2
Sound of Destiny
Inbetweener
I'll go ahead and get the more technical things out of the way. First of all, the formatting for this story is very unappealing. I held off reading this because the giant walls of text just made it very hard to sit through. Whether or not you did this intentionally to achieve a specific effect, you should be aware that it does make it a challenge to read.
Second, there are many grammatical errors that I spotted. Aside from that, there were also sentences that just didn't make sense to me or sounded really unnatural. I won't give examples because there are plenty of them and they're spread across the entire work. Just read it again slowly and I'm sure you'll spot some.
As a whole, I feel like this story lacks focus and proper direction. All the references that you jam in there honestly feel like an afterthought to me. Like you already had something there but decided to just throw in jokes and references that don't really relate well with what's being said. The humor in general is all over the place. Sometimes it's snarky but other times it's immature and while this does characterize the narrator, it makes it harder to identify his personality.
The "human" in the story didn't feel very relevant to the grand scheme of things either. You introduce him then ignore him for a while then bring him back in the end. He doesn't do anything significant and his situation didn't appear to add much to the story. To me, he just seems like a tool to make the "narrator is god" angle more impactful.
There were also so many parts that you could have trimmed down. We only have 2000 words so you need to make the best use of them as you can. Cut out all the fat and just leave the essentials, everything that needs to be there or that adds something significant to the story. When you throw too much fluff it just bogs down the flow and pacing of everything.
I think you had a lot to say in this piece but the manner in which you portray and convey this message didn't do it for me. Your message/theme got too muddied by your lack of a concrete focal point to string together every other element.
I wouldn't put too much weight on my opinion though. I wasn't really able to analyze this piece in great detail because it was too much of a challenge for me to read through it multiple times.
Sorry for being so negative. I didn't want to have to say so many mean things but since you went through the effort to make a long comment on my work, it's only fair that I do the same.
Either way, I wish you luck in the polls!
Second, there are many grammatical errors that I spotted. Aside from that, there were also sentences that just didn't make sense to me or sounded really unnatural. I won't give examples because there are plenty of them and they're spread across the entire work. Just read it again slowly and I'm sure you'll spot some.
As a whole, I feel like this story lacks focus and proper direction. All the references that you jam in there honestly feel like an afterthought to me. Like you already had something there but decided to just throw in jokes and references that don't really relate well with what's being said. The humor in general is all over the place. Sometimes it's snarky but other times it's immature and while this does characterize the narrator, it makes it harder to identify his personality.
The "human" in the story didn't feel very relevant to the grand scheme of things either. You introduce him then ignore him for a while then bring him back in the end. He doesn't do anything significant and his situation didn't appear to add much to the story. To me, he just seems like a tool to make the "narrator is god" angle more impactful.
There were also so many parts that you could have trimmed down. We only have 2000 words so you need to make the best use of them as you can. Cut out all the fat and just leave the essentials, everything that needs to be there or that adds something significant to the story. When you throw too much fluff it just bogs down the flow and pacing of everything.
I think you had a lot to say in this piece but the manner in which you portray and convey this message didn't do it for me. Your message/theme got too muddied by your lack of a concrete focal point to string together every other element.
I wouldn't put too much weight on my opinion though. I wasn't really able to analyze this piece in great detail because it was too much of a challenge for me to read through it multiple times.
Sorry for being so negative. I didn't want to have to say so many mean things but since you went through the effort to make a long comment on my work, it's only fair that I do the same.
Either way, I wish you luck in the polls!
1
Yeah, I explained somewhere above, which I'll summarize: 'Appearing like a ego-maniac is a big no-no in literature, but that is exactly the point here'. It doesn't work too well with everybody though.
Well, it's only really bad when we're forced to spend the whole story with the ego-maniac, and there's no one to give us relief from his crap.
It's also worth nothing that Bomberman came out about the same era as MegaMan. One of my favorite Bomberman game is "Bomberman Adventure", kind of a Bomberman RPG game on the GameBoy Advance. He was a robot of a professor in that game iirc.
I'd say Bomberman Hero on the N64 was my favorite.
1
Well first, I'll commend the effort you put into researching the facts that you stated in this work.
However, I think most of the other stuff I'll mention have already been said by the other people who commented before me.
