NOTE: This part of the chapter is only a prologue, the more juicy stuff will be soon. mainly thisis an English project, though since it is TES I think I shall post it up here. My first fan-fiction by the way, I hope you like it.

Rise of the Necromancer

Prologue

It is forty years after the event that came to be known as the Oblivion Crisis. That was the time when countless Daedra, beings of demonic entity, swept across Tamriel. Thousands were slain by the bloodthirsty monsters, yet one hero stopped them all.

That one hero rose up from being a lowly prisoner, to the mighty Champion of Cyrodiil. The Champion rose up to godlike power, from being able to fight blind, to the master of the arcane arts. He ruled all over Cyrodiil after the death of Martin, the would-be-emperor, he was the figure of all the Imperial Provinces.

Yet this Champion could not protect the world forever. This hero, this legend was still only mortal, not a god. On the 20th of Sun’s Dusk, Mondas, the Champion passed away. Though his legacy lives on, the world of Tamriel is now prone to evils. The barrier between the realms of Oblivion, world of the Daedra, and Tamriel, the continent on Nirn may still be strong, yet there are other evils that are just as dark.

Goblin parties may be dealt with, marauders can be slain, though what being can slay – the undead. Necromancy is bringing a popular rise since Arch Mage Traven’s death, from the icy peaks of Skyrim to the harsh marshes of Black Marsh; this abominable type of magic is plaguing the world.

These dark wizards believe they may have found a way to resurrect Mannimacro, the god of the undead. The vile fiend was slain by the Champion of Cyrodiil, in his rise to power. If the necromancers can spill the blood of countless innocents, and drain the remaining magic found from the destroyed Oblivion Gate sites, the ‘Arch Fiend’, as the necromancer leader titles himself, may create a spell to bring back their god from the afterlife.
This is a tale of a novice necromancer just doing that, combating the forces of good oppressing the necromancer’s undivided cause.

Sounds interesting, and for a prologue I'll let the shortness and lack of vagueness slide. I like the Idea of the Champion Ruling, people ought to do that more often.

Realize, though, that by peaking my interest you have also gained my critiquing eye, and Mannimarco's lot are what you could call a... scholarly hobby of mine. I am keen to see what you make of the subject through this; might gain me some better necromancy ideas as a result, which would be AWESOME.

I am by no means a fan of the backstory telling introduction, and I'll most likely be ranting about it half my post, but know that it's your choice, and it is a purely stylistic thing. I know of many grand stories that started with that kind of narration, as if the author was speaking across a dimly lit inn table to the reader. However, I detest it, and if I had a choice it would be one of the primary things on the list of writing don'ts. So, I'll talk about that for a bit, then go on with the rest of the story. If, that is, that is okay with you?

Well then, since I do not intend to wait around for an answer, as I have to leave in fifteen minutes, I'll just jump right in First let me tell you what kind of introduction I like, as I shall be referencing it throughout my critique as a parallel to your own. I by far employ use of an introduction following this basic format: "One to two paragraph description of the setting, usually giving a flowery picture of the location. Show the protagonist doing something ordinary, usually walking through the opening scene, and use that time to give a brief but detailed description of him (I tend not to use his name during this description, as I like the name to be something the reader wants to know, that I can divulge at a satisfactorily exciting moment). Then I go closer in, describing only his actions in regards to the environment, usually also giving small descriptions of him to reinforce the image (ie, his long black hair blew in the wind as he walked down the street). After that I start introducing other characters, and giving a general idea of who the character is, usually by showing their home or place of business. After that I end the chapter with an exciting hook to start the plot off, usually in the form of some simple, yet important, dialogue."

A long winded description, if you want to see what I mean just look at my most recent work "A Brotherhood Reborn". You'll see I follow that practically to the letter. Now, this style I prefer tends to focus more on introducing the character, something I highly encourage. Your introduction seems devoted to explaining the backstory, and solely explaining the backstory. If I have any significant backstory, I would slide it in during conversations or descriptions, piece by piece. I believe what you have done is called "infodumping", and it reads more like a preface than an actual introduction. It most definitely allows the reader to know exactly what is going on, but at the cost of some of the mystery and suspense the other format would do. I use that suspense to keep the reader interested, while you will now have to focus solely on the characters, plot, and other literary devices to keep the reader's attention.

Now, I can prattle on about what each does better than the other for hours, but for time's sake I'll condense it into this one fact: there is nothing your preface style can do that my preffered style cannot. My format can divulge information just as readily, without causing the tedium that infodumping does. I am not trying to say my way is better than yours, because it is not, merely that I would reccomend my format over yours. It is a personal choice, but I would always advise trying out both and seeing which works better for you. If you find you cannot explain yourself quite as well with my style, there is nothing wrong with the above kind. All I ask is that you consider what you are really accomplishing with that introduction, keeping in mind the main goals of writing is to develop the character while moving closer to the climix. The whole of the story is culminated at the climix, but it is worthless if the audience does not fear for the character.


Now that I have gotten that more or less out of the way, let me give you a few pieces of advice for the actual story. Necromancer's already have a bad reputation, but many of your readers will be very interested in them anyway. You have two choices: make a shining hero, or a sinister anti-hero, both of which can work towards your goal. The hero is much easier to connect to your readers, as most of them will not be murderers or thieves (most ). The anti-hero, on the other hand, will have a certain "coolness" factor that will keep readers interested. However, keep in mind that with the anti-hero, one of two things are required: a supporting charater(s) that can be used in place of the hero to connect with the readers, or the anti-hero's slow transition into a hero.

Then I have a few general pointers: make magic interesting (I believe FC4 can tell you more about that, as I believe he has written articles on it before), don't stereotype necromancers, don't kill innocents, and avoid uberness. Also work on your grammar, I noticed a few errors; a spellchecker should suffice.

Now, my fifteen minutes are past up, but I will try my best to follow this story. Good job so far, and keep it up :goodjob:

Thanks for your opinion. You shall see this necromancer's character later, I am writing it now....

I don't think those are requirements at all. An anti-hero does not have to change at all. In fact, it can get more interesting if the character descends further into depravity.

Since this is a prologue, the length and total "tell" can be excused. Though it doesn't bother me as much as others. Sometimes, you just have to infodump, and prologue/prefaces are usually the best place to do it. I, personally, adore getting information from a reliable narrator, though that stems from my hatred of First-Person narration.

:shrug: I was only saying that anti-heros usually require someone else to be the hero because connecting with the character is an essential part of the story. And most people won't be able to connect with a really bad anti-hero, one who kills people and what not. You either have to justify the killing, or give them someone else to connect to. I just find it improves suspense when the reader cares what happens to the character.

My best examples for this are the Hannibal Lecter series. The first few have Starling for the reader to connect to, but the last one (Hannibal Rising) justifies Hannibal with a kind of revenge for his sister's death, mixing in a little bit of crazy. In all of them Hannibal has that "awesome" factor that people love to read about, while not being the antagonist.

Similarly, in one of my failed attempts at a novel, the prequel to my first story, the main character was an assassin named Viro. He was the kind of cold blooded killer that forms a perfect anti-hero, though I made the mistake of lacking an antagonist and having an unexplained plot. That story failed miserably, but I had the kind of anti-hero being chased by a Legion hero that might have made it work. Perhaps if I tried again I could make it work

I have half a mind to write a necromancer story of my own based on my necro character Inspired by Diablo II lore.

But then... college does drain fan fiction time, and crap I need to work on Manic Dementia again... Plus I don't want to be competition.