Nit: I don't believe that there's enough human flesh that if you burned it you could fill the sky.
(Edited to clarify my thoughts of omniscient POV here)
[This message has been edited by Skarecrow (edited September 16, 2006).]
It is a fantasy, correct? Or are you going to throw in Sci-Fi with it? (Just curious.) Is "Show No Mercy" the title, or telling us to show know mercy when critiquing it?
Whether it is good or bad, or just different tastes in writing/reading, you used several uncommon words in these 13 lines. I still knew what the words meant by the context that they were in, but, personally, it sounds a little flowery... - That is not meant as a critique, and may just be a comment about my reading style. Wanted to mention it in either case...
Though besides that, I would be interested in reading more... (Though out of the hundreds of books I've read, I have only not finished one of them due to the boringness of it... Never figured out how it got published... 2/3's of the way into the book, and nothing had happened yet.)
I will shut up now...
"the measured steps of a pair of chain boots."
I like this too, at least, the first couple paragraphs when we're in the dragon's point of view. Make the rest of it like that, and it's a great hook.
quote:
I wear a pair of cowboy boots....and I believe only one pair at a time
The issue isn't about boots, it's about proper grammar.
a pair of boots = 1 (singular)
boots in a pair = 2 (plural)
Good grammar (and good writing) takes the entire paragraph into consideration, not just the individual sentences.
The sentence "Only one? she thought." immediately follows after the statement "measured steps of chain boots", leaving us with the misunderstanding that the reference is to the pair of boots. Proper grammar should eliminate any misconception. The confusion can be fixed by adding the noun being referenced in the thought, perhaps something like: "Only one human?"
In regards to the fragment, there is nothing that sets this "dragon's tale" off as being unique. I'm not hooked for that reason. When I want to read about dragons, I want to read a new approach about them. The standard approach I can get by re-reading "The Hobbit."
I can't even wear hand-knitted socks because they hurt my feet. The thought of chain boots makes my skin crawl.
the stranger has two feet, therefore he wears boots. Also, the statement "only one" IS refering to the pair of boots. One set of boots, one human. A simple interpolation.
i'm quite intrigued with the idea of continuing the story without the 3rd person omniscient. thanks for that instructive critique.
[This message has been edited by markburnash (edited September 18, 2006).]
[This message has been edited by markburnash (edited September 18, 2006).]
[This message has been edited by markburnash (edited September 23, 2006).]
This is good so far. I would definitely turn the page.If you want, you could email me the rest and I'll critique it.
If it wasn't it would be over their heads.
also, it's an issue of unneccesary degrees of separation. i'd stick to 3rd Dragon Limited as closely as i could, and add a sensory detail to boot: "The intruder was still a long way off, yet (his or hers-a problem you dodged before) chain boots clanged clearly."
this also solves the sudden omniscience problem, which could be: "Humans used to send veritable armies at her...She taught them the might of a Great Worm..."
ha! i made a booty pun.