1. I'm not really a fan of how you split the paragraphs. They just looked like a thick wall of text and it was kinda overwhelming and boring to read through.
2. Grammatical errors were present as well as some missing words. For instance: "This seems the future, doesn't it" at the end of the first paragraph. Some were alright as they weren't really obvious, but some were obvious enough that they could break the flow of reading.
3. There were some instances wherein the narrator was making some intellectual, mature jokes, while sometimes, he would make some overly childish ones, so it was sort of confusing to tell his real personality unless if you were going for something like the narrator being bipolar or something.
4. I feel like you could have done much more, even with the 2000 word limit. There were some parts that were just overkill with the amount of information they presented. By cutting off some of those parts, you can most likely add something more substantial to your "psychopathic ranting".
All in all, I can't say I enjoyed it too much. By the way, I'm sorry for my short comment to your work as opposed to your long comment on my work. I'm just really not good at voicing out my opinion.
Best of luck to all three of us in the poll!
However, I think most of the other stuff I'll mention have already been said by the other people who commented before me.
1. I'm not really a fan of how you split the paragraphs. They just looked like a thick wall of text and it was kinda overwhelming and boring to read through.
2. Grammatical errors were present as well as some missing words. For instance: "This seems the future, doesn't it" at the end of the first paragraph. Some were alright as they weren't really obvious, but some were obvious enough that they could break the flow of reading.
3. There were some instances wherein the narrator was making some intellectual, mature jokes, while sometimes, he would make some overly childish ones, so it was sort of confusing to tell his real personality unless if you were going for something like the narrator being bipolar or something.
4. I feel like you could have done much more, even with the 2000 word limit. There were some parts that were just overkill with the amount of information they presented. By cutting off some of those parts, you can most likely add something more substantial to your "psychopathic ranting".
All in all, I can't say I enjoyed it too much. By the way, I'm sorry for my short comment to your work as opposed to your long comment on my work. I'm just really not good at voicing out my opinion.
Best of luck to all three of us in the poll!
0
Sound of Destiny wrote...
I'll go ahead and get the more technical things out of the way. First of all, the formatting for this story is very unappealing. I held off reading this because the giant walls of text just made it very hard to sit through. Whether or not you did this intentionally to achieve a specific effect, you should be aware that it does make it a challenge to read.Your review is unappealing to read.
Joke. I concede that even though I did that intentionally and I'm fully aware that readers will be reluctant to read walls of text, it did more harm than good. Even though I made it a rule to read everybody's entry in this contest, this is definitely going to be the last one that I will read.
Second, there are many grammatical errors that I spotted. Aside from that, there were also sentences that just didn't make sense to me or sounded really unnatural. I won't give examples because there are plenty of them and they're spread across the entire work. Just read it again slowly and I'm sure you'll spot some.
I'm not sure, I have looked it over many times before submitting and a few times after I do, too. Urgh, but it's too hard to spot your own errors, heh. It's easier to belittle someone else than yourself, it seems, hahaha.
As a whole, I feel like this story lacks focus and proper direction. All the references that you jam in there honestly feel like an afterthought to me. Like you already had something there but decided to just throw in jokes and references that don't really relate well with what's being said. The humor in general is all over the place. Sometimes it's snarky but other times it's immature and while this does characterize the narrator, it makes it harder to identify his personality.
Spoiler:
The "human" in the story didn't feel very relevant to the grand scheme of things either. You introduce him then ignore him for a while then bring him back in the end. He doesn't do anything significant and his situation didn't appear to add much to the story. To me, he just seems like a tool to make the "narrator is god" angle more impactful.
The 'human' can use a bit more work, I agree. But the way he was introduced, then ignored, then brought back is also the way I chose it to be. Part of this is a supposedly twist on the conventional storytelling method, as this piece, the narrator is 'the main character' when talking in a third person perspective, and the 'human', the main character, is nowhere as important. Like you said, he was there to portray more about this 'God'. Whether that makes for good effects is another question. His situation is of course dire to himself, but not so interesting for the 'God', apparently. It's perfectly sensible if you can't like it.
There were also so many parts that you could have trimmed down. We only have 2000 words so you need to make the best use of them as you can. Cut out all the fat and just leave the essentials, everything that needs to be there or that adds something significant to the story. When you throw too much fluff it just bogs down the flow and pacing of everything.
