https://www.scribblehub.com/read/1301118-thireal/chapter/1301124/ getting back into writing and need roughed up verbally to make it better. Thanks
Looking for harsh critiques
- Thread starter Thireal
- Start date
Hans.Trondheim
Low energy is king!
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2021
- Messages
- 1,958
- Points
- 153
Wanna try Royal Road? There are assholes here, but they're fewer than RR.
Better off asking this at RR. This is kind of their thing lol. I frequent over there often as well so I would know
Tempokai
The Overworked One
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2021
- Messages
- 1,395
- Points
- 153
Eh, mid. Read both of the chapters. Synopsis is painfully vague, and has that "I'm an amateur writing for fun" vibe. You know when you see one.
Synopsis promises everything and delivers, well, a big vat of "seen that before." Sharpen it up, offer concrete stakes, and make me care about this apprentice’s journey more than I care about my work right now. The issues I saw at first glance:
Cliche opening. Baby getting delivered to church during the storm? So classic, it makes me wince.
Tell, don't show. You tell me everything instead of showing. Palenten’s immediate nausea and fear upon seeing the wax seal is a classic “tell, don’t show” moment. Telling me that Thireal “felt pride” when Vayne praised him is fine, but why not show it? Describe his heart racing, or maybe he struggles to hide a grin. Similarly, instead of telling me Palenten “sobbed,” you could describe how tears soaked his robes, or how his shoulders shook uncontrollably. This principle applies broadly: paint a scene with actions and descriptions that imply feelings instead of bluntly stating them.
Pacing. Too much exposition I don't care about at first. You have a thing called World-Building Dumping Syndrome. There are entire paragraphs where you provide historical backstory, geography, and religious practices that could be interesting but are dumped all at once. Instead of forcing it on readers, let them discover it through character interactions, dialogue, or relevant moments in the plot.
Your story often comes to almost full stop due to excessive info dumps and world-building explanations. While it’s tempting to lay out all your lore, remember that no one is here to read a fantasy Wikipedia article. Drip-feed the reader information as it becomes relevant. Focus on showing, not telling. Integrate details organically into the dialogue, conflict, or character interactions. Example: Instead of describing Thrall's history in a block, let a character tell a myth or express their fears related to the Shadow during travel.
Be careful not to describe the same thing twice. Readers don’t need multiple reminders that Thireal is excited or that Palenten is old and aching. Make your words count.
Grammar and syntax. Sentences are oftentimes run on, or confusing, or overstay their welcome. Examples:
"The church was also known for healing those injured and sick but doubted someone would force the injured in this squall." Yes, we all know what church is and what it does contextually, but it worded like "basic fact+contradiction", which breaks the pacing. Even the basic GPT can make it better, like here: "The church, known for healing the injured and sick, rarely expected anyone to brave such a storm for shelter." Whatever, I'll just input it all into the GPT, here:
"The storm outside raged as Palenten walked through the empty church. As he got older it seemed he had more trouble sleeping at night and storms made his old injuries ache enough to make sleep harder to find."
What’s Wrong:
"The storm raged outside. Palenten paced through the empty church, his old injuries throbbing with each clap of thunder. Sleep had become harder to find with age, and the storm wasn’t helping."
Why It’s Better:
"The church was also known for healing those injured and sick but doubted someone would force the injured in this squall."
What’s Wrong:
"The church, known for healing the injured and sick, rarely expected anyone to brave such a storm for shelter."
Why It’s Better:
"It wouldn't be surprising if a traveler was desperate for shelter in this storm."
What’s Wrong:
"Palenten expected desperate travelers seeking shelter—it wouldn’t be the first time the church’s doors opened to a storm-beaten stranger."
Why It’s Better:
"Fortunately he didn't change his robes from earlier in the day, so he had a few coins still on him."
What’s Wrong:
"He fished a few coins from his robes, glad they were still there."
Why It’s Better:
"The altar had a few purposes that helped the church besides weekly gatherings for the flock. From helping with emergency healings, empowering rituals, and testing Spark alignment."
What’s Wrong:
"The altar served many purposes beyond weekly gatherings: emergency healings, empowering rituals, and testing Spark alignment."
Why It’s Better:
See how "improved" (by a simple LLM) is better? Try to read more of good books, maybe even popular ones, to know HOW to write. Or practice more. Whatever suits you.
