Screw it, I'll do them now, while the iron is tepid.
Far be it for me to attempt any usurping of unnamed forumite's role as
class clown village elder, but I feel I have been criminally over-lurker-y on these pages so far despite super loving the stuff that gets posted here. I say "these pages" - I've heard tales that there is a wider forum that exists beyond the bounds of "fluff and stories", but I've never been there and I am currently very comfortable in this lovely warm comfort zone. We have here an awesome universe of about a dozen
uber-nerds proud temple guardians who have dedicated their
5 minutes here and there lives to creating epic masterpieces in one of the most niche literary genres that could possibly exist - and it's thriving!! I've never felt more at home, despite being one of the most lowly and invisible members of this community, and since this is my first major contribution that isn't fiction, I'd just like to take a moment to sincerely express my gratitude and admiration for not just all the competition entrants but also everyone else who in any way has contributed. This is amazing.
[/ODE TO FORUM]
[CRITIQUE OF COMPETITION]
Like Bob I find this whole "voting" business a tad vexing, although I have voted. But it must be working somehow: the State of the Lizardmen Fluff is Strong. A few general comments before specifics:
- You guys are REALLY creative. There is just a magnificent range of ideas and original takes on what is at it's core a very tiny set of fantasy concepts. While I'm an 8th edition or 9th age purist at heart, I'm thrilled by some of the stuff that's spun out of
this bizarre scifi world I don't remotely understand or recognise Age of Sigmar. Having said that, I still believe Lustria contains more imaginative potential and a richer universe of ideas, and as it happens the majority of my favourite entries were set there. But do keep trying on the AoS front - the headway that is being made is thrilling!
- Despite this creativity, or perhaps because of it, I felt that almost all of the stories here were a little too ernest for my liking. By this I mean - don't shoot me - it's possible that we, as a group - don't shoot me - take our fanfic about a world of giant talking lizards a little too seriously - don'tshootdon'tshootdon'tshoot! ...Which is strange, because outside of the competitions, jokes abound here! I sense that perhaps people feel that comedy is not a weighty-enough technique for something as momentous as a -drumroll- competition. This pains me. Comedy writing is among the most important and powerful types of writing there is, and I dearly hope to see more of it in future competitions. As the Great Pratchett once said, serious is not the opposite of funny. "Not funny" is the opposite of funny. A work of literature can - and should - strive to be both.
Lit Crit Theory
While the writing quality is great and growing better all the time, I believe we are capable of the proverbial "moar"! For me this is not a matter of style, which only comes with practice, but of
story construction. I'm talking about structure. Apologies for the pretentiousness and patronisingness of what follows, I'm hoping it might be appreciated by some but do tell me to shut up if not, oh wait, you can't cos I've already written it mwa ha ha. This is stuff I've only recently begun to understand for myself, and like an evangelist that no one wants to invite to parties, I feel I have to explain it to everyone I meet.
1. Short stories, like all stories, need goals, urgency, and stakes. (I'll just wait for Bob to supply the cartoon of a vampire going "vhat?!") They need these things to create tension and compel the reader to keep reading. To this end, there needs to be a core dilemma, or conflict, that animates the entire flow of the action, and this needs to be front and centre at all times.
2. Short stories, like all stories, need character development. This is often the same thing as the core dilemma - most good drama comes from a character confronting something difficult, making key decisions that define them, and then changing as a result. This isn't the only way to do it, but you need something that forces your characters to really get to the core of what they are.
3. A good way to think about this, in classic theory, is the difference between wants and needs. A character might feel they know what they want, but to the reader it should become clear that their conscious desire is different to the subconscious thing that they actually need to grow and improve. The tension between the two is usually the most fruitful place to build drama in a story.
4. One template for this is the so-called Harman circle:
1. a character is in a zone of comfort
2. but they want something.
3. they enter an unfamiliar situation
4. adapt to it
5. get what they want
6. pay a heavy price for it
7. then return to their familiar situation
8. having changed.
Some variation on this is present in basically everything that you read or watch - but don't feel you have to stick rigidly to it. It's there to be played around with. But also don't ignore it - you need a proper structure for your story to be the most effective it can be.
5. One of the main reasons to think about structure is because you should be trying to achieve economy. There should be nothing in your text that does not directly advance or inform the core elements of your story. Hemmingway Waffle is the enemy of good writing. If you are clear in your mind what is the precise drama you're trying to convey, you can zero in on it and chop away anything superfluous. I can't stress enough how important this is.
6. Related: the story should be propulsive. By this I mean, it should continuously move onward with new purpose and interest in each scene or segment of action. It should never lag or stop advancing, or explore some subplot that doesn't directly contribute. This doesn't mean the pace has to be non-stop frantic, but even in the slower sections the key drama of the story should be moving forward.
7. Finally, have a theme. There should be some emotional resonance or philosophical point to the story, that animates the action and is particularly evident in the ending, speaking to some truth or idea you recognise in yourself or the world.
[/UNCALLED FOR LESSON FROM TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED NUMPTY]
[OK, ONTO CRITIQUE NOW, FOR REAL THIS TIME]
The points above were not intended as a direct statement on this competition - a lot of the stories here actually demonstrated strong story construction really well. In particular, the entries were mostly really good at the last point: having a compelling theme or statement, that the story brings to life.
