|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 5, 2011 4:37:36 GMT -5
It's really not that exciting.
Me:
Her:
Me:
Her:
Me:
She hasn't responded to the last one yet.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 5, 2011 4:07:57 GMT -5
The quality of the writing varies by book, which isn't shocking, given that it has more than one author. Some portions are rather poetic (such as a number of the Psalms), but that seems to be the exception, not the rule. I've always like the 23rd Psalm and Ecclesiastes 3:1-8, from a literary perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 5, 2011 3:54:36 GMT -5
Since you asked for criticism.
1) Your story lacks a proper exposition. As it stands, it's too short and abrupt to draw the reader in -- we need more than just a few random events and brief mentions of the main characters if we're going to be invested in these people and the events they experience. It would be enormously beneficial if you put more detail into your descriptions of the people, places and things involved. Who are these people? Why should we care about them? Where is this all taking place? We're not even told that first scene is set in a library until it finishes.
2) There are a few contradicting descriptions. For example, there's this line:
She isn't ignoring him, she's choosing not to acknowledge his sarcasm. While the reader may be able to understand what you really meant, it's still very distracting.
3) There are a number of punctuation and grammar issues. Here's an example:
That should read:
or
Dialogue should only end with a comma if the text that follows is part of the same sentence. Likewise for sentences preceding dialogue.
4) The events are confusing. Ending a chapter with an unexplained event is fine, but not without some kind of build-up to it. In the first chapter, we only have a group of friends chatting, then suddenly, a girl being walked on a leash. You're making the audience go, "What the fuck?", and not in a good way.
5) On a related note: As a rule of thumb, each chapter should centre around a stage in the story, relating an important event in the plot and/or a vignette of some kind. Of course, artistic license allows you to occasionally veer away from this rule, but only when it benefits the story. As it stands, the chapter splits feel kind of arbitrary due to the aforementioned abruptness and lack of focus. In addition to plotting out the story in its entirety, it might help if you did the same with each individual chapter.
I'm not trying to be mean here, so please don't take this as an attack. I simply wanted to offer some constructive criticism, as this story isn't anywhere near ready for mass consumption. I strongly recommend finding a beta reader to help you develop it into the finished product.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 5, 2011 1:57:56 GMT -5
Me? Nah. All figures can be lovely. I actually find Rubenesque figures to be aesthetically pleasing, especially in art work.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 5, 2011 1:32:09 GMT -5
I tried to talk some sense into the woman, but she keeps backpedaling, so I gave up.
e: Couldn't help responding again. I'm a sucker for punishment.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 5, 2011 1:30:19 GMT -5
Just the ones they don't like. They're happy to quote passages that refer to women not having power and gays being evil. They come up with some interesting excuses for this.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 5, 2011 1:27:37 GMT -5
Having seen your photos, I can guarantee that you're not Rubenesque. You're as petite as they come! (Not that that's a bad thing)
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 5, 2011 1:24:26 GMT -5
Oh here's another one: when a celebrity wants like $70 for their autograph at a convention. Are you kidding me? I already spent more than twice that to actually get there at the con! I was considering going to a Con last year (or the year before, can't remember), as both Brent Spiner and Leonard Nimoy were going to be there, but when I saw that they were charging something like $50+ just for a photo or an autograph (meaning it would be at least $200 to get photos & autographs from them both), on top of the cost of the convention itself, I didn't bother -- I couldn't afford it. My brother got his picture taken with them (two separate shots), and he was broke for the next couple weeks. And he didn't even get an autograph (all of which were pre-signed, of course, so those who went for the autographs didn't even get to meet the actors as far as I know.) I can see charging a small fee, but over fifty dollars? Come on.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 4, 2011 21:50:53 GMT -5
What is this I don't even
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 4, 2011 19:52:32 GMT -5
I voted Liberal because it was close in our riding and I wanted to keep the conservatives out, they didn't get in in our riding, for all the bloody good that did...... I'd have voted NDP if it hadn't been so close. You're lucky that you live in a riding where things can actually change. I live in god damn Stephen Harper's riding.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 4, 2011 19:03:39 GMT -5
To get a discussion going, as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 4, 2011 19:00:51 GMT -5
My Dad advised me to give the bully a good solid shove next time I saw him, and then he would leave me alone. So next time I saw him, I did exactly that... while he was standing on the edge of an elevated sandpit, and fell backwards and split his head open on the concrete below with blood and stitches and so on. I once slapped a bully across the face when I was 6, but there was no blood or stitches, and I only got a stern talking-to from the teacher.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 4, 2011 18:57:17 GMT -5
People who fish for compliments
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 3, 2011 18:40:19 GMT -5
I was in her home. No aisles -- too hard to get a wheelchair through.
Fuck, I'm talking like Rorschach again.
Anyway, I rolled on the floor laughing. Not as hard as I did during the first time they showed whats-his-nuts sparkling, though.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 3, 2011 18:25:59 GMT -5
Cestle, I'll address the rest of your points later on (I had limited sleep last night, so I'm having difficulty formulating my thoughts into words), but I want to point out that up here in Canuckistan, having four major parties has, at the very least, made the left/right divide less black and white (which is partially what I'm referring to when I mention polarization), and in many cases has offered extra dimensions to political issues. The BQ is one such example. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the reasoning behind the party's existence, they demonstrate how this kind of system is flexible enough to conform to the unique dynamics of a nation. It simply wouldn't suffice to call them liberal or conservative and leave it at that. Likewise, classifying them solely as separatists doesn't quite paint the whole picture -- they're not a single-issue party, despite accusations to the contrary. Obviously, vote-splitting is an issue, but that only brings us back to alternative voting (which, as I said, I'll get into later -- I need my beauty sleep first ).
|
|