posted
Here it is again, rebuilt and revamped. After your last dissection of it, it needed some heavy work. Anyway, here are the first 13 lines of my fantasy work (not much more has been done besides these lines): ********************************************
The ancient prominence of Caidon Rise jutted outward and upward from Hemnar Plain, its stark west side plunging downward into Kerra Valley. Fringed with crumbling walls, scored with sword-marks and gouged with hammer blows, Ramacai’s ancient fortress now stood open like an overturned grave, where only the maggots and grave robbers crawl. Perfect solitude and perfect darkness awaited the Rise’s dark potential. Here it had begun, and here it had ended, and here it would begin anew. Even in the breaking of the new day, Caidon bore an ill feeling of foreboding, which none of the nearby settlements bore well.
Despite such hostile feelings towards the place, Renault trudged on towards the monolithic monument, frosted grass... ********************************************
Hope this version's better than the last. Open to brutal remarks and constructive chastisement.
[This message has been edited by scm288 (edited December 25, 2005).]
posted
I'm all for giving background, but this background doesn't grab me. There's a ridge; it's creepy. To me, that's one sentence of information. My mind wandered in the rest of the paragraph.
Posts: 2830 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Here it had begun, and here it had ended, and here it would begin anew."
What is it? I think that that should be explained a little. As well, I don't think you need the and between begun and here. I mean, it's not a huge problem, but it's one of those tiny little problems that can take the spice out of a perfectly good sentence.
[This message has been edited by The Fae-Ray (edited December 25, 2005).]
posted
I guess I read differently than some of the reviewers here. If the first 13 lines can't contain mystery and raise questions to be answered later then where can they be. I may differ with you somewhat on style but not on what it seems you are trying to do here. Now I must read more to know what started and ended there. Good job!
Posts: 6 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this version is better. Your descriptions this time around make the place sound more malevolent than in the original version. Posts: 97 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
scm288
unregistered
posted
Thanks, guys!
wbriggs, I'll try to get the background to be more grabbing, but there's only so much you can do with a non-descript hunk of granite on the edge of a valley. It's supposed to be remote, though (as is shown in the description) it has a lot of history.
But I'll try to work the action into the description--that's one of my biggest weaknesses, doing all of the description and action in seperate blocks of of over-worded blather. Any further comments? If not, I'll get working on the next fragment.
posted
I stumbled the whole way through. I got frusterated with all of the jumping about with different placenames and such. It just didn't grab my attention.
...Sorry, not trying to make you feel bad.
[This message has been edited by zephyr (edited December 27, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by zephyr (edited December 27, 2005).]
posted
Calling the Rise a prominence jarred me - maybe "promontory" would be better?
The only thing here that really hooked me was when we finally got to Renault: I want to know why he's going there, and I get the feeling that I'm being introduced to a quest, which is gratifying. The begin/end/will-begin sentence seems like something that would fit better into a prologue (perhaps in which you tell us what you're talking about, as Fae-Ray said) and could be replaced with something telling us why Renault is going there.
As for the sword-marks and hammer blows, that sort of detail would probably fit better later on, maybe as Renault runs a hand over the walls or something. If the focus here was on backstory they would be good; here I'm only intrigued by the character.
posted
One nit - you say "an overturned grave". Grave normally implies burial - how would a grave be overturned? A coffin might be, a sepulchre might be, but not a grave. Just feels wrong.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
