My apologies for the length of this critique, but I figure that the more I write, the more might be useful to you! This has been reviewed by Atraxis, and scores have been verified by several other judges. Your final score was a 9.45/15, so read on to find out what contributed to it.
Story is the first category, out of five points, and encompasses Continuity, Setting, and Pacing.
Continuity is the section regarding the background of who your character is and where they came from, without a good bit of reflection on your back story it’s difficult for the reader to understand most other categories that are also being looked over.
Without looking at your character sheets, which I admit I did not, I found it difficult to fully imagine what a Satuul was. Based on the bits I picked up, they have muzzles, long but anthropomorphic hands, and aviamorphic talons. I also assumed that they had short upper bodies and haunches, so as to first allow and then make comfortable Grunt's supine-to-crouch position shift. However, not
knowing puts the reader in a very difficult position, as you may very well have meant a more anthropomorphic, rather than bestial image (I imagined a gray furred, barrel-chested, stout wolf with bird-like hind feet, humanesque hands, and a large, wide, outward-fanged wolf head (with maybe red eyes)). Since this is my first ever acquaintance with Satuuls, I don't know where or why the race originated or what a soul-bond between two Satuuls entails. I also didn't find any mention of why Grunt and Snatch were in the forest, other than my assumption that they were hungry and came to hunt. However, before arriving at a tournament like Althanas Invitational I would assume these two characters had some sort of occupation - even if they were just the resident demons of this forest. Even short mention of the "why" would have given me a better sense of the events that precede this scene, as I know that 2000 words is a tight limit.
My personal thoughts on continuity (though a better word for the subject of this particular comment is
consistency) are that each detail needs to either be explicitly or implicitly changed through the writing, or it must remain static, even through different writers' posts. The detail that caught my eye that
almost didn't do this was Snatch's chatter, which Grunt suggested had been kept up for the better part of the afternoon. Snatch, which later on her behavior reinforced this, started out in post (2) as a very quiet being in a forest that was
too quiet, with her chatter almost as an afterthought. If she, as a fellow Satuul, appreciated quiet, then her chatter might be uncharacteristic of the race (but I don't know this due to lacking description of Satuuls), or the quiet period before her approval of the deer would be uncharacteristic of her (who manages to speak even while eating) (if she is a chatter-box). It sounds like I'm nitpicking, but this particular bit wont affect your Story score - I'm elaborating for your benefit only. Let me know if I lost you here.
Setting is the part of the judging that is pretty much self explanatory. A good setting not only shows the reader as well as the participants of the thread were you are and what’s around, but also involves the tactical and practical use of the setting your character is interacting with.
The setting that you produced was composed of a forest, wind, storm clouds, rain, and muddy ground, and evolved as you went along. A good setting, to quote the general rubric of Althanas, is not a canvas on which you paint a story -- it is a world in which you ACT a story, and I found this particular criterion
well satisfied. The quickly muddied ground (yielded by the sudden downpour) was very indicative of the strength of the rain, so even though Grunt's thoughts
told the reader about the rain, this detail
showed it. When limited in your wordcount, showing is not always explicitly possible, so I applaud the use of telling
with showing, rather than
just telling. I was able to visualize the base of Grunt's tree where he worked on a bone picture, so good imagery there.
However, apart from "fat" I could not picture the deer that the actors were eating, because no mention of it's carcass was made. I was told of one thighbone, one hoof, and a lot of otherwise small bones, but the rest of the deer was missing. Even mentioning "the carcass beside them" in some fashion would have been enough to fill out that void of the setting. As well I could not quite imagine the forest past Grunt's tree (which might be my issue rather than yours), but I found absent any descriptions of the type of trees (their height, the breadth of their canopies, the shape of their leaves, for example). Even additions of modifiers like "oak" or "tall" or "widely spaced" for any of the mentions of "trees" (or a modifier for the type of bark or leaves under Grunt) would have sufficed to let me imagine more of the forest itself. While the height and type of the trees are not directly incident on the action (and thus by Chekhov's Gun may not be necessary), the spacing between the trees
is important, as densely packed trees may have impacted the actors' scuffle, and I as the reader may very well imagine a forest as either dense or bare. Even just a few short descriptors for things that aren't integral to your action will allow your readers to imagine the rest of the details for themselves, while a lack of details will place your action on a black backdrop in their minds (or at least it did in my mind).
On the other hand, the wind worked well as a warning for the oncoming storm, so apart from some grammar issues that I'll touch up on in the Writing section, the wind was well described (though perhaps a bit too "quiet" if the cloud that rode it brought so much rain so quickly. But those are just my preconceptions and I am not a wind expert
). I applaud the various anthropomorphic descriptors for the wind like "whispering" and "rustling" but I am not quite sure if a breeze can "cough" or "bump". So while I encourage colorful imagery as that produced by anthropomorphism, it might be prudent to limit yourselves to comparisons that are either generally accepted (wind can whisper, wind can howl, etc), or ones that aren't too hard to imagine (rain can beat out a melody, for example). This particular comment I'll bring up in Writing Style, and it wont negatively affect your Story score.
Final section of Story is the Pacing. This is the most complex of parts to analyze, normally. However, in a battle the pacing of the story is the intent of the writer to keep the reader on the edge of their seats, build the suspense well, and let it dwindle correctly.
While it should be the most difficult part to analyze, I did not get bored enough to skim (and most published authors get to skim rather often when there isn't dialogue), so I applaud the pacing overall (It was brought to my attention that you went 700 words over the limit, but you did not drone, so I am waiving the penalty). Each post, while reinforcing or explaining the actions of the previous post also advanced the action, which was good. I had a good sense of the actions leading up to the battle, became well acquainted with the major strokes within the battle, and was able to easily understand the end of the battle. However, I found issue with the first battle post (3). Bunnying is greatly discouraged on Anthanas (and elsewhere in the RP community), but I understand that you two, as teammates, had a chance to discuss the actions before putting them down, so I wont fault you for writing some of each others' characters' actions/reactions. However, that one post (3) had too many actions pressed too close together such that I could not follow them until I read the next post (4) and reread the previous post (2).
- Log (but really a stick) is thrown (by Snatch) at Grunt
- Grunt deflects stick into tree
- Snatch closes the distance between them with a run
- Grunt ducked his head and dropped his deflecting arm down to catch Snatch's face
- They collide and Grunt gets knocked onto his back, while pushing back Snatch's muzzle
- Grunt thrashes and manages to get an elbow on the ground and pushes off (while on his back) forwards to a tree, while scratching it with his hind talons
- Snatch claws Grunt's chest (primary attack by Snatch)
- Snatch frees her muzzle of Grunt's other hand
- Grunt finds the ground with both elbows and pushes off while pulling his feet under him, forcing himself into a crouch
- Grunt catches Snatch on the shoulders and pushes so as to get her off balance
I'm not saying that 10 (and I may have missed a few small actions as well) is too many, but placing them into just three paragraphs (which also had other descriptions in them) made the sequence rather difficult to follow. I had to reread (so as to critique) that portion twice and then work through it sentence by sentence before I was able to imagine the action as something more than a blur - you should aim to clarify those actions a bit more, so that a reader can imagine them off of the first reading. A couple of times in that sequence an action (like #9) was
implied by the situation and the next event, but just because Grunt was
able to push off does not mean that I as the reader will assume that he
did unless I know he had no alternative. So while I am reading the rest of the passage I am wondering whether he did or did not push off rather than imagining the next action. Keep in mind here that I am reading with no prior knowledge; you first imagined, and then wrote that image down with everything clear in your mind. As a result, you had many details in your mind that you didn't have room to write, and you may have omitted some details which, had you written, would have made the action much clearer to the reader. It is hard to get a dedicated editor (and I wish I had one for myself!), but to determine if your actions need clarification just give them to a friend to read and ask them their thoughts after just
one read-through.
A 2.5 is the norm for this section, and I have waited until the
end of the section to score you so that you aren't fazed by the numbers. Despite the problems that I found and identified, your ability to keep my interest and the various things you did
well suggest that I should score you higher.
2.95/5 for Story.
Character is the second category, out of five points, and encompasses Dialogue, Action, and Persona.
Dialogue is self explanatory, what you say, but it is not just that simple either. Dialogue pertains to whether your character is speaking in ways that make sense. A quiet character wouldn’t talk a lot, but maybe have inner thoughts instead, a cocksure character might stop in the middle of a fight to talk a lot, or a character whose persona isn’t either probably wouldn’t pull away from conflict to give a long speech.
Indeed, the dialogue was spot on. Grunt, who actually grunted once or twice, snarled, and only spoke once, matched his personality very well. Having been described as intent on his "art" and looking for silence so as to concentrate, his quiet demeanor was punctuated by his lack of speeches. Snatch, which was told to shut up for all of her chatter, did little other, speechwise, than chatter. Even in the heat of battle she took a moment to comment on her fall as she was recovering from it, which a reader might expect from a talkative character, so good work.