I would argue that these are the essentials. Yes, they could have been trimmed down, and you could still get the idea, but I consciously chose to write them down, and I even cut out other things so that the 'fats' can remain. These 'fats' are my focus, not my tool to prove another point. As I said somewhere in the other comments, it is the idea of humans' stupidity that tires us all, or in another words, it is just as tiresome for him to list them out as for you to read it.
I think you had a lot to say in this piece but the manner in which you portray and convey this message didn't do it for me. Your message/theme got too muddied by your lack of a concrete focal point to string together every other element.
I believe I have a point in this one, but it's up to everyone's interpretations of their own experience.
I wouldn't put too much weight on my opinion though.
I would, I never take anything lightly. For me, it's always to the extreme of not doing it and doing it (or sink trying) to the perfection.
I wasn't really able to analyze this piece in great detail because it was too much of a challenge for me to read through it multiple times.
It's a real joy to me that anyone take their time to read it at all. Thank you.
To add one more point to the format, you can clearly read that this is a first-person narration. I can't say for other people, though I imagine everybody else would do the same, whenever I read a first-person story, I immerse myself as if I were the character. A figure with immense pride, in his head, this is what I imagine a dickhead will say. You can criticize me for keep saying 'this is for the characterization' without any thoughts about how detrimental it can be for readers' experiences, but I would say that dealing with an asshole is unpleasant in real life, just like this story.
Sorry for being so negative. I didn't want to have to say so many mean things but since you went through the effort to make a long comment on my work, it's only fair that I do the same.
Eh, that's ok. I can be way more negative to other people. What you call 'mean things' are 'constructive criticism' and I'm grateful that you really gave your thoughts into writing this for me.
Either way, I wish you luck in the polls!
Haha, thanks, but I can already see my fate.
I think you will like my last year's entry better than this, although the format is messed up since FAKKU remove some old options.
d(^_^)(^_^)d wrote...
I'd say Bomberman Hero on the N64 was my favorite. Heh, I wish I had a N64, but my childhood was grown on a GBA.
RavenxSinon wrote...
Well first, I'll commend the effort you put into researching the facts that you stated in this work.Most of them are my own knowledge, though it's true that I had a great time reading up on them whenever they came up when I wrote this.
However, I think most of the other stuff I'll mention have already been said by the other people who commented before me.
That's cool, meaning that I know the prime problems that don't work for the majority of readers.
1. I'm not really a fan of how you split the paragraphs. They just looked like a thick wall of text and it was kinda overwhelming and boring to read through.
Agree. But I will also try to explain my reasons behind this, which I have written above, if you will be so kind to scroll up.
Or not:
Spoiler:
In another words, I chose to do so because I thought it adds to the portrayal of the character as being obnoxious on purpose and is awfully informed about everything.
I have also written about it the the previous comments, if you want to read more about this.
2. Grammatical errors were present as well as some missing words. For instance: "This seems the future, doesn't it" at the end of the first paragraph. Some were alright as they weren't really obvious, but some were obvious enough that they could break the flow of reading.
I will have to read it again to spot the grammatical errors you talk of.
With the "This seems the future, doesn't it?" part, I will argue that this sentence has perfectly acceptable grammars and structures, albeit it does not being used in modern American English. I have said in my footnote in the original post that there was paragraph I wanted to write in 1800-1900 French literature style, the kind of style you can read in translations of renown works of French authors of that time, namely Alexandre Dumas, père (The Count of Monte Cristo [1844], The Three Musketeers - [1844]), Victor Hugo (Les Misérables [1862], The Hunchback of Notre-Dame [1831]), and Jules Verne (Journey to the Center of the Earth [1864], Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea [1870], and Around the World in Eighty Days [1873]). I later decided against in fear of not having enough literature ability to do so. However, you can still read some sentences that I wrote and decided to keep it so.
Usually, you will adhere to a consistent style of writing of an era in order to uphold respect for the language. However, like many aspects of this piece, I want to portray this guy as a omnipotent being with unlimited knowledge and authority to do absolutely anything. So I guess you can say it's technically an error, but I will choose to stand by my decision.
