Taken down for editing. Check back soon!




Taken down for editing. Check back soon!
Last edited by goreantx; 09-13-2009 at 03:48 AM.





-1, derivative and historically inaccurate.




I would suggest change the font to Verdana. This font is way too difficult to read.





I didn't see any real historical references there, but I might have missed something. The one problem I had with it was some of the descriptions of the sexually attractive characters seemed overdone--too much like the Penthouse Letters style, which makes me lose interest very rapidly. I think you could be a lot more convincing if you were much more subtle about it.
You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
George Clinton
______________________________________





I'd suggest less is more.
It's as if you've produced something for a creative writing class, rather than a novel. It's possible to say the much the same thing in a far less melodramatic way:
"Edward, all testosterone and charm, glided into the group".
"The ominous click of her heels preceeded her search".
"The tiny robot's caress chilled Destiny to her soul."
Unless you're writing for a very specific genre where that form of writing is required, I'd recommend striving less for effect - instead seek for a more suble way of conveying information about the situation/your characters.
A good rule of thumb is that there should be no detail in the story that does not have a purpose.
Maybe fewer details and more story?
Phil.




Thank you both! I'm taking time out from writing to do more research on the satirical writing style. I've always been a very descriptive writer, which has brought me both praise and similar criticisms to yours.
This project is especially challenging because it handles delicate topics, which only begin with sacrificing and eating babies. The original Phibionites that this modern day cult is based off of cooked them with herbs and honey and ate them in a trough; that's pretty gruesome. I was very relieved when I thought of the puppet show. In the next chapter, the cult is sitting at a formal dinner.
I was aiming for a melodramatic and unconvincing writing style. I definitely don't want it to turn people off. When I start making fun of modern day stereotypes, such as homosexuality, catholics, Buddhist monks, and a few dozen other groups, I need it to be obviously satirical to communicate the underlying storyline without causing a reader to get turned off by a realistic and convincing mockery of their core values.
An example of a published author with the descriptive style I admire and identify with is Neil Gaiman.
Yes, I'm real.





^^^
A point to take into consideration is what a publisher will publish. A novel is a major investment of your time - I presume you want a financial return from it. Publishers are in the business of making money and they will only purchase novels commerically attractive to them.
I mistake I made when I had a first bash at a novel. I knew there was a good niche market for novels about the Nelsonic era - the 'Hornblower', 'Ramage' and 'Bolitho' novels have shifted respectable quantities.
I've always collected books on the era, so had a lot of first hand accounts. And knowing that the existing novels were not historically accurate, I wrote one which was - a genuine reflection of Nelson's navy.
I sent it to a number of agents and the feedback was that people project themselves into novels when they read one - and they would not project themselves into the reality that underlaid my novel. Which is why the successful novels about the era have a very 'idealied' environment for the heroes to perform their deeds of derring-do in.
And which is why I've considered far more carefully what makes a novel commercially attractive for my current attempt.
Phil.
As a PS - have you read Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land". That's a famous satirical novel that had a pop at any anyone and everything.





Yeah if it's a satire you can get away with more outrageous descriptions, but if you do it's good to make it obvious you are making fun of them, rather than genuinely praising their beauty.
You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
George Clinton
______________________________________




Wow, thank you for sharing your industry experience with me! That will save me a lot of editing and rejection.Did you get it published eventually?
That's just what I was looking for! I still want to portray the phibionites as being beautiful, airhead, party and drug type people, but I agree that I should make it more obvious that I am making fun of them instead of just putting in flattering descriptions.
I'll make a stop by the library soon and brush up on the Robert Heinlein you guys suggested. Thanks sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo amazingly much. Stop by for a free lap dance any time.![]()
Yes, I'm real.





No - and although I enjoyed writing it, it was a hard lesson.
I'm now having another go - and the first thing I did was to think very carefully about what would be commercially attractive to a publisher.
The second thing I did (and which I continually do) was to find books and websites on writing technique and try and understand how successful novelists have approached problems.
I'll give you one classic example - backstory. Characters in novels have a history. The problem is how to unobtrusively bring out that history without boring the reader to death. You know how it goes in novels:
"You moved to New York ten years ago?"
"Yes - when I started college."
"So, that's when you met Susan?"
"Yes - she was studying in Profesor Smiths' class."
Etc, etc. Yawn....
If you look at Thomas Harris's 'Silence of the Lambs' he has a very clever way of getting round the problem: he has his anti-hero (Hanibal Lector) demand Clarice Starling tells him about her past as a pro-quid for helping her catch the murderer.
So Clarice Starling fills in a lot of her own backstory without the reader realising that flesh is being put on the bones of the character. And Harris is careful to only give you the information you actually need - so you never learn everything about Starling, just enough to realise why she behaves the ways she does.
I also admire the way Harris crafted his dialogue. There's none of this "he said", "she said" about the dialogue. Harris establishes at the start of the each section of dialogue who's speaking, then all you get is the words. And you can tell from each sentence who's spoken it... Superlatve skill.
I re-read 'Silence of the Lambs' from time to time. Not to plagarise it, but to remind myself of the levels of skill I have to aspire to as a writer.
Phil.




I'm going to make a prediction and say - When you've made a huge name for yourself by feeding the publishers your blatantly marketable books, you can publish your first love and it will probably win a huge award!
I've never actually read Silence of the Lambs. I'm putting that one on my list.
Yes, I'm real.