Action is a matter of following actions and a direction that makes sense for your character. If your character is a powerhouse then his actions sulking and hiding wouldn’t make much sense, same goes for if your character is a spy or assassin, up front confrontation wouldn’t make sense either.
Persona is how well you keep ‘in character’, it is not just a part controlled by what you say your character does, but how he performs actions and why he does so. This section is contributed to by dialogue, action, pacing, continuity, and to a degree setting.
These are the two sections I meant when I mentioned consistency earlier: whenever you mention a detail, whether it is old or new, it needs to fall into place with all of the other details. So when the afternoon was described as filled with chatter, and then Snatch only started up the chatter a little bit before being told to shut up, the slight inconsistency caught my eye. This particular detail isn't a major problem that would ruin a duel, but anything that might unbalance the reader as it did me is a good thing to avoid. Admittedly, the only bit that might be considered inconsistent is the quiet brought on by the wind before Snatch began to chatter, but even a reinforcement that she had only briefly stopped to listen to the eerie quiet of the wind would have dispelled by confusion. I this was small (and could have been an oversight by me), so it wont affect the scoring.
Otherwise, I found both characters' action indicative of their personalities, like Grunt's refusal to surrender and Snatch's choice to surrender so as to grab at a shiny ring. Overall a GREAT job on character. Since Continuity in the Story section took care of your lack of description of the Satuul Race, it wouldn't make sense to dock you here as well. The characters were consistent with themselves, with each other, and with each others' perceptions of themselves. They had thoughts, emotions, and realistic reactions and actions. Nor were they stock characters!
4.00/5 for Character.
Writing Style is the last category, out of five points, and encompasses Technique, Mechanics, and Clarity.
Technique is the section that we delve into your personal style of writing, in regards to ‘advanced’ styles of writing. The use of alliteration, foreshadowing, and metaphors or similes are going to heighten this score. Of course, stylistic uses of technique that go against proper grammar are also goo ways to use Technique, and will not be counted against you in the next section.
There was some good and some bad Technique. The anthropomorphism of wind was used with good intent, but wind and breeze and the like are generally anthro'd with
loudness. The wind can howl, scream, whisper, sing. However, unless the wind is a spirit, it is unlikely to go so far as to cough or tap someone on the shoulder. As well, there was some thesaurus work that didn't go the right way (or at least are not used as prescribed):
"...making them sway and whip their leaves about in
admonishments and irritation."
Admonishment means reprimand, but is not a word of wide circulation. If you had said that the leaves "responded with rustling reprimands" then your meaning would be both clearer and poetic, rather than lost in a synonym..
"So it was into this
oscillating and tenuous quiet that Grunt unleashed his frustrations."
Oscillating means moving back and forth between two states, for example roaring and quiet wind or a repeatedly broken silence might be considered oscillating. Tenuous means thin and insubstantial, so the silence just isn't a dead silence. With analysis, a reader might deduce that the atmosphere was gaining some faint new noise (the approaching rain), but it is unclear where the oscillations came in.
"...after the first
desultory, half-hearted
rips, it seemed that everything was suddenly drenched."
Desultory means an action marked by lack of definite plan or regularity or purpose, so analytically you are correct. However, it is commonly applied to things like "desultory thoughts", "the desultory conversation", whereas the desultory drips of rain means either irregular in time or in space. Describing the drips as "rare and irregular" would have been much clearer, even though your meaning was discernible from context. (Also, a type like drips -> rips can easily ruin a sentence, as the reader has to figure out if this is a literary technique or if it is a mistake).
"Typical male
temerity!"
Both audacity and temerity can be defined as fearless daring, but audacity is also defined as aggressive boldness or unmitigated effrontery. Grunt's laughter is thus audacious in the later sense, while a warrior's resolve to save the princess from the dragon might be typical male temerity (from the point of view of the princess) or typical male audacity (from the point of view of the cynical sidekick). In my personal opinion though, something like brutishness, insensitivity, or crudeness would be more appropriate to describe a brother's laughter at a sister's shock of getting hit with a rain drop, especially considering that there is not great gap in power (physical or that of status) that would put Grunt
beneath Snatch that his laughter would be audacious (whereas, if he were servant to the queen and Snatch was the queen, he really would have been audacious).
There may have been others that I noticed before but cannot find now, so just keep in mind to either use more common words, or to double check both the definitions and the usage in context of less mainstream synonyms.
