posted
My first thought about this guy was that he had too many names. I did not know what to call him at first. I would use each one of the names only once in a sentence...move from general to specific, give the titles in place of some of the pronouns, then the real name last.( Or vise versa) Too many names just means that the reader does not have any idea what to call the character, not something that you want for the first few lines.
I was piqued by the 'often lethal' description of the character, I wanted to know more about why it was lethal. You also lost me when you introduced a lot of new terminology, although I am not a genius when it comes to writing, I think that encumbering your audience with too many terms at once can make them loose interest. Try to keep the immersion process slow, or at least take time to explain the 'bloodbong' it took me three readings before I realized that it was an instrument (and I'm still not certain). Also i want to know what the 'bodies' are in the 'bong'. You are piquing the reader's interest, it sounds like some really cool stuff, but I am getting lost in the details. Perhaps more action, or better explanation of the action is needed. Good imagery though, I really enjoyed it. Just remember readers are in it for the action, then once they're hooked they care about the images of what they are seeing.
posted
Thanks for the critique. I do have an alternate opening to Chapter One, which starts off with the description of the Bloodbong and works its way to Chariah. I've heard it's advisable to start with the character, so that's why I posted this version first. Would you like to take a look at the alternate, and then maybe the first page as a whole and let me know which one works better? I'll cut down on the verbiage too. Thanks again. Best regards,
The blood in the giant bong bubbled and swirled, emitting a sweet-smelling steam while it heated throughout the labyrinths of the monstrous Satanic pipe. A furnace the size of a torture chamber, an altar of sacrifice the size of a temple, an incinerator the size of a crematorium, the Bloodbong nearly consumed the capacious inner sanctum of meditation which housed it. Hells within hells within hells, like the universe itself. The Bloodbong's endless mazes of tubes and chambers were woven into hypnotic patterns and mandalas, flowing endlessly into and unto themselves while simultaneously filling its hollow, translucent effigies, caryatids, and telamones with hot vermilion plasma. Twisting like catacombs and intricate to the point of psychedelia, the sinister device was yet as controlled
Please let me know which you like better. Thanks all,
Brant
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited July 18, 2008).]
posted
Here is a revised version of the first sample implementing the suggestions of tigertinite.
Chariah sat with his legs crossed in the ancient, often lethal, black lotus position, his wrists upon his knees and his fingertips joined. A death-addicted demon known to the rest of the universe as the Necrodelic, Chariah smoked his victims alive from a giant, blood-filled bong. With the Bloodbong's mouthpiece placed between his lips, Chariah inhaled, the deep, slow breath of the succubus. Smoke billowed and filled the chamber, filled his black lungs, his black flesh, his black soul. His ebon claws and jet hair grew longer, his eyes more crimson. The blood in his veins, visibly bulging like black mambas across his chiseled muscles, quickened and fevered, as did his gonglike heartbeat, his meditative thoughts, and his sin-laden astrosome.
So..let me know which one.
P.S. If anyone can tell me how to paste my work into here without it coming out all screwy I would be extremely appreciative.
Looks like you can handle an honest critique, so, here's My take:
quote: Chariah[, the Death Addict, the [As far as I know this is the name of a copyrighted and trademarked comic book.-->Necrodelic,<--there's time for the "Death Addict" stuff later--to show not tell (though I hate that way of phrasing it) after the character and type of story have been established.[/b]] sat with his legscrossed in the ancient, [often lethal<--[Eh? Can't pictyure this? Lethally crossed legs?], black lotus position, his wrists upon his knees and his fingertips joined. [Gently,<--[Why gently?] he wrapped his lips around the mouthpiece of the Bloodbong. Chariah inhaled, the deep, slow breath of the succubus<--[Once again, I can't picture this. How is it different than a human's deep, slow inhalation?]. Smoke billowed and filled the chamber<--[Chamber...he's sitting in? Fluid chamber in the bong?], filled his black lungs<--[PoV?], his black flesh, his black soul.<--[Was he burnt to a crisp or something?] His ebon[y? claws and jet hair grew longer, his eyes more crimson [Than what?]. The blood in his veins, which were visibly arrayed beneath his atramentous<--[Did you mean atramentaceous? It is still redeundant, only harder to perceive. How could veins be seen through Jet/Inky black skin?] skin and bulged like black<--[Way redundant. Using the words "black" or "dark" in their myriad forms doesn't make the prose so, it makes it redundant and distracting from the story.] mambas across the chiseled muscles of his caliginous<--[Misty?] figure, quickened and revered[Is he a megalomaniac? Narcissistic?], as did his [gonglike heartbeat<--[Resonated as silly or a parody for me.], his meditative thoughts, and his sin-laden astrosome<--[A very obscure term, and not in regular circles. It probably serves to confuse most non-genre specific readers.]. The bodies in the bong [Eh? What bodies? How big is this bong?] began to disintegrate, their flesh pulling apart and transmogrifying<--[A very complicated way of saying converted or transformed.] into red-tinged fumes.