Its a good book to read in its own right, but it's a better one to read if you want to learn how to craft a novel. At the risk of boring you.
1) Novels should have eye catching titles
And 'Silence of the Lambs' is a great title. Clarice Starling (the heroine) is haunted by some of her childhood memories. One of those is when she lived on a farm - and had to listen to the squealing of the lambs as they were slaughtered. So we learn about why the book has its title only in the last sentence:
"...the face on the pillow, rosy in the firelight, is certainly that of Clarice Starling, and she sleeps sweetly, deeply, in the silence of the lambs."
Starling has achieved inner peace by saving the victim in the book from being murdered. It's a great close - and far better than saying "Starling felt a great sense of satisfaction".
2) Novels should have a great opening paragraph
The first sentence is "Behavorial Science, the FBI section that deals with serial murder, is on the bottom floor of the Acadamy building at Quantico, half buried in the earth".
...which tells us that the book is to be about a serial killer. And the next sentance is:
"Clarice Starling reached it flushed after a fast walk from Hogan's Alley on the firing range" ... which tells us there is an urgent problem.
And the pace never lets up from there.
3) Show - don't tell.
In the third and fourth sentences we learn Starling is pretty, but Harris is too clever a writer to tell us that - instead he shows us by giving us a few clues. "No one was in the outer office so she fluffed briefly by her reflection in a glass door. She knew she could look alright without primping".
So we deduce Starling is pretty - we're not told directly.
4) Backstory
Which I mentioned in my previous post. Look how inobtrusively Harris weaves in information about Starling. He never directly says "Starling came from a poor and deprived background" or "Starling is ambitious" - but you gradually work this out from the details you are given.
5) Dialogue
Again superb. Too many books have sentances that end "....he said through gritted teeth" and "....she shouted, close to tears".
There's very little of this in the book - instead, you can deduce this from the words being spoken.
This is Lector complimenting Starling on her handbag when she first interviews him in prison.
"You brought your best bag, didn't you?"
"Yes." It was true. She had saved for the classic casual handbag, and it was the best item she owned.
"It's much better than your shoes."
"Maybe they'll catch up"
"I have no doubt of it".
You know exactly who's speaking, and you know Lector is gently needling Starling - who in turn is slightly defensive.
6) Every detail counts
There should be no detail in the book that does not serve a purpose. For example on page 16, we learn Lector has six fingers on his left hand, a point reinforced a couple of times in subsequent pages.
Only on page 227 do we learn that one of the reason Lector can escape from prison is that a guard is distracted when putting on handcuffs because of that strange sixth finger.
I could go on and on - but can I suggest you sit down and work out how the book was crafted. It's full of good writing technique - and if you can identify the techniques, you can use variants of them yourself.
Phil.
Last edited by Phil-W; 09-12-2009 at 02:56 AM. Reason: Typos
Btw - this is probably better defined as a novellete or a novella vs. a novel.
--------------------------------------------------
What?
--------------------------------------------------
Why does "archon" keep going back and forth from being proper ("Archon") and common ("archon")?
---------------------------------------------------
The use of descriptive adjectives and adverbs in the first chapter seemed forced and over the top. The words just didn't seem to flow for me.
Honestly, it kind of read like a bad version of a romance/drama novel you'd pick up in a grocery store checkout line. I was too bored to make it through the third chapter. Although, to be honest if you're trying to cater to the Danielle Steele crowd you'd loose me anyway.
---------------------------------------------------
Apologies, if my criticism seemed harsh. Best of luck as you continue to practice and develop your writing skills.
If you can't win. Make the fellow in front of you break the record.





you should read some april deconick. she is a leading authority on gnostic texts and frankly i really dig her research efforts.
www.aprildeconick.com is her main site.
a lot of gnostic cult descriptions were displays of imagination rather than stuff that actually happened or was cult practice for a given cult.
i understand the intent is satire, but you can't joke about dead babies and get it published. servants of twilight is about hoping to sacrifice a kid-- dead serious.
gnostics actually lend themselves more to sci-fying it up with some transhumanism satire, since they did often trend towards a Singularity and whatnot.
anyway i am nerding out on gnostic bibliology.




The archon going back and forth was from me replacing another word and my find/replace function only capitalizing some of the wordsdoh
The descriptions in the first chapter are too romancy, I'll rewrite it using some earlier suggestions so people don't have to keep being subjected to them. I'm definitely not going for the Steele crowd![]()
Thanks!
Yes, I'm real.




One of the most famous satires of all time was completely about eating babies. The entire book leads off from people's reactions to the cult (bunch of party animals who don't know anything about the gnostics other than the sex). This is just the first three chapters. Then it goes into a freedom of religion/sexuality/world war three...
I just need to rewrite these chapters and put up the next threeIt's easy to think the entire book is about these guys when all I've put up is the chapters with them.
Yes, I'm real.





Just thinking of some other famous satirical books. Three that come to mind are:
Johnathon Swift: Gullivers Travels - which satirised 18th century English politics
Joseph Heller: Catch 22 - satirised war
George Orwell: Animal Farm - satirised communism
All very different writing styles - but probably worth a look at.
Phil.
Bookmarks