I did see some great things, like "Then she collided with him and the love they shared was about as evident as a dry space big enough to step on was." There were also quite a few simple metaphors and such that spiced up the writing, so don't think that my qualms with the word choice were all that was on my mind.
"...the silence was almost oppressing. It could weigh down on a being; squash them flat beneath its invisible, oppressive foot with one stomp of oppressiveness." I fight thought this was poor repetition but Snatch's well described personality almost immediately made me reconsider that as her personal thoughts. However, when shifting from narration as the omniscient narrator to the character it might be prudent to mark that shift with things like "she thought" or "by Snatch's observation" or even just setting that section in italics to signify thoughts. I counted this one as positive as it added to Snatch's character!
Mechanics is the grammatically correct part of the judgment. How many mistakes you made with spelling, punctuation, and other mistakes is how this section is scored.
I didn't actually count your mistakes, nor will I list the spelling errors or typos, as those are not premeditated. However, in both player's posts the mistakes were rarer in the beginning and thicker near the middle and end. Most people who type (and read) begin slowly and then speed up as they get into the "groove", making it much easier to err or to miss those errors when proofreading. Watching the screen as you type (rather than the keyboard) and purposefully slowing down as you get deeper into proofreading will both help eliminate missed or extra letters and spaces.
The most glaring problem with grammar that I found was the overuse of fragments for literary style. Nouns like "Silence." or descriptors like "Inconceivable!" are generally allowable fragments, but such fragments as "Heralding the rain that came after it with the sort of patient persistence most clouds possess." are grammatically incorrect.
What? was heralding the rain? Obviously the wind, of course, but either "the wind" or "it" then needs to play the role of the subject.
There was also the word 'spludding', but because you used it to describe a noise I commend your use of onomatopoeia! (So a plus in the Technique category!)
I also enjoyed the use of 'the quiet' to replace 'silence' or 'the wet' to replace 'wetness' as in both cases I got a sense of Satuul mentality while still seeing the object of reference. Still, using the common nouns (silence, wetness/rain/etc) would have been an acceptable replacement for the stylistic ones whenever using the omniscient narrator rather than the character narrator voice, so as to reduce repetition.
Clarity is by far the most simple to judge. Were all the other sections clear? Was the way you told the story clear? Was your writing clear? That is what the entire section of clarity is about.
Apart from the thick string of actions that I commented on in Story (Pacing) the only unclear element was the wind: while I understood that the wind was present and blowing and quiet,
it was described more than, say, the trees it was blowing past. I found that with that much description it was over-described - I could not quite tell what it was doing apart from being quiet, nor did I see that it needed to do anything worth describing apart from being indicative of the "calm before the storm" (which was a good cliche to have avoided, actually, so congratulations on that point!).
In fact, there weren't are cliches that I could easily identify, whether circumstantial or directly phrased, which is surely a feat in and of itself. Writing Style is a difficult category to score high on but easy to score low on - scoring dead-center means that the writing was worth reading as the very least, and had enough praise-worthy elements that any errors in syntax, omissions, or mistakes were balanced out.
2.5/5 for Writing Style
All in all, 9.45/15 for the trial! (Great job!)
Keep in mind that this is not congruous with the A-F scale used in (at least) the USA school system; the 75% that corresponds to a C there corresponds to a 50% here so that we have the full range to work with. And while in some elitist schools the aim is an A, keep in mind that writing cannot be 100% the best, as there is no golden text that embodies perfection. Many writers who have been published are only average writers and lucky enough to have good editors, and RP forum members are not expected to be published writers. So a 50% is not a demeaning score but a praiseworthy one, so if you happen to score around a 7 don't despair and keep on pluggin'. If you're beneath that then there is work for you to do, and if you are above that then you still have a long ways to go before you reach that unattainable perfect score.
Also, while the policy might be to keep comment to judges in PMs, you put your work out for public critique and I would think it unfair if I put my critique up without giving you a chance to respond to it. While I am not perfect, I have made my judgments based primarily on my first reading of your work, as were it in a book I would not likely pass back to reread every passage for clarity, so keep this in mind if you choose to contest my judgments or explain your reasons for what I thought were errors. So, just as I hope my critique will make you better writers, please feel free to reply to (or critique) me either via PM or even here so that I may become better at judging. This judgment has been approved so your scores are final (for this prelim, and thus don't matter much), but I would be willing to discuss anything else, especially if you think I have wrongly appraised your work.
Kudos on the high score, and I hope you fare even better in the next round!
Posting Permissions
Submit Thread for Judgment