3. There were some instances wherein the narrator was making some intellectual, mature jokes, while sometimes, he would make some overly childish ones, so it was sort of confusing to tell his real personality unless if you were going for something like the narrator being bipolar or something.
As said above:
Spoiler:
4. I feel like you could have done much more, even with the 2000 word limit. There were some parts that were just overkill with the amount of information they presented. By cutting off some of those parts, you can most likely add something more substantial to your "psychopathic ranting".
It could have been more substantial. I wasn't entirely satisfied with the version I have posted here, but it was contented. However, I will defend my point in 'overkilling' (as above):
Spoiler:
All in all, I can't say I enjoyed it too much. By the way, I'm sorry for my short comment to your work as opposed to your long comment on my work. I'm just really not good at voicing out my opinion.
It's fair. I can't imagine liking this out of my own volition. That's not to say I don't appreciate my own effort.
In all honesty though, I must say that I did not spend as much on this piece as I should have, not as much as I did last year. So it didn't emerge as a fan-favorite after all. I'll try harder next year.
Best of luck to all three of us in the poll!
Haha, we all know the results already.
To finish, I want to thank all of you to have read and given my your feedback, especially that I know it's a chore to read this story. I know I am vocal of my defense on this piece, but I also want you guys to know I take every little comments seriously and you guys have helped me to become a better overall writer.
0
Xenon
FAKKU Writer
I like the concept of the work. The idea of a divine creator lamenting over the insignificance and malice that are destined of mankind. However, the tactics that you utilize to convey these points drag on for so long and need grammatical improvement. It doesn’t help that you heavily use parenthetical sentences to further convolute the already large sentences, but teetering at the edge of the word count also made to cut out important grammatical words just to keep some sentences concise, which is unfortunate. I liked the satire, it was very much in a style I feel that is similar to leonard, and so maybe he’ll appreciate it, but I have always been a connoisseur of proper English structure and consistency, and unfortunately I found the numerous errors contained within this piece an absolute slog to get through. I’m sorry about that, but it might be a side-effect of the informal literary voice and writing style that you adapted, and less to do with your actual skill in writing.
Below are images of the actual .docx file I marked up to showcase the numerous things I found issues with. I couldn't quote every instance because there just were too many, so hopefully this will be beneficial to you in showing the errors and how you can grow from here. If you have any questions about the marks I made, please ask me and I'll explain why I made them.
Disclaimer: For those unaware, the Track Changes mode in Word 2013 provides an efficient and handy method to review written material. The grey vertical line to the left of the written lines indicate a change edited in the corresponding horizontal written line. All font that is in red are direct changes to the original text. Words and letters that have strike-through are suggested removal and those with an underline are suggested additions. Comments, as you can see, highlight an appropriate area and are placed in the right-hand margin followed by a dotted line corresponding to the correct comment.
Below are images of the actual .docx file I marked up to showcase the numerous things I found issues with. I couldn't quote every instance because there just were too many, so hopefully this will be beneficial to you in showing the errors and how you can grow from here. If you have any questions about the marks I made, please ask me and I'll explain why I made them.
Disclaimer: For those unaware, the Track Changes mode in Word 2013 provides an efficient and handy method to review written material. The grey vertical line to the left of the written lines indicate a change edited in the corresponding horizontal written line. All font that is in red are direct changes to the original text. Words and letters that have strike-through are suggested removal and those with an underline are suggested additions. Comments, as you can see, highlight an appropriate area and are placed in the right-hand margin followed by a dotted line corresponding to the correct comment.
1
leonard267
FAKKU Non-Writer
I have quite a lot of people to apologise to. Despite promising them that I would offer a review of their entries over a month ago, I have yet to find the time to do so. It is a bit difficult for me to pen this one especially because there is so much I would like to say about what you have wrote and I have so little time on my hands.
Nonetheless, I would divide my review into 3 parts. I might elaborate further should you respond to it:
1. Must be readable: It isn't.
I found it difficult to understand what you were trying to convey. If I can't understand the story, I certainly wouldn't pick it as my favourite entry. The better rated entries in my book has to meet that criteria.
It appears that you are trying to introduce some kind of setting to your 2000 word long monologue by explaining that it is sometime in the future and then it digresses to talking about historical events. This is repeated later when you introduced the main character then digressed to making obscure references to Star Trek and events that supposedly happen in the future.
