posted
This is my first try at this-it's a fantasy novel that so far has about 20,000 words (about four chapters). I'm not sure I've started it in the right place. Just looking for critique on the first thirteen for now. Does it interest you and would you read on? Have I told you what you need to know? POV? Thanks in advance!
The way home from hunting never seemed so long. For a while, Rieve halfway imagined he had been riding his mare endlessly through the same stretch of trees. Now, he was at last getting close to home, but he still attempted to remain cautious. The forest this near the mountains offered ample cover for the fey or wolves or a bear and Rieve and his hounds smelled of blood, which tended to attract unwanted attention. While the hounds didn’t seem to be seriously hurt and had licked themselves clean, Rieve knew he reeked of his own blood. He attempted to persuade himself the wounds that the fey whatever-it-was had clawed across his back weren’t serious either. Instead of remaining alert and wary, he struggled simply to stay awake. Several times he caught himself falling asleep
posted
I guess I want to know why he's all bloody.
I'm not hooked, but I'd keep reading to see if there was a hook soon. (BTW I think I should already be hooked, by something: beautiful writing, character, event, something.)
If you're not sure you're starting int he right place, maybe you need to decide before going further? OSC would suggest it.
posted
You have a voice/POV issue in the way that some things are mentioned and the order in which they are mentioned. From the beginning, it merely seems that Rieve is tired, so it's quite a surprise when we find out that he's injured as well. It didn't help that in the first sentance where that is indicated, you have a running list which trails right into "and Rieve and his hounds", which is very confusing for a moment. The running list itself is a bit of a voice problem too, it feels a lot like "lions and tigers and bears, oh my!"
This is actually not a bad place to start, presuming that something is about to happen as a result of the incident with the fey. But it needs a much "grittier" feel to work. It also needs to have the clarity improved in a few places.
posted
In reading through this I see one particular problem overwhelming the others which have already been pointed out. Namely, the writing is too loose and tentative. What I mean by this is that there are quite a few areas where the prose could be more assertive.
"never seemed so long" "attempted to remain cautious" "tended to attract" "didn't seem to be seriously" "attempted to persuade himself" "fey whatever-it-was"
Compare "Johnny thought he might want to see if the door was locked" versus "Johnny wanted to know if the door was locked"
This may be a quality of your character, but I'd guess not. Definitely break up that big sentence in the middle -- it'll read easier.
[This message has been edited by Omakase (edited December 14, 2006).]
posted
Thanks, your comments helped a heap. I tried a re-write still starting in the same place-does it work any better? Does it address all the issues you mentioned? Does it cause any new issues?
Rieve felt he would never get home from hunting, he imagined he rode endlessly through the same stretch of trees. Each step his mare took jarred the wounds the fey whatever-it-was had clawed across his back, but he reckoned he wasn’t badly hurt. Besides wounding Rieve, the fey creature killed one of his hounds, but the other hounds escaped uninjured. Today wasn’t the first time he limped home bedraggled and defeated, but he’d never before lost a hound, and that loss rankled.
He let the mare walk on a loose rein, and now they were only several miles from his cabin. He still fought to stay cautious because he reeked of blood, which attracted undesirable attention. Yet instead of remaining alert and wary, he struggled simply to stay awake.
posted
I didn't read the first version until after the second.
I think the criticisms of the first version not telling you enough are well-founded. I especially think Omakase's criticism was helpful for the first version.
This version struck me as clearer, but with two issues: one, that you're not committed to the imagery, and two, that your writing is a little awkward.
Check out how you give with one hand and take away with the other in the next few sentences.
quote:Each step his mare took jarred the wounds the fey whatever-it-was had clawed across his back, but he reckoned he wasn’t badly hurt. Besides wounding Rieve, the fey creature killed one of his hounds, but the other hounds escaped uninjured. Today wasn’t the first time he limped home bedraggled and defeated,
It was painful, but he wasn't really hurt. It killed one of his dogs, but hey -- he had more. And although today was lousy, it wasn't like it was the first time or anything.