But I think the main thing this forum's writers need to work on is a focus on tight structures that get to the core of a particular conflict, based around compelling characters. So in the critiques below, this is the thing I'll focus on.
A Fracturing Line
Love this. What's great is that it gets to the heart of what the lizardmen are, while also centring on themes of hope and love and loss that are at the core of humanity - this is a tough trick to pull off but I think it's characteristic of all the best lizard fluff. The inhumanity of the lizards should ultimately teach us something about ourselves. The flow of the writing and the author's understanding of when to get involved and when to pull back is masterfully executed, all feeding into a passage that is both timeless (as in, it spans an eternity) and ultra-specific.
In particular I think this story is a great example of how to do creative things with character - even though none of the individuals involved are even named. The guardians as a group are the main character. And that character goes through the most epic and dramatic change imaginable - evolving from something that is incapable of emotion to something that is able to feel the most exquisite sense of loss and hope by the end. The story is streamlined to give us only the elements most crucial for advancing the narrative. It's a great example of how to structure a short story without using the cliche of a "hero".
If I had one small nit to pick, it would be that in a couple of places, the author states the theme rather than letting it remain implicit - this comes back to the show don't tell thing. The main culprit here is the "Such is the sorrow..." line. Cut it and go straight to "and yet". Those two words on their own are more powerful than any poetry - they say everything by saying nothing.
Out of Formation
Like "Certainty", I really love the style of the writing in this one. It's engaging and - crucially - clear. The most important thing in using language is to make the action of the story simple and easy to comprehend - this does so magnificently.
As for structural issues, it's also quite strong. The idea of a character who is utterly loyal slowly learning to think for themselves is a powerful one that has served many great writers well over the centuries. However, I'd like to see more conflict - unlike "A Fracturing Line", the main character pays no price for his character arc. He wins the battle and all is well - there's no tension, no high stakes, nothing to make you think "oh god everything's going to go terribly wrong". The victory comes without any knife-twist of sacrifice. Even if he hadn't disobeyed the slann and won the battle, he would have just died and regenerated again - why should we care?
Also the story could be considerably streamlined - most of the first half is basically irrelevant to the actual conflict of the piece (loyalty vs independence). Yeah, it sets up the character so we know why this is a difficult choice for him, but this could be achieved in many fewer words and by much less telling and more showing (dammit I can see this is swiftly becoming a catchphrase). The flashback to the charge into the undead is good in this regard - it shows what kind of guy this oldblood is, without saying it explicitly. Most of the rest of the stuff before the main battle vs chaos can be cut imo.
A Day in the Life of a Temple City
As others have said, this is a great story. Despite not doing *any* of the structural stuff I've said above, I really like it. That's because it doesn't set out to be a conventional drama, with character development and conflict etc. It's a different kind of thing altogether. It's not a story so much as a snapshot, and as such it works really well, and provides a great contrast to most of the other entries.
Even so, I think Scalanex is right to suggest that it could be improved by *some* kind of drama or interaction, even if it's just a very minor conflict, just to draw the reader in that much more. Everything can be improved by a story! And it could be used to illustrate some interesting little feature of city life and the kinds of mundane struggles the denizens face every day.
Blasphemy
Well...*I* like this one so there. *crosses arms and pouts* As far as I can tell it's the only entry with a significant amount of humour and as such it's very much in my good books. Slann are ripe for ridicule - even more than most aspects of LM life! The deadpan style works great in this regard for me - in fact, I'd tone down a lot of the more flowery or poetic stuff and make it more deadpan still.
The story is great at capturing the natures of its characters with over-the-top stylisation. Once again, I do feel that most of the first two thirds could be much reduced. It's important as a set up, but it doesn't need to be so long - the real drama of the story begins when the slann starts to wake up, and everything before this is merely scene-setting. Still, it's a great example of how to have quite a mundane, unimportant conflict assume huge proportions for the sake of your story. You don't need empires toppling or armies being crushed to have high stakes - sometimes all you need is a few statues falling over, if that's what the characters care about.
The Seraphon Legend
Another great example of how to streamline a story - in screenwriting you're supposed to "start late, finish early" - ie, just show the main events, don't have loads of introduction and after-effects. This story goes straight in with the ambush and ends as soon as the last character dies. We don't get told a huge amount about the characers' histories, because we don't need them - we get enough of a sense of who they are from the unfolding of the story itself, and from the mini-stories they tell around the campfire. Excellent economy of action - and it pays off by generating a lot of tension. Also great at doing lots of showing and very little telling.
Only two small problems: I have to admit I was left slightly scratching my head about how it had anything to do with the competition theme. It's great in its own right but I think it could have been made a little thematically richer. At the moment it's mostly just a ghost story without a huge amount of depth (I say "just" - I love ghost stories, especially good ones like this! As I say, it's a very minor problem).
The second thing is the style, which I think lets you down a little. The short, broken sentences do create a certain amount of pace and fear, but they sometimes left me having to re-read them to understand exactly what happened. