Hatrack River Writers Workshop: Sci Fi Quartet's Beginnging

This is topic Sci Fi Quartet's Beginnging in forum Fragments and Feedback for Short Works at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=002009

Posted by Last_Cossack (Member # 3470) on :

Hey, I'm John Fletcher.

This is the Prolouge of the first novel of a sci fi quartet. The series is entitled, "The Yurthian Empire Quartet". The first book is "The University of Grand Strategy". And the prolouge is called "The Heir's Flight" or "The Flight of the Dauphin". Here are the first 14 lines (didn't want to cut off the last sentence of a paragraph). Please critique, and let me know if you want to be ina sci-fi/fantasy group.

Of all the foul things man has brought into the world, revenge was by far the worst. How many People had died in pursuit of that so deceptive goal? He asked himself. Surely the concept was as old as the ideas of property and ownership, He told himself. Such a pitiful sorrow that mankind hadn’t grown above such things. Such a pitiful sorrow that He hadn’t grown past such things.
But how could He be expected to ignore how He had been wronged? After all He had done for that feeble old man? He had restored the power and respect of the Imperial Throne, not the Emperor. Yet, He had been tossed aside as if He were some old toy, fun at times, but all and all just an old, useless memory. He felt his blood boiling, and closed his eyes and began to

I think it might have a too 'preachy' voice, and I'm not sure about how to go about his name (He is the main villan, and his name is unknown to us till the end of the third book). The prolouge will continue with him (the nominated heir to the Imperial Throne) discovering the Empire has fathered a child, then going to the delivery of a new-born orphan to a Papan (the roman based system) priest. Just please let me know what you think.

Thanks for your time.

[This message has been edited by Second Assistant (edited June 08, 2006).]

Posted by Sara Genge (Member # 3468) on :

I would start with the character of the idea. I'd try to involve the reader into the character's desire for vengeance before going into disertations on the general theory of vengeance: for example the character thinking about vengeance and then justifying himself by thinking that it's a basic human emotion etc.
Even if it is a prologue (and by definition exposition), it should probably be centered on the character.

Posted by wbriggs (Member # 2267) on :

I recommend against having a prolog. I sometimes skip them.

Getting the name in is easy enough: replace the first "he" or "him" with the name.

Further thoughts:
* break into paragraphs
* specifics are more gripping than generalities. Not "revenge," but "paying back that murderous bastard Joe Blow whose dog pooped on the imperial throne" -- or whatever
* watch the use of capitals. I don't see a reason to capitalize "People"; and capitalizing "He" implies that He's divine. (If that's true, it'll be capitalized throughout, along with "himself" and "his" -- if you decide to do that, which is a little hard to read.)
* I like the way you do internal thoughts -- just the thoughts, with a "he asked himself" at the start to ease us in. OSC calls this "deep penetration" of the character's thoughts.

Posted by Neoindra (Member # 3422) on :

I liked the prolog, but I would caution against having a MC that isn’t named. It goes back to the whole thing of withholding information. Unless there is a real good reason, and I’m not saying that there isn’t, readers generally don’t like it. If his identity has to stay hidden for sake of the plot you could always give him a pseudonym or alias, but defiantly don’t capitalize the he unless it’s a deity.

Posted by Novice (Member # 3379) on :

I like the last sentence, and feel that it tells more about the character and his situation than the rest of the fragment. I also am interested in the "orphan" you mention after the fragment. You've picked a difficult place to start, in my opinion, by going straight into the character's internal dialogue.

In all, I found the fragment a little distracting in style, in that I noticed all the capitalizations and repetitions of "had" (eight, including variants) and didn't follow the story until the second or third read-through.

The first sentence uses "...has brought..." and then goes on to "...revenge was..." This kind of tense shift is a stumbler for me, and I think having it right at the start was what got me looking at all of your verb forms.

"blood boiling" is a cliche.

With just a little tweaking, you could eliminate some of the passive voice in this, which would make your character seem stronger.

I have to admit, I'm not hooked by the end of these opening lines. The character is still not clearly established, and the plot seems to be drifting toward a theme that has been done a lot. In an opener, I'd like to have something fresh and compelling to focus on, to stimulate my interest. I agree that you do a good job with the internal dialogue, but what you have here doesn't give me anything that definitively identifies this character as someone I haven't met before.

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

Yeah, it's too preachy, and it's quite shallow. Revenge isn't a thing invented by man, after all. It's part of the survival strategy of almost all living organisms. Anything that is poisonous to eat gains no personal benefit from it, after all. That's all about punishing the thing that ate you. A simple but by no means comprehensive example.

Any serious philosophical reflection on revenge would have to address that point, this monologue doesn't, hence it isn't a serious philosophical reflection.

Also, your capitalization of "He" betrays the superficial intent, causes confusion when transitioning from "Man" to the particular man who is the POV character, and leaves your character without a name (which is your intent, but it also means that you just shouldn't have anything from his POV).

Short answer, just don't use this character's POV. Ever. If you're going to paint him black anyways, apply the paint on the outside. You use the villian's POV to explain the villian or sometimes create sympathy, this villian needs no explanation and isn't sympathetic.

