As requested, I began to read "Faormac." Your premise is interesting, but I could only get as far as page 6. Too many pronouns and no names made it almost impossible after a while to figure out who was doing what, POV switches making it hard to know who was being referenced, too many personifications and unnecessary descriptions bogging it down enough that I had to go back and re-read several of the sections. Your first... Show more
As requested, I began to read "Faormac." Your premise is interesting, but I could only get as far as page 6. Too many pronouns and no names made it almost impossible after a while to figure out who was doing what, POV switches making it hard to know who was being referenced, too many personifications and unnecessary descriptions bogging it down enough that I had to go back and re-read several of the sections. Your first sentence uses two personifications in a row, neither of which contribute to the story in that state. I could see what you were trying to do, the feeling you were attempting to impart to the reader about the farm, but these things are like adverbs - one or two well-placed are golden. More than that...not so much, lol. I know you can find other ways to express all this, either in dialogue or thoughts.
I also realized that by the time I'd stopped, I'd read six entire pages of "telling," with no dialogue other than that in the mind of the one you refer to only as "the female." About that term - it's dehumanizing in any context. When we refer to a specific "female," we're usually referencing an animal, not a person. Use "girl, " "young woman," something like that instead (Farmer Grey: Sounds like ya got a bunch of horses in the barn, Henry. Farmer Henry: Well, just several females right now; we're looking for a healthy stud male).
Next, The action needs to be clearer, as do the character descriptions - at first I thought the horse was green, but then the cat-like creature became chameleon-like, changing to the greens of the foliage. I couldn't tell much at all about the people on horseback, their gender, purpose, things like that.
I think if you use what you've got as a kind of outline or even a synopsis, and begin filling in the details (think paint-by-number), you'll have an intriguing story that will be worth reading all the way through. But you need to give us names. I think too many writers think of their stories like cinema - a voice-over that doesn't give specifics, just some back-story, usually in a British accent that makes it sound cool or something. A book, however, doesn't function like that. Right out of the gate, so to speak, you have to give us a character we can relate to, empathize with, see as real. With nothing but pronoun ridden narrative for six pages, the reader has nothing to hold, no character to care enough about to want to find out what's going on or what will happen as a result.
What we see on the movie screen of our minds is at times as illogical and scattered as a dreamscape. We have to try to see in real time when we write, perhaps in some instances actually walk through rooms like the character to get a better sense of space and how the environment works around that character.
Despite what seems like a lot of harsh criticism, please know that if I didn't like the bone structure of what I read, I wouldn't be taking the time to write all this. I can see this being a fascinating series, one that plays with the supernatural, combining myth and magic with human nature to make a fabulous story line. Please keep working at this.
Believe me, I understand the struggle. The first line - just the first doggone line - of the first book in my "MacDara Chronicles" series has undergone too many tweaks and outright rewrites to count. I'll show you:
February 2010: With his hands clenched nervously behind his back, a young boy stood in the dimly-lit front hall of a very old, dilapidated house in the middle of nowhere.
November 2011: Hands clenched nervously behind his back, a young boy stood in the dimly-lit front hall of a very old, very uncared-for house in the middle of seemingly nowhere.
June 2012: With his hands clenched nervously behind his back, a young boy stood in the dimly-lit front hall of an old, dilapidated house in the middle of nowhere.
December 2012: With his hands clenched nervously behind his back, a young boy
stood in the dimly-lit front hall of a very old, dilapidated house in the middle of nowhere.
December 6, 2016: Silent, hands clenched tight behind his back, a young boy stood in the front hall of a dilapidated house in the middle of nowhere.
And most recently (December 17, 2016): Cian MacDara stood silent, hands clenched behind his back, in the front hall of a dilapidated house in the middle of nowhere.
And that doesn't even address the fact that I deleted the entire, original first chapter to get to this point! But you can see the sometime subtle, and other times not-so-subtle, changes I put this first line through, hoping to come up with an opening that immediately grabbed the reader's attention.
Ergle...So please don't be discouraged by anything I've said here. I don't waste my time on stories that aren't at their foundation excellent, and believe me, yours is. ')
Let me know if you have any questions, comments, snide remarks, or feel like throwing something with lots of sharp edges at me. ')
Way cool, and just what the doctor ordered, Judy. Thank you! I think you nailed it with the comment about theatricality.
The intention was to give each character an air of 'in-definition' until another character fleshed them out. Likewise, the cascade of pronouns was meant to... Show more
Way cool, and just what the doctor ordered, Judy. Thank you! I think you nailed it with the comment about theatricality.
The intention was to give each character an air of 'in-definition' until another character fleshed them out. Likewise, the cascade of pronouns was meant to hide them until revealed. The use of 'the female' throughout when the faormuc's thoughts were prominent was my failed attempt to give the cat its own specific voice.
Going back to read it through your eyes, I concur that the flowery nature of the description used was, precisely as you noted, too contrived.
You've helped me, invaluably, Judy. I appreciate the time and thoughtfulness you put into this.
And now, it's off to put my snoot to the grindstone and come up with another approach.
You were terrific, Kiddo! Bless you, bunches.
--Jeff
You're quite welcome! I appreciate your explanation, and have a feeling what you come up with is going to be epic. ')