old subject matter given new treatment (e.g., retold fairy tales.) They don't want cliches and tired tropes.

I'm very heavily influenced by Lovecraft, whose work is very popular right now, and often breaks some of those "rules." Indeed, its my experience that much genre fiction often does.

everyone is going a different direction with their writing, because everyone is different. In fact, most go different directions with each piece they write.

All feedback is useful. The only thing I would say about here is that some times it seems to me that some people are a little locked into a single percieved template of "marketability", and gear all their feedback towards that. I try to make an effort to critique based on the style the author seems to be trying to achieve. My goal is to perfect a story as what it is as much as possible, then try to find the best market for it.

Thats also why I mostly look for full reads...I'm not a big believer that you can judge all that much by 13 lines, and while trying to make them as good as possible is important since thats all some editors read, having a great, hooky first 13 is just a first step...the whole work needs to be perfected, and consistent.

It's not ALL about opinion and style. Quite a bit of it is pure craft, not art.

3rd person omniscient is a perfectly fine point of view to use. It's there for a reason. This choice is the art side. The more marketable is 3rd person limited because it allows you inside the head of the main character in a very intimate way. But marketable isn't always what's best for your story, and I understand that.

Now, in the case of contrived, unrealistic, redundant dialogue, such as the dialogue you have. Yes, that is my opinion, and if you are able to find a single intelligent soul out there who honestly thinks otherwise (besides your mother/lover/sister/best friend), I will concede my statement. It's not about style--it's about letting your readers have an enjoyable eye-roll-less experience.

And I know you can write good dialogue. I've read your other 13s.

Showing and not telling is, you're correct, not always applicable. OSC said it, too, but he gave a clarifier. He said in the case of a character's MOTIVES, you have to tell, not show. An exception to a pretty successful guideline. If you tell me everything, Merlion, I will HATE you for having wasted my time. If you show me things, I will LOVE you for being brilliant and characterizing like a good writer can.

That's not even about marketability. Or about genre. I haven't read Lovecraft, but I'm willing to bet that, while he may have broken some "rules", he broke them for a reason.

quote:

---

It's not ALL about opinion and style. Quite a bit of it is pure craft, not art.

---

The basics of the language are more or less objective and "pure craft." Basic spelling, grammar, puncutation etc.

And, there are some things that are reasonbly commonly agreed upon...if you have a really awkward sentence, for instance, chances are it will be that way for the majority.

Most of the rest, though, is very subject to opinion. However even that being the case, as a writer one wants to appeal to the opinions of those interested in the type of thing your writing.

quote:

---

This choice is the art side. The more marketable is 3rd person limited because it allows you inside the head of the main character in a very intimate way.

---

Whether its more marketable or not depends on the market.

quote:

---

Now, in the case of contrived, unrealistic, redundant dialogue, such as the dialogue you have. Yes, that is my opinion, and if you are able to find a single intelligent soul out there who honestly thinks otherwise (besides your mother/lover/sister/best friend), I will concede my statement. It's not about style--it's about letting your readers have an enjoyable eye-roll-less experience.

---

The dialogue could use a little spruce, I'm not questioning that. However, as far as the philosophic aspect of the discussion..."enjoyable" is a matter of opinion. Whatever anybody writes, some are going to enjoy it, and some not. The goal is to reach a majority, and/or to please your target audience (and yourself).

If nothing else, Aronos should be the more excited one...I definitely need to change that..

However, you said before they dont talk like humans...I think, maybe, its that they don't talk like modern humans, and that doesnt work for you. And thats fine. Same with what you said about the descreption...you said it doesnt tell you anything about anything...at least, not anything you personally want to know. But some people are as interested in setting and mood as the characters.

So, I take feedback, but, if it seems to me that the person giving it just doesnt care for the type of story it is, I will still fully take it into account, but realizing thats the case.

quote:

---

Showing and not telling is, you're correct, not always applicable. OSC said it, too, but he gave a clarifier. He said in the case of a character's MOTIVES, you have to tell, not show. An exception to a pretty successful guideline. If you tell me everything, Merlion, I will HATE you for having wasted my time. If you show me things, I will LOVE you for being brilliant and characterizing like a good writer can.

---

As far as I've ever been able to tell, the whole "show/tell" thing is mostly taste and style..or, at least, its circumstance dependant. In the most technical sense of the word, all writing is telling. Pictures are showing. Its really more of a difference in degree of detail. "telling" is just saying it. "showing" is describing it in greater detail.

quote:

---

I haven't read Lovecraft, but I'm willing to bet that, while he may have broken some "rules", he broke them for a reason.

---

As near as I can tell, he wrote the way he wrote because its what he enjoyed, and what fit his stories. Same reason as me. Now, thats not to say I'm totally unwilling to use different means in a given story. Since I've been here, i've often tried re-writing portions, on their own, to see which I prefer and use whichever works best.

Mostly, like I said earlier, its just a matter of intentions. Everything I write isnt necessarily designed to fit into (peoples idea of) what is the most acceptable to the widest range of markets. Some of my stuff already has somewhat narrow market choices just by virtue of subject matter. So, my first concern is always to make things the best they can be, as what they are...then try to find them the right home.

Often, I do get a mix of comments, some that follow those ideas, some that are more specific, and all are useful. Thats why I like to talk about it...their even more useful that way. This piece, for example, probably has to many stylistic influences going on at once, so I may have to trim some of them..

quote:

---

Lightmaster Aronos and Zorthas the Dimensionist had come a long way, but finally they were here. They had come at last to the Ruins of Vorestos, legendary gateway to the City of the Night.<--[Feels forced.] Tall crumbling pillars and [enruned<--Eh? Is this a word?] plinths of stone stood all about them beneath the darkened sky, some bearing markings that even the two mages could not decipher.
”I was beginning to fear you’d [led us on another wild goose chase<--[Cliche, and doesn't sound right as banter between to wizards.], old friend,” Zorthas said. He looked on his friend with [tired eyes like shifting opals<--[Whose are these?].
Aronos looked around them, trying to absorb the whole of the scene in his excitement. “I had my doubts along the way as well, but here we are, [the first people to set foot in this place in millennia<--[Very As-You-Know-Bob-ish].”

---

Unclear PoV. The first part seems forced. I suggest choosing a PoV. Zorthas speaks first, so I'll give you an example from his PoV. This is not meant as "This is what you should do", but perhaps a clearer way to attack it:

With an effort, Zorthas contained his awe as he stared at the crumbling pillars and archway which marked the entrance to the ruins of Vorestos, the legendary City of Night. His fellow magus, Aronos, stood next to him shaking. He ran his fingers along a spiraling trail of engraved runes which wrapped the columns and bordered their plinths as if they were holy relics.

"I had begun to fear this wasn't a real place," he said, patting Aronos on his shoulder, "but not you, old friend, eh? You always kept the faith."

"I had my doubts," Aronos said, with a wheeze in his voice. His eyes crinkled with a smile. "But, now we are here."

"Aye," Zorthas said. The secret of the runes would grant...

I hope this helps.

I'm relatively happy with the first part, at this point, unless someone happens to suggest something stunning, I mostly want to fine tune the dialogue, and then carry what I learn about that into the rest.

You say that you are happy with the opening and yet there is an obvious waste of text in the redundancy of:

--but finally they were here. They had come at last--

The preponderance of names in the first sentences is enough to make me stop reading. I do like the changes you made in the dialogue, but agree with IB about the wild goose chase.

quote:

---

It sounds like you prefer 3rd omni because the other is too hard.

---

Only in the sense that I dont really percieve a difference in them, but everyone else does, apparently. Including as a reader, I've never really noticed or paid much attention to point of view. I write, and read, what happens. Unless someone is speaking, or the work is in first person, I can't really see where there is a point of view. So when people point it out, I dont generally understand what they mean.

quote:

---

The preponderance of names in the first sentences is enough to make me stop reading

---

Hmm...what do you think of referencing "the two figures" or some such right at the begining, and adding their names and titles nearer the dialogue? would that read better?

quote:

---

You say that you are happy with the opening and yet there is an obvious waste of text in the redundancy of:

---

Well, I've seen redundant statements in written works before, so let me ask you: Does that not work for you personally, do you not think it works for this particular piece, or is it a "rule break red flag" sort of thing? I'm not contesting the critcism, but since it is subjective, I'm curious as to the why of it. Is it just the "at last"? It goes on to state where it is that "here" is, which seems important, so what would be the better way to put it?

I think some of the problem lies in that my tastes seem to differ a lot from many here. I read a lot of genre stuff thats written in a more old fashioned, almost archaic style, and that influences my stuff. Maybe those things will never get published, but I'm reasonbly sure I'm not the only one that likes it...it just makes it hard for me to interpret comments some times, wether they are taste driven, market driven or trying to be objective.