Hi, BT! Yes, the doubts that have been mentioned above I also had when reading this fragment; so I waited to see if other colleagues detected the same thing.
As for the "said", I highly recommend you read On Writing by Stephen King.
My other comment is about reading. I even often chipping a 400-page novel to splinters in two days. Personally, I think reading is just as important as writing; it should be half the time, actually. Because one learns; even when I read bad books, I learn how way I NOT must to write bad books. I leave it as a suggestion, if you want to improve on this. In fact, your writing is excellent, as I noted in the two previous passages, but it is as if you were putting a poet to write a novel: just like you, you display a superb command of words, concepts, fabulation, lyrical play, but that could still be seen better if you also it is reflected in a solid narrative structure, which considers all those aspects of dialogue, labels, descriptions, etc.
Hope this help.
@DLCroixNeedless to day, I am a born again "saider" as of this week - which also means I will have to traipse through Act 1 again and correct these same indulgences. Well, at least I caught it early enough in Act 2 to be able to straighten the ship from hereon in.
Thanks for the encouragement.
Hi @Narcissus. Yes, that is essentially the synopsis. Why they are arguing gets told in flashback from yet another character's point of view in Chapter 2 (3rd person, [past tense). There are organic reasons why each person reacts differently. And, again, I have already done the shared bemusement / disbelief of a group of amnesiacs in Act 1, so i am cutting to the chase here.
I genuinely expect that (should anyone here ever end up reading my work in full) this would make a lot more sense and the brevity would be more understandable to anyone that had read Act 1.
Last edited by a moderator:
