one crit i've received was that I lack essential narration, and substituted style for it.

I went over the novel and found it
partially true.

heres the thing, while writing I try to immerse on the "now", instead of writing down something that "tells" some info <ie history, plot, whos'who, etc>

the text that "narrates" the story is completely devoid of directly stating some things in the past or some event that happened in the universe created. instead I use that side of the voice to provide vivid context of what the character/s are thinking, what the current setting is, looks smells feels, psyche, attitudes, and a bit of poetry.

In short, I use that side of the voice for exposition of the "now"

I use the characters in the story to "tell" whatever happened/is happening in their world, but in very short bursts. I prefer this cause Im sick of reading scifi that keeps stating/drones on alternate pasts, presents or futures. More of the action driven kinda writing I'd guess.

what I also ended up discovering,
was that most of the bulk of my writing was essentially, long poetry.
And I won't change that....
cause I hate to write something thatll sound like some info archive or a pretense thereof.

can I still characterize my writing in terms of writing a novel?

here's a fragment that pretty much has the style of the rest of the text :

If you want to use this style, you have to assign these thoughts, observations, perceptions and so forth to a character. You could use a narrator character in first person (The Great Gatsby) or have one of your main characters have that sort of personality if you want to use standard Third Person Limited O, or you could go with an implied narrative tradition (EarthSea Trilogy, Lord of the Rings). But if you just throw them out as a hodgepodge of unassigned observations, then the narrative isn't very clear, nor is it clear at any moment which character (if any) is making these observations, therefore the characters aren't clearly drawn either (we get to know characters in literature by what they think as much as by what they do).

In short, you end up with a collection of pretty language that doesn't clearly express what is actually going on nor what sort of person is involved in the goings on.

YOU WRITE: Another figure appeared behind the mists of jade smoke, masked with the cloak of a black longcoat. The figure stood before a tall rusting hull, five foot five meeting fifty fifty.

I ASK: Why so distant and objective sounding for this passage? Put emphasis on the action or vibrant word of the sentence. (example taken from Elements of Style)

NO: This steel is principally used for making razors, because of its hardness.

YES: Because of its hardness, this steel is used principally for making razors.

EDIT SUGGESTION: You use "Cloak" and "coat" in the same sentence and that is redundant or in conflict. He's wearing a coat, he's hiding his face. BG would write:---His arm reached across his stubbled cheeks as irridescent tendrils of his hair fluttered and twisted out of the way.----You write "mist" "masked" and "smoke" within 5 words of each other; I think it is overstatement.

YOU WRITE: Eyes pierced...

I ASK: Pierced? As in nose pierced or other body parts? I do not believe it is plausible or possible for the human or alien eye to "search and scrutinize" while pierced. Wouldn't there be some jelly ozzing?

YOU WRITE: the xenosteel laying still, the mass becoming mere artwork produced by expended fire. Brown eyes were open and observing, tagging each scrap metal with a two-word diagnosis. Eyes, shaded with metallic edges. A face, betrayed aspects of mathematical precision, anatomy mimicing clockwork.

I ASK: Why the past tense? The active voice is usually more direct, vigorous and powerful than that past or passive. You write: "appeared" "stood" "pierced" "masked" "eyes were" "betrayed."

I do like the way you write, keep it up, try to liven it up.

quote:

---

I ASK: Why the past tense? The active voice is usually more direct, vigorous and powerful than that past or passive. You write: "appeared" "stood" "pierced" "masked" "eyes were" "betrayed."

---

BG, I think you just miswrote, but are you equating past tense and passive voice? The two are different animals. You can have past tense in either active or passive voice. Active is better than passive, as you said, but past tense is generally the most popular tense for fiction. (And you can have active or passive voice in the other tenses, also in which active is better.)

It seems like you are setting the scene as if it were a movie, by painting a picture on a screen. It's easy to get a reader to watch an entire movie from omniscient POV. But novels are not movies. Readers grow tired of omniscient POV after a few pages because it's not very involving.

DB :
It seems like you are setting the scene as if it were a movie, by painting a picture on a screen. It's easy to get a reader to watch an entire movie from omniscient POV. But novels are not movies. Readers grow tired of omniscient POV after a few pages because it's not very involving

...isn't there a difference between an omniscient POV, and a dynamic POV? Im trying to go for the latter, wherein the scope shifts focus from character to character, and try to change the "voice" in between the shifts.

Survivor + DB:
In short, you end up with a collection of pretty language that doesn't clearly express what is actually going on nor what sort of person is involved in the goings on.

....ah. I rely heavily on implication. any of yall speak japanese? where the language that relies heavily on implied meaning? Ive been influenced a lil by it, where "addition" and "stating-too-much" are things looked down upon in using the language. I try to do the same thing here, I'm asking if : maybe IT IS NOT CLEAR or is it : NOT DIRECTLY STATED, but implied. I'm trying to go for the latter. also, aren't any of yall sick of it? in SF I mean, where almost everything is "said" and stated outright, and few are "shown" in a poetic sense?