So I have a picture of a guy having a bad day, but not a bad day. So why do I really care? Doesn't everyone have bad days? What's interesting about this bad day?
Writing style and mechanics
I think if you clear up the non-committal feeling I'm getting from the first part, it will fix most of the writing as well. That said, here are some specifics.
quote:Rieve felt he would never get home from hunting, he imagined he rode endlessly through the same stretch of trees.
This is a comma splice. You could replace the comma with a semicolon, but you might consider rewriting and condensing a little bit, too, since I think the information that comes after this sentence is more important to your hook.
quote:Each step his mare took jarred the wounds the fey whatever-it-was had clawed across his back, but he reckoned he wasn’t badly hurt.
I felt like this took a long time to get where it was going. I might give it more of this sort of structure: the fey creature had wounded him, and although his wounds weren't grevious, each step the mare took hurt them.
"Whatever-it-was" feels out of place, a modern phrasing with low diction in something that's otherwise archaic sounding and relatively high diction.
quote:Besides wounding Rieve, the fey creature killed one of his hounds, but the other hounds escaped uninjured. Today wasn’t the first time he limped home bedraggled and defeated, but he’d never before lost a hound, and that loss rankled.
I feel like the words are repetitive here. "Fey whatever-it-was" previously, then "fey creature"; also "his hounds", "the other hounds", and "a hound"; also "lost" and "that loss". It feels like there's an opportunity to tighten here, though I haven't tried it.
quote:He let the mare walk on a loose rein, and now they were only several miles from his cabin. He still fought to stay cautious because he reeked of blood, which attracted undesirable attention. Yet instead of remaining alert and wary, he struggled simply to stay awake.
Same sort of thing here. There aren't that many data points: close to home, reeks of blood (which bad things like), struggling to stay awake. It just seems like a long way to go.
I think your first version showed better stylistic instincts, so maybe you just need to put this one down for a day or two and come back to it with fresh eyes. I'm willing to provide some more specific suggestions if you want them, too.
Make it so that Rieve has to take positive mental/physical action to retain consciousness and make his way home. Even if he's confident that he'll be okay, if you show us that survival depends on him acting then we'll find him more interesting.
You might want to start with a physical action rather than a passive feeling, even. "Rieve pulled his cloak closed against the wind, hunching over despite the raking wounds on his back." Then go on to talk about how he's cold (or perhaps hot) despite the mild weather (or storm) and show us that he's overcoming a difficulty here. Oh, and perhaps show us a little bit more than "a stretch of trees" for setting. The difficulty Omakase highlighted isn't just that the POV is tentative, but that the character seems ineffectual. oh points out that it seems difficult to take this guy's problems seriously, and that's partly because he isn't doing anything to deal with them.
posted
I’ve received some extremely helpful comments. I mulled this over for a day or so, and re-read the often referenced threads of “Just tell me” et. all as well as OSC’s “Beginnings.” Sorry for the length of this message, but before attempting another version of this, I want to be sure I fully understand the points y’all are making. I suspect these difficulties are the reason I feel I’m starting in the wrong place (or it could be a result of starting in the wrong place), but I think the problems inherent in these 13 lines are throughout the whole piece, so even if I don’t start here, clarifying this will help. This post may be just reiterating what’s already been said, but since I pondered this out, I decided to inflict it upon you.
I think what Oliver was saying is similar to what Omakase said-it’s still too hesitant, but in a different way. Instead of hesitant words, the tone itself waffles too much. This, but not all the way this. That, but not all the way that. I don’t understand fully what was meant by the first version having “better stylistic instinct.” Is the second trying too hard? Style is something I struggle to comprehend. Any and all specifics help tremendously. (I achieved “archaic sounding and relatively high sounding diction” except for the example mentioned??? Yeah!)
