Whilst I agree with you mostly, having too many fancy and complicated words is not good. When you want to read you want to sit back and relax, not struggle to think about what the author is going on about or not understanding. So in moderation it's a good thing but too much puts some people off.

With that said it is definitely good and I can't wait for more. Thing is if someone goes around calling the fan-fic sh*t then eventaully they'll get reported and then banned. So yeah let's try and give EoD some constructive criticism about the things we think could be improved

The point of descriptive writing is to paint an image onto the mind of the reader, so he/she see's what he writer see's. The size or articulation of the word does not make a difference to how well something is described as long as there is detail and substance to the description.

When a person has said, right at the start of the post, "Please be gentle, I've only been writing seriously and continuosly for about three months." at least have the damn courtesy to respect their wishes. There are far too many posts trashing stories, for what I can only assume is for an ego boost, at the minute. And the rule here has always been constructive criticism.

As to the author. Having a large vocabulory is a skill, and one I applaud you for. Knowing when to use it for maximum effect is a different skill. If you choose to use certain words, for example in dialogue, those words give us an indication of the characters speaking. If you use it in narrative, all you're doing is showing us that you know a lot of words. :shrug: Nothing wrong with the words, just you have to pick and choose when best to use them. Think of it this way. You are telling a story, and the story comes first. Anything that detracts attention away from it, and towards the author, is counter productive. The author is supposed to be invisible (unless of course it's a memoir). Keep it simple, tell the story, and then choose when the best time to use a wide variety of language will have the most impact. As it is now, it kind of loses it's impact, as it uses them all the way through.

You just keep on writing, and don't let the purely negative comments get you down. What's the old expression? Don't believe the good publicity, and don't believe the bad. Just keep practising, and I hope to read more from you in the future

ahhh Thank you burntsierra, thats the point i've been trying to get across. My minds to full of crap atm to really explain myself. If you have read the IBT discussion thread you'd know why. I apologise to the emperor if i have offended though.

Temporary close, back in a while. :stare:

I have deleted a few posts and edited others. It will do some of you well to read this forum rule -



Everyone here writes in a different way (thank goodness) and if someone chooses to use descriptive writing and 'long words' then that is their choice and the story should be judged with constructive criticism. Basically, if you have nothing of value to add, or don't understand the meaning of some of the words, or only have a over-critical post that does nothing but attempt to demean the writer, then don't post because if you do you will be getting a PM from me that uses very simple words that anyone can understand.

OK, back to the story - OK?

Allow me to rephrase:

It is like a castle built on sand: it looks real nice and pretty, but it has a weak foundation.



Better?




And my advice was to add more depth.

Using big words in almost every situation possible doesn't make good writing. That's what it seems like you did with this story. You laced it with big words to make it look fancy and whatnot. It doesn't work like that. I was sort of annoyed, really, because there was no reason to do that.

Story as a whole was rather boring. Your level description for the characters wasn't nearly high enough. I have no idea who they are (other than being wizards of course, but that itself is rather vague) or what they look like. Furthermore, character interaction was weak and they both sounded the same. Without dialogue tags I wouldn't have been able to tell them apart.

Oh, and by "Edit: Oh yeah, and I wrote this tonight in about two hours." it seems as if you're bragging about it. Is that so? I surely hope not.

EDIT: And in many instances you used an extra parenthesis for some reason. You don't have to do that. One for beginning and one for closing suffices.

I said "Oh yeah, I wrote this tonight in about 2 hours" to let you know I spent alot of time and effort on it. Two hours for a 500-something word story is quite alot of time.



I assume you're reffering to the dash marks? Formatting Error. Sorry about that.



If I made my writing appear "fancy" then I guess I succeded. When I do write, I normally write prose poetry, so the transition between that and short stories has been a bit difficult.

Here's an excerpt from Jack Vance's "The Dying Earth". You might be biased against "fancy" writing. I see that you're a fan of Stephen King, who (along with James Patterson ect) could be said to be the antithesis of fancy writing.

Deep in thought, Mazirian the Magician walked his garden. Trees fruited with many intoxications overhung his path, and flowers bowed obsequiously as he passed. An inch above the ground, dull as agates, the eyes of mandrakes followed the tread of his black-slippered feet. Such was Maxirian's garden- three terraces growing with strange and wonderful vegetations. Certain plants swam with changing iridescences; others held up blooms pulsing like sea-anemones, purple, green, lilac, pink, yellow. Here grew trees like feather parasols, trees with transparent trunks threaded with red and yellow veins, trees with foliage like metal foil, each leaf a different metal- copper, silver, blue tantalum, bronze, green iridium, here blooms like bubbles tugged gently upward from grazed green leaves, there a shrub bore a thousand pipe-shaped blossoms, each whistling softly to make music of the ancient Earth, of the ruby-red sunlight, water seeping through the soil, the languid winds. And beyond the roqual hedge the trees of the forest made a tall wall of mystery. In this waning hour of Earth's life no man could count himself familiar with the glens, the glades, the fells and deeps, the secluded clearings, the ruined pavilions, the sun dappled pleasaunces, the gullies and heights the various brooks, freshets, ponds, the meadows , thickets, breaks and rocky outcrops.

And another...

"As I have adumbrated, the arrival of the creature was the culmination of my great effort. I determined its nature through a perusal of forty-two thousand librams: all written in cryptic language: a task requiring a hundred years. During a second hundred years I evolved a pattern to draw it in on itself and prepared exact specification. Next I assembled stone cutters, and across a period of three hundred years gave solid form to my pattern. Since like subsumes like, the variates and intercongeles create a suprapullulation of all areas, quantities, and intervals into a crystohorroid, whorl, eventually exciting the potentiation of a pro-ubietal chute. Today occured the concatination: the 'creature' as you call it, pervolved upon itself; in your idiotic malace you devoured it."