I am fine with a bit of digressing provided that it has relevance to the story. However, I am left thinking that this is more about the author of the story giving his opinion (or his impressions) of historical (and non-historical) events. I have no idea what is going on, who to sympathise with or indeed what is the point you are driving at.
I think your entry might be made better if it either focused more on the main character and his exploits or become a complete monologue albeit with a clear thesis statement. (I couldn't tell if your thesis is about mocking mankind's efforts at building then destroying civilisations or laughing at the fact that the Earth destroyed itself through many world wars while our hero is colonising planets or whether I am right in interpreting your entry in these ways!)
I am not offended by the content of the entry but only because I fail to understand it!
2. Must be funny:
Let me credit you for coming up with possibly the only entry that put me on the verge of laughter. I was almost laughing not because of the story but I am laughing at the story. Why so, that leads me to my next point.
3. Must be written in leonard267's style:
Let me again credit you for coming up with the entry which I consider written in a manner that is closest to my style with all of the links, references that no one understands, the monologues and hard to follow lines. Then again, if you bothered to read my other reviews of the entries submitted, writing like me isn't exactly a good thing isn't it?
I did mention that one of the joys of hosting this competition is to make people write the way I write. While it is a bit disappointing that few entries were written similar to my style, at least I came across yours. I had a good taste of my own medicine reading your entry.
I told Xenon that I would like to nominate this entry for a "Dishonourable Mention" for being written the way it was written. I would have picked this entry as my favourite entry (that is why it deserved a mention) if I knew what is the entry about (which is why I called it "dishonourable")!
PS: I did promise that I would parody another contest entry you have written a year ago. I would like to do the same for this one. However, this seems to be a remote possibility now.
PPS: Why did you call it the Verdict and the Chase? Who is passing verdicts? Who is doing the chasing?
Nonetheless, I would divide my review into 3 parts. I might elaborate further should you respond to it:
1. Must be readable: It isn't.
I found it difficult to understand what you were trying to convey. If I can't understand the story, I certainly wouldn't pick it as my favourite entry. The better rated entries in my book has to meet that criteria.
It appears that you are trying to introduce some kind of setting to your 2000 word long monologue by explaining that it is sometime in the future and then it digresses to talking about historical events. This is repeated later when you introduced the main character then digressed to making obscure references to Star Trek and events that supposedly happen in the future.
I am fine with a bit of digressing provided that it has relevance to the story. However, I am left thinking that this is more about the author of the story giving his opinion (or his impressions) of historical (and non-historical) events. I have no idea what is going on, who to sympathise with or indeed what is the point you are driving at.
I think your entry might be made better if it either focused more on the main character and his exploits or become a complete monologue albeit with a clear thesis statement. (I couldn't tell if your thesis is about mocking mankind's efforts at building then destroying civilisations or laughing at the fact that the Earth destroyed itself through many world wars while our hero is colonising planets or whether I am right in interpreting your entry in these ways!)
I am not offended by the content of the entry but only because I fail to understand it!
2. Must be funny:
Let me credit you for coming up with possibly the only entry that put me on the verge of laughter. I was almost laughing not because of the story but I am laughing at the story. Why so, that leads me to my next point.
3. Must be written in leonard267's style:
Let me again credit you for coming up with the entry which I consider written in a manner that is closest to my style with all of the links, references that no one understands, the monologues and hard to follow lines. Then again, if you bothered to read my other reviews of the entries submitted, writing like me isn't exactly a good thing isn't it?
I did mention that one of the joys of hosting this competition is to make people write the way I write. While it is a bit disappointing that few entries were written similar to my style, at least I came across yours. I had a good taste of my own medicine reading your entry.
I told Xenon that I would like to nominate this entry for a "Dishonourable Mention" for being written the way it was written. I would have picked this entry as my favourite entry (that is why it deserved a mention) if I knew what is the entry about (which is why I called it "dishonourable")!
PS: I did promise that I would parody another contest entry you have written a year ago. I would like to do the same for this one. However, this seems to be a remote possibility now.
PPS: Why did you call it the Verdict and the Chase? Who is passing verdicts? Who is doing the chasing?