I’ve also been thing about the salient features of “Grit.” (I’m going to name one of his hounds Rooster in honor of this discussion ) I think these features contribute to grit, or the lack thereof: 1. Internal vs. external-thought vs. action, mental vs. physical 2. Hesitancy vs. directness-in tone as well as word choice 3. Description vs. use of generalities- use of details to bring the world/setting alive, esp. use of all 5 senses 4. Character reactive vs. proactive-respond to stimuli vs. causing things to happen 5. Narration vs. a scene-infodumpish 6. Dramatic narration vs. summary narration or tell vs. show I think these categories blur together and combine. Any more you would add?
For me, tell vs. show seems to be a problem. I think I try to show things I should just come out and tell you, and tell you things that would be better shown. I’d like to compare/contrast some specific examples to see what you think. Where I should just come out and tell you: Instead of saying “whatever-it-was”, I should just come out and say, “Rieve didn’t know what kind of creature it was, and his lack of experience frustrated him.” Instead of implying, “Oh, well, I’ve got more hounds”, I should come out and say, “Losing even one hound hurt as bad as being injured.” Where I tell and I should show: “He struggled simply to stay awake.” I think this would be better if I show this, something like, “Rieve was jarred out of his doze when the mare spooked, and she nearly shied out from under him. He cursed himself for his lack of wariness…” Is this still having him be too reactive? Instead of “tended to attract unwanted attention,” I could show something unwanted being attracted (although that would happen after the first 13) I think adding specifics also fall under this, instead of the general “Several miles away”, maybe something like “They finally reached the tulip poplar that had been struck by lightening, and its dead branches served as a marker that only three more miles remained until they reached the cabin.” I guess everyone’s had an experience where they’ve tried to stay awake; I should show how his is different. Not everyone is a huntsman, so I should just tell about that. As Survivor pointed out, I also need to give him something specific to DO, instead of showing him sitting on the horse griping (though in his defense, he’s got cause to gripe). What do you think? Am I overanalyzing this? Thanks again, I really appreciate all your help and comments. I’ve learned a lot from this forum just lurking, and now even more posting. Now, if I could just see these problems before someone else points them out and put this into practice instead of having it be merely abstract.
quote:The way home from hunting never seemed so long.
I suspect he would hunt in different places so the trip home would take longer depending on where he was to start out with. I think what you're trying to convey is: The way home from hunting had never seemed so long.
As it is, it sort of implies that it's objectively the same distance every day. BTW: you can also cut "from hunting"
quote:For a while, Rieve halfway imagined he had been riding his mare endlessly through the same stretch of trees. Now, he was at last getting close to home, but he still attempted to remain cautious.
It's not bad, but it's sort of clumsy. I bet you can do this in about half the words.
quote:The forest this near the mountains offered ample cover for the fey or wolves or a bear and Rieve and his hounds smelled of blood, which tended to attract unwanted attention.
Any good reasons to use the "or" instead of just a coma?
quote:While the hounds didn’t seem to be seriously hurt and had licked themselves clean, Rieve knew he reeked of his own blood.
Logical flaw? You just said in the preceding paragraph that they all smelled of blood. Now the hounds are clean (if they can still smell of blood in spite of being clean, just cut this whole paragraph, it's useless.) I suggest including the fact that Rieve is wounded in the previous paragraph and cutting the hounds-licking-themselves-clean bit
quote:He attempted to persuade himself the wounds that the fey whatever-it-was had clawed across his back weren’t serious either.
Punctuation?
quote:Instead of remaining alert and wary, he struggled simply to stay awake. Several times he caught himself falling asleep
Logical flaw. I think you mean: He should have been alert, but he struggled simply to stay awake and caught himself falling asleep several times.
posted
The most jarring thing to me is the continuity errors. In one verrsion you are saying the wounds aren't bad, in another that he is trying to convince himself they aren't.
posted
Grit is internal, not external. It's a matter of attitude rather than overt action. It does lead to positive, purposeful actions, but grit itself is a state of mind. Just not a static state.
A person with grit can be undecided, but that indecision is painful to endure and can only be justified by a solid reason for indecision. For instance, you've got two people both claiming to be an ally, but one of them is definitely an enemy. Which do you shoot? The character with grit really wants to shoot the enemy, but also wants to not shoot the ally.
The other elements don't have anything to do with grit, they're all just parts of "style" generally. You need to get them right in order to do a POV without grit just as much as you need them to show a protagonist type.
Take the wounds issue. Convince us that this is a guy who's used to fighting bears in melee combat, and his thought that he's been hurt a lot worse and gotten better becomes "Chewie and I have gotten into a lot of places more heavily guarded than this." That's the power of "style", meaning simply how you present information.
quote:I think what Oliver was saying is similar to what Omakase said- it’s still too hesitant, but in a different way. Instead of hesitant words, the tone itself waffles too much. This, but not all the way this. That, but not all the way that.
Exactly.
quote:I don’t understand fully what was meant by the first version having “better stylistic instinct.” Is the second trying too hard?
In a nutshell, yes.
The first seemed smoother; the language itself felt more natural. The second, though, paints a clearer picture. If you can marry the relative smoothness of the first with the clarity of the second, you'll have a real improvement over both.
quote:(I achieved “archaic sounding and relatively high sounding diction” except for the example mentioned??? Yeah!)
I'm not sure whether you're being serious or not, but yes. You made word choices like "imagined," "mare", "jarred", "fey", "reckoned", "bedraggled", and "rankled" instead of (say) "thought", "horse", "jammed", "fairy", "thought", "worn out" and "made him angry". "Archaic" might be too strong, but you're definitely not sounding casual.
"Whatever-it-was" sounds much more like "worn out" than like "bedraggled". That's why it doesn't quite fit.
quote:Instead of saying “whatever-it-was”, I should just come out and say, “Rieve didn’t know what kind of creature it was, and his lack of experience frustrated him.”
I don't think this is a question of show vs. tell, but one of word choice. Without changing your word choice much, you could say, "the fey creature had clawed" (which would require the second reference to be something like "the fey thing" or "the fey beast" or "the creature"). "Whatever-it-was" just sounded too modern (or something) to my ears.
quote:Instead of implying, “Oh, well, I’ve got more hounds”, I should come out and say, “Losing even one hound hurt as bad as being injured.”
Better, I think, yes.
quote:Where I tell and I should show: “He struggled simply to stay awake.” I think this would be better if I show this, something like, “Rieve was jarred out of his doze when the mare spooked, and she nearly shied out from under him. He cursed himself for his lack of wariness…”
I didn't mind the original. I know what it's like to struggle to stay awake. I don't think the other is bad, either, but I'd personally be careful not to overdo it. This is a matter of taste, I think.
quote:Instead of “tended to attract unwanted attention,” I could show something unwanted being attracted (although that would happen after the first 13)
Maybe, or just be more specific. Maybe something like, "tended to attract wolves, and other less pleasant predators".
(And "tended to attract" can almost certainly be cut to "attracted".)
quote:I think adding specifics also fall under this, instead of the general “Several miles away”, maybe something like “They finally reached the tulip poplar that had been struck by lightening, and its dead branches served as a marker that only three more miles remained until they reached the cabin.”
If you're trying to set a tone by characterizing the surrounding area, I think this could work well. Again, I'd just be careful not to overdo it.
quote:I guess everyone’s had an experience where they’ve tried to stay awake; I should show how his is different.
If it is.
quote:What do you think? Am I overanalyzing this?
Maybe. That's why I said maybe you should just sleep on it. But sometimes really overanalyzing can help. If you're paralyzed, go away from it; if you think picking nits gets you somewhere, keep trying variant after variant to see what works.
quote:Now, if I could just see these problems before someone else points them out and put this into practice instead of having it be merely abstract.
Don't feel bad. I find myself doing the same things I'm telling other people not to do all the time. Fortunately, I find that when I actually take my own advice, I like the results better.
[This message has been edited by oliverhouse (edited December 21, 2006).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