Okay. Whether you like Arthur C. Clarke's work or not, his axiom still holds true (and is not genre specific): As writers our job is not to write so that the reader understands it; it's to write so that the reader can't misunderstand it.
Dark characters are only truly dark when compared to light. Even chocolate looses its flavor when eaten with a chocolate spoon, from a chocolate bowl, and chased down with chocolate milk.
The prose is so thick with redundancies and archaic adjectives, that I cleaned very little information from this. What I did glean amounts to: Chariah (cool name)is a black(truly black, like jet, ink, raven, ebony, etc.) astral form of a muscular man who is smoking--I know no what--through a bong the size of a room with evaporating bodies in place of liquid (though it's called a bloodbong).
Am I close?
The big three questions remain:
1) Why should I care about him? (Either sympathize or hate him?)
2) Why should I read on? (What is the conflict promising to be?)
3) What is the milieu? (Time period? Location; inside or outside?)
As to your PS, What are you writingon that you cut and pasted it from?
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited July 18, 2008).]
1) Most of the questions a critiquer asks are not for you (personally) to answer; they are pointing out what they didn't get (but should have) from the excerpt.
Why should I read on? is a questioned designed to show that the story doesn't show any promise of conflict--and most of us read stories for character, which needs conflict (physical or mental) to grow--and therefore lacks a true hook.
Why should I care about the character? is a question designed to show that the prose has attached no characterization (or little) to the protagonist for said reader. If he has no likeable qualities, and I can't tell what he thinks or feels, I don't care about him.
2) All comments and advice are subjective (there are no absolutes in writing), but made to clarify the reader's understanding.
Of the word usages:
Are you writing from a particular point of view? If so, whose? If it's Chariah's, there are certain things he would know, and many he wouldn't think of, just take for granted. We--as readers--should learn about his world (or realm) as he goes through it, but we need a small measure of grounding to hang onto. Would he be thinking that the black lotus position is sometimes deadly?
What should have been clear but wasn't (quoting your response): "He is drugging himself in this scene to enable astral projection..." (That could be a hook in itself.) "The bong is gargantuan and filled with blood as well as the bodies of other, living demons. Chariah smokes them alive and becomes drugged on their flesh and death..." After that the only missing elemnents are Why he's trying to become "astral" and Where he is.
quote: What is your role in the writing community, exactly?
Uh...role? Antagonist. No--seriously, we are all here to learn, hone our craft and help others learn what we have. Do you mean have I been published? The answer is yes. The number of members that have would surprise you (many have much more published than I, and are much better, and some have novels out there).
As for critiquing the entire novel...that's a bit much to commit to for now. How about a chapter? (And that only if there's no rush.) I read fairly slow and am writing my own novel (while also reading slush for an online magazine, working 9-10 hours a day for a six-day work week, spending time with my three kids, wife and dog) as well as frequenting here, Liberty Hall, the Writers of the Future Forums and others.
posted
Questions are included in critiques to let the author know how the reader is responding to the first 13 lines. Answers to such questions, if needed, should be included in the story, not provided in any authorial response to the critique. An editor may have those same questions, but if they don't make the editor turn the page, the story will be rejected. The author will not have the opportunity to answer them if they are not dealt with quickly in the story.
There are certain questions that the first 13 lines need to try to answer. OSC calls them "the faith, hope, and clarity questions," and they are "oh, yeah?" (why should I believe this?), "so what?" (why should I care about this?), and "huh?" (this doesn't make sense--what's going on?).
If those questions are not answered, then the reader is not likely to be hooked and will probably not read on to where questions like "Why should I read on?" and "Why should I care about the character?" ARE answered. Those are "hope" questions, and they need to be dealt with as soon as possible to keep the reader reading.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