Cliches. You have some glaring fantasy cliches: stormy night openings, mysterious orphans, "chosen ones," ancient seals, and the mentor’s cryptic warnings. Clichés aren’t inherently bad, but they need to be subverted, twisted, or given a fresh spin to avoid feeling stale. Avoid predictable outcomes or spice up the story with unique elements to make it stand out.
And the last that I don't like is formatting. It's too painful to read. The strange quotation marks, space after, dialogue being squished with the paragraphs, I hate it. Add more paragraph breaks and fix the "" to be proper. Again, GPT loves this:
Your writing is bloated. You need to edit and tighten the plot. You’ve got the bones of a story, but right now it’s a skeleton buried under a mound of cliches, clunky exposition, and characters so wooden I half-expected termites to show up. Your dialogue is serviceable at best, cringe-worthy at worst. The pacing stumbles between action and exposition like a drunk bard trying to keep rhythm, and falling into a ditch.
I hope this will help you, and I'm going back to work.
Synopsis promises everything and delivers, well, a big vat of "seen that before." Sharpen it up, offer concrete stakes, and make me care about this apprentice’s journey more than I care about my work right now. The issues I saw at first glance:
Cliche opening. Baby getting delivered to church during the storm? So classic, it makes me wince.
Tell, don't show. You tell me everything instead of showing. Palenten’s immediate nausea and fear upon seeing the wax seal is a classic “tell, don’t show” moment. Telling me that Thireal “felt pride” when Vayne praised him is fine, but why not show it? Describe his heart racing, or maybe he struggles to hide a grin. Similarly, instead of telling me Palenten “sobbed,” you could describe how tears soaked his robes, or how his shoulders shook uncontrollably. This principle applies broadly: paint a scene with actions and descriptions that imply feelings instead of bluntly stating them.
Pacing. Too much exposition I don't care about at first. You have a thing called World-Building Dumping Syndrome. There are entire paragraphs where you provide historical backstory, geography, and religious practices that could be interesting but are dumped all at once. Instead of forcing it on readers, let them discover it through character interactions, dialogue, or relevant moments in the plot.
Your story often comes to almost full stop due to excessive info dumps and world-building explanations. While it’s tempting to lay out all your lore, remember that no one is here to read a fantasy Wikipedia article. Drip-feed the reader information as it becomes relevant. Focus on showing, not telling. Integrate details organically into the dialogue, conflict, or character interactions. Example: Instead of describing Thrall's history in a block, let a character tell a myth or express their fears related to the Shadow during travel.
Be careful not to describe the same thing twice. Readers don’t need multiple reminders that Thireal is excited or that Palenten is old and aching. Make your words count.
Grammar and syntax. Sentences are oftentimes run on, or confusing, or overstay their welcome. Examples:
"The church was also known for healing those injured and sick but doubted someone would force the injured in this squall." Yes, we all know what church is and what it does contextually, but it worded like "basic fact+contradiction", which breaks the pacing. Even the basic GPT can make it better, like here: "The church, known for healing the injured and sick, rarely expected anyone to brave such a storm for shelter." Whatever, I'll just input it all into the GPT, here:
Example 1:
Original:"The storm outside raged as Palenten walked through the empty church. As he got older it seemed he had more trouble sleeping at night and storms made his old injuries ache enough to make sleep harder to find."
What’s Wrong:
- The sentences are a bit meandering and could be tightened. Also, it reads like a lot of information crammed into a single thought, giving it the feel of a run-on.
- "As he got older it seemed he had more trouble sleeping at night and storms made his old injuries ache enough to make sleep harder to find." is a prime candidate for chopping. It has the phrase "make sleep harder to find" twice in slightly different words. Talk about hammering the same nail twice!
"The storm raged outside. Palenten paced through the empty church, his old injuries throbbing with each clap of thunder. Sleep had become harder to find with age, and the storm wasn’t helping."
Why It’s Better:
- Tightened, more direct sentences.
- Removes repetitive phrases.
- More atmosphere and impact in fewer words.
Example 2:
Original:"The church was also known for healing those injured and sick but doubted someone would force the injured in this squall."
What’s Wrong:
- Confusing and oddly worded. Who doubted what exactly? The sentence structure makes it unclear.
- There’s a dangling subject issue with "the church... but doubted."
"The church, known for healing the injured and sick, rarely expected anyone to brave such a storm for shelter."
Why It’s Better:
- The subject ("the church") remains consistent throughout the sentence.
- Cleaner phrasing; the original doubt is implied without awkward syntax.
Example 3:
Original:"It wouldn't be surprising if a traveler was desperate for shelter in this storm."