Seeing as how the rections to my story have ranged from "the sheer level of words borders on poetry" (thanks DarkOm) to "It is like a castle built on sand: it looks real nice and pretty, but it has a weak foundation." I'd have to say that this is a perfect example of the subjectivity of writing.

I am writing another fanfic right now. I estimate it'll be in the 3000-4000 word range... Quite a a long shot from the shorter, poesy stuff I'm accustomed to. I'll be sure to post it when I'm finished.

(SNIP)

Love Jack Vance. Love the Dying Earth series. I managed to get a hold of it a few years ago, when Fantasy Masterworks released their, top 50 books I think it was.

However...

The exerpt you quoted, from Mazirian the Magician I believe, was:

1. Written in 1950. Times have changed, and accustomed styles of writing have changed. If you are writing in a specific style, or in a sort of homage to, I'd mention it at the beginning of the piece. Otherwise we have no frame of reference, and it just comes across as outdated and verbose for the sake of it. I see this a lot when people write Poe esque stories.

2. Originally published in the pulp magazines. Which, at that time, frequently paid by the word. If I was writing for them, I'd be adding in as many extra descriptive words as humanely possible too. More words = more money. Nowadays the pulp magazines are gone, so there is no benefit for writers to do that. The main reason why the style died out. Again, I have no issue if that's what you're setting out to do, but again I would mention it first - both what you're doing and why.

What BS says is NOT BS. He's right. We don't live that sort of world anymore.

So if this were 1950 you guys would be alot more supportive?

BTW this is the writing style I love and live for, changing it is not an option.

Critisism for the improvement of said style is.

:)

Allow me to quote myself again, since you didn't seem to get the point I was making.



As for improving said style, I already did that, you just ignored it.

I'm sorry, I believe you've been misinformed.

Here's a quote from wikipedia.

Mazirian The Magician- "It was first published as part of a series of loosely-linked tales in The Dying Earth, a paperback, in 1950."



Your logic is faulty. Bigger, more precise words= less words necessary to convey a similar meaning.

Your knowledge of pulp writers is off too. Purple prose was simply the fashionable mode of the time. At 2 cents a word, an extra adjective or two dosen't make a [censored]'s bit of difference.



No I didn't! I just said that I wasn't planning on changing my writing style just to appeal to more people.

Anyway, did you find any redeeming qualities in my story? :sadvaultboy:

Exactly. And I think you've proven our point.

Lord knows everyone has to write the same...

If I choose to write in a style common to the 1930's* then so be it!

*You've both been misinformed. Jack Vance wrote in an already outdated style. It was not common in the 50's. See Raymond Chandler for the completely opposite, 1950's contemporary style of pulp fiction.

Edit:

A castle built on sand? There are plenty of those. Lasted for hundreds of years. Haven't fallen yet.

Now I understand why people were actually mean to you...

And why is that? Because I actually know what I'm talking about and don't just pull random factoids out of my ass?

Edit: And I thought I made it abundantly clear that I'm a new writer and haven't much experience!

You sure know how to wear a person into the ground.

That.... that right there. You have a [censored] attitude and you think everything that comes out of your mouth is laced with gold. Did you know that you actually don't know everything? For your information, BS is a published writer/former teacher who DOES know what he's talking about. He doesn't "pull factoids out of his ass." Factoids... I call them facts. Because, you know, I don't have to act like a frucking genious on an internet forum.

:rofl:



Wikipedia:

A factoid is a spurious?unverified, incorrect, or fabricated?statement formed and asserted as a fact, but with no veracity.

They're wrong anyway you define them.

The 1930's were the golden age of pulps and purple prose.

Jack Vance modeled his style after the pulp writers of the 1930's.

Don't worry, its apparent you aren't trying to act like a "genious".

Well have fun writing your wonderful stories. Hopefully everyone keeps telling you how great you are.

Thank you, I will. And you just keep using "factoids" in the improper context. You're bound to embarass yourself on a much larger scale sooner or later.

"Son! Son! Hey listen to me boy! These are cold, hard factoids I'm telling you here!"

Way to fail at vocabulary on an elementary level, RR.

NOW I see why you didn't like my story.

I would have been more considerate had you taken into account that I'm a new writer with hardly any experience and in need of motivational support...

Really? It's hard to tell. The way you act it seems as if you're globally known for your excellent writing abilities.

You're a [censored] punk and you don't deserve any feedback. The people that tell you your story is great are wrong. I tried to tell you this and explain it in a nice way, but you obviously don't believe anyone else besides yourself.

You seriously expect me to take the writing advice of someone who thinks factoids and facts are synonyms? You're an idiot!

Wikipedia:

Fact: A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and confirmed.

Factoid: A factoid is a spurious?unverified, incorrect, or fabricated?statement formed and asserted as a fact, but with no veracity.

You're not even getting my point. I don't know much about writing. You're right. I'm a young writer myself (though not quite as fresh as you). What I am getting at is that you don't seem to want to listen to our opinions. And BS DOES know what he's talking about. Far more than you. It makes me mad because you keep disrespecting him.

I apologize for calling you names and cursing at you, but my original message remains.

Ok...

You know nothing about vocabulary... And BS knows nothing about the history of pulp fiction.