Posted by kings_falcon (Member # 3261) on :

Do you really need this part of the prologue? Unless you are trying to justify why the main villan does what he does getting inside his head is probably not going to move the story forward.
If the villan has a change of heart later on, THEN I might care about why he was doing the bad things he was doing earlier in the story.

Trial lawyers and judges have a saying when it comes to relevance: If the information does not move the (liablilty) ball forward or backwards, the information is not relevant. Given what you've said about the story that follows, I don't see how these 14 lines advance your plot unless you are trying to create sympathy for the villan. Maybe you want to open with a different scene.

I do like the voice and your handling of the inner dialog. If the rest of your writing is this strong it should be an enjoyable read once you polish the rough edges mentioned in the critiques.

(I so need spell check!)

[This message has been edited by kings_falcon (edited June 06, 2006).]

Posted by Neoindra (Member # 3422) on :

I don’t know if the whole poisonous analogy works, after all most things that are poisonous use their venom to paralyze their prey thus making it easier to eat.

Edit: Sorry misunderstood the post first time through. Now I understand. Like lobsters, if you don’t kill the toxins before you eat it they will kill you, hence the boil them alive cooking method. Sorry

[This message has been edited by Neoindra (edited June 06, 2006).]

Posted by Last_Cossack (Member # 3470) on :

Thanks for the critiques guys.

In my work, I'm trying not to just take the villans and 'paint them black'. I personally enjoy stories a lot more when the writer doesn't just portray every last 'bad guy' as blatantly and sadistically evil. Later in this scene, the villan opts aganst killing the Emperor's defenseless baby son, thus putting some humanity into him. But I see where that type of advice is coming from.

Also, just letting you know, this particular character does go through massive character development throughout the story. Besides that, the differences in motivation and character among the main villans causes tension, and, in the end, infighting. So I think I need to give them a number of 'thought-shots' to make it work.

Finnally, just a note, this character is the main villan, not the main character.

Thanks again for your help.

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

If you're not painting him black, then give him a name. And don't...don't have him think "He" should be capitalized and stuff like that.

Posted by kings_falcon (Member # 3261) on :

Mercedes Lackey once said, "even evil magicians sometimes get up in the middle of night for a glass of milk and a cookie."

I also tend to like storoes where the bad guy is not a cardboard cut out. In fact, I like it so much that when I asked my BG why he was doing what he was doing his answer surprised me. Now he's a MC.

If this character is going to have the major development that your last post suggests than it is important that we see his POV and know his name. While the other characters may not know he's a villan at heart, he knows it and if we share his POV we are going to know what he does. If you don't tell the reader who he is well before the end of the third book, you are withholding too much and it is unlikely the audience will stick around to find out.

Posted by Last_Cossack (Member # 3470) on :

Okay.

I see what yuo are saying about needing to identify him way before the end of the third, but at that time in the book, my MC discovers that he is the one behind everything, and that, adding to two other things, encourages him to have a MAJOR plot and character twist.

How would I be able to still go about that, 'hitting' my readers with the surprise the MC feels at that point?

Thanks for your time.

Posted by kings_falcon (Member # 3261) on :

John,

You can show the MC's suprised and betrayed feelings by how the MC reacts to the news. The reason most mystery novels aren't omni is to build suspense by leaving hints and letting the reader figure out "who done it" with the MC. But you are not doing that here because you are in the villan's POV.

If you want to suprise us at the end that this character is the villan, go back to Survivor's comment - this character can not be a POV. If he is a POV the readers must know what he knows, including his name and motives. The advantage of using his POV is the reader gets to see the two goals (the villan's and the MC's) compete. The reader will still sympathize with the MC (and want him to "win") even though the MC doesn't figure out who the bad guy is if the villan ability to hide his identity is plausible.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

Posted by Pyre Dynasty (Member # 1947) on :

I'd prefer a books worth of suspence of a sentence worth of surprise. This is what Alfred Hitchcock called the bomb under the table. When the bomb blows up you have a 10 seconds of surprize but if you show the bomb ten minutes before it blows up then you have that much suspence.
Don't confuse MC with protagonist. If he goes through massive character development then he is a main character. I don't think the painting black referred to evil, it referred to hiding. He knows who he is, so if you want to be in his POV then he should use his name. SO then how do you 'hit' us with surprise? Either don't go into the villain's POV or hit the sympathetic character and have us feel it through him.

Withholding information that the POV character should know is a cheat. A writer who cheats loses reader trust. No amount of surprise is worth that.

Posted by Shendülféa (Member # 2964) on :

I was going to add more, but everyone else seems to have covered everything I was going to say, especially concerning the effectiveness of the POV you're using. I would have to say that if the reason that you are not revealing this character's name is because it is supposed to be a plot twist somewhere in your story, that you just leave it out--unless this character is also a main character. But then, you would still have to name him somehow. People just generally don't like nameless characters. You could call him by his profession (i.e. the professor, the wizard, the scientist, or what have you). Just a suggestion. I don't know if that will work for you as I haven't read the whole story.

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

Also, there is the issue of "dramatic irony" and "dramatic suspense". These terms relate to specific situations in art where the audience is aware of information that the characters do not have. Your hero is in the same room with the villian, or is even revealing details of his mission, and doesn't know it. But the audience does.

There are some advantages in multiple POV, use them.