What’s Wrong:
- This is more of a fragment that reads as a weak narrative thought. It’s disconnected from surrounding sentences and doesn’t really push the plot.
"Palenten expected desperate travelers seeking shelter—it wouldn’t be the first time the church’s doors opened to a storm-beaten stranger."
Why It’s Better:
- More active voice and context.
- Connects better to the purpose of the narrative—anticipation of what’s coming.
Example 4:
Original:"Fortunately he didn't change his robes from earlier in the day, so he had a few coins still on him."
What’s Wrong:
- This is a trivial detail stretched too far. Do we need to know the exact reason he still has coins on him? No.
- "Fortunately" is a weak opening here.
"He fished a few coins from his robes, glad they were still there."
Why It’s Better:
- Cuts out unnecessary detail.
- More concise and directly tied to the action at hand.
Example 5:
Original:"The altar had a few purposes that helped the church besides weekly gatherings for the flock. From helping with emergency healings, empowering rituals, and testing Spark alignment."
What’s Wrong:
- Sentence fragment alert! "From helping with emergency healings, empowering rituals, and testing Spark alignment." is just floating there like it got separated from its buddies.
- Clunky phrasing with "helped the church besides weekly gatherings for the flock."
"The altar served many purposes beyond weekly gatherings: emergency healings, empowering rituals, and testing Spark alignment."
Why It’s Better:
- Combines the ideas into a more structured, flowing sentence.
- Ditching "helped the church besides" cuts out awkward phrasing.
Cliches. You have some glaring fantasy cliches: stormy night openings, mysterious orphans, "chosen ones," ancient seals, and the mentor’s cryptic warnings. Clichés aren’t inherently bad, but they need to be subverted, twisted, or given a fresh spin to avoid feeling stale. Avoid predictable outcomes or spice up the story with unique elements to make it stand out.
And the last that I don't like is formatting. It's too painful to read. The strange quotation marks, space after, dialogue being squished with the paragraphs, I hate it. Add more paragraph breaks and fix the "" to be proper. Again, GPT loves this:
1. Dialogue Punctuation
Incorrect:Correct:
Explanation: When a dialogue tag follows the spoken line (e.g., "Thireal said"), end the dialogue with a comma, not a period, unless it’s a question or an exclamation.
2. Run-On Sentences and Sentence Clarity
Incorrect:Correct:
Explanation: The original is a run-on sentence that’s hard to follow. Breaking it into shorter, clearer sentences improves readability and flow.
3. Head-Hopping and Point of View Consistency
Incorrect:Correct:
Explanation: The original incorrectly jumps into the messenger's head (head-hopping) while primarily focusing on Palenten’s perspective. The corrected version shows the messenger’s reaction through observable behavior instead of an internal thought.
4. Info Dumps and Exposition
Incorrect:Correct:
Explanation: The original is an exposition dump, providing a lot of information with no context. In the corrected version, the same details are presented through dialogue, making it more engaging and natural.
5. Misuse of Commas and Run-On Sentences
Incorrect:Correct:
Explanation: The original sentence is a run-on. Breaking it into two separate sentences and using a comma improves the clarity.
6. Internal Thoughts Formatting
Incorrect:Correct:
Explanation: Internal thoughts should be italicized to clearly differentiate them from the narrative.
7. Showing vs. Telling
Incorrect:Correct:
Explanation: The original tells the reader about Thireal’s pride. The corrected version shows it through his physical reaction.
8. Misuse of Apostrophes and Contractions
Incorrect:Correct:
Explanation: The incorrect version mistakenly uses an apostrophe, turning “boys” into “boy’s” (possessive), and "trail" is a typo for "trial." Be careful with contractions like "what’s"—use "was" for clarity here.
9. Wordiness and Repetition
Incorrect:Correct:
Explanation: The original repeats “quickly” and is wordy. The corrected version is concise.
10. Consistent Verb Tense
Incorrect:Correct:
Explanation: Maintain consistent verb tense. Don’t shift from present to past without a clear reason.
Your writing is bloated. You need to edit and tighten the plot. You’ve got the bones of a story, but right now it’s a skeleton buried under a mound of cliches, clunky exposition, and characters so wooden I half-expected termites to show up. Your dialogue is serviceable at best, cringe-worthy at worst. The pacing stumbles between action and exposition like a drunk bard trying to keep rhythm, and falling into a ditch.
I hope this will help you, and I'm going back to work.