CoffeePrince wrote...
Review #17
Note: A good writer will always change his style according to the reviews. If something isn't working, change it. I respect Jericho a great deal, so please don't assume that he owes you anything. In fact, you're lucky that he does review your stuff time and time again.
The Good: The very first part seeemed to grab the reader. Not only does the female character want to know more, but in essence, we are Rachel. We want to know more about this protagonist's dark past. We're left with questions such as, "who is this man?" or "who are the Purists?" or "what happened?" From here, we understand that he use to be an esteemed boy as his father was that hope of the Purists. Afterwards, things get a little dicy.
The OK: Jarring. Though my own form of writing is very much similar to yours: stream-of-thought, dictation style (the way we read it is the way we wanted to say it. This method of writing is very akin to theater or acting in general. Every comma/hyphen represents a dramatic pause or a list that tells the reader to take his/her time with it or speed through it. That said, there is an issue in that the reader has no idea which one to do). If this isn't the case, then please disregard. Nevertheless, I found this to be jarring in that, the way the stream-of-thought progressed seemed to be random. Though I personally can tell where you wanted me to pause, speed, dramatically feel, etc, I worry for anyone else. This way of writing is not a bad way as long as you give key hints as to what you want the reader to physically do. I personally like this style and enjoyed the story.
The Bad: You created this lore behind the character- and then never deliver. What about the scar? Nope, not telling... Ok, then what happened in the past? Nope, not telling... What on earth are the Purists? Nope, not telling... Do you see the issue here? A good story answers every question the reader has in the beginning and only raises more either if they, in of itself, will answer the first questions or all the previous questions were already answered. Granted there is that mythos/throughline that the reader follows throughout the story, but it's those little questions that make us continue reading.
Now that Blaze is my reviewer-in-arms, I agree with him. You've given his attributes as a son of a great general- thus either smart, has connections, or trained in some form of combat. Beating the shit out of a random guy is not a form of combat. I agree that if he has this background, then he should use it.
My senses are telling me you wanted to create the story of the tragic hero. The tragedy in a tragic hero is that no matter what he does, it all falls on top of him. His greatest strengths become his greatest weaknesses. In Oedipus Rex, he is a high-borne, intelligent, and morally righteous person. Because he killed his own father, since Oedipus was in the right, his quest to solve the plague only leads him to himself. That is the tragedy. That as great of a person as he is, his one mistake turned his world upside down.
Keep in mind that I would've answered the questions I raised, the Purists I was going to answer within the context of this entry, but there was a constraint that I faced, the word limit. The scar and the past however I wanted to leave most of it to imagination because there's a thing called Angst Dissonance. Basically the point where reader is fed up with the angst of the character and just give up on the piece. Also although this entry it can stand on its own somewhat it was meant to part of a greater story, which I intend write more of when the contest is over. I raised those questions so the reader was intrigued and wanted to know what these things were, and me being the bastard I am I just alluded to it. Of course I could've done this in better execution, but regardless revisions can't be done now. (Trust me I've done plenty of revisions before the deadline and somehow it's not enough. It's a bit unsettling.)