posted
Everyone has a dragon's tale right? Show no mercy. The dragon opened her emerald eyes, awakened by the sound of approaching footsteps. Her eyes narrowed to slits as she unfurled her wings. The intruder was still a long way off, yet she could hear the measured steps of chain boots quite clearly. Only one? she thought. In times past, when she first came to this land, the humans sent veritable armies at her, hailing themselves as dragon slayers. Very quickly they learned of the might of a Great Wyrm. Her mountain ran red with blood and the skies filled with the smoke of charred flesh. Her blood-thirst not content, she ravaged the nearby villages as well, killing man, woman, child and beast without remorse.
posted
I like it too, but I felt like you were in 3rd person (or Dragon) limited, and I was just getting used to her voice, when the last part of the paragraph jumped to omniscient, with her pillaging the valley. I don't think she would realistically think of what she was doing as 'ravagin and pillaging'. That is why it feels like omniscient to me; maybe you didn't mean it to be. I would recommend you stay in the 3rd Dragon limited, and let us get to know her voice and the history through her POV....just my HO....but I was intrigued and would continue reading...
(Edited to clarify my thoughts of omniscient POV here)
[This message has been edited by Skarecrow (edited September 16, 2006).]
posted
I agree with Skarecrow, I doubt that anyone would think of themselves as doing something without remorse. But I do like this.
Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to be nitpicky, but let me first say this... She heard the "steps of chain bootS" and then it moved to say "only one"... Perhaps you want to leave the boot singular... Then it might strike a reader as odd as it did the dragon.
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.)
posted
I dont know weeboing...I wear a pair of cowboy boots....and I believe only one pair at a time......
Posts: 29 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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."
posted
o.k. the hobbit crack was a little low. first off this dragon is FEMALE, not male....like Smaug is....was...whatever. Also Bilbo did NOT wear chain boots while sneaking into his lair....the hobbit, heh...i scoff!... i shall keep my pet dragon from roasting you where you stand, but just this once.
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).]
posted
Yeah, I liked this. And as for the whole 'boots debate', she means either one pair of boots or one person. That's what I understood when I first read it. The fact that it could be one boot never even occured to me until I read it.
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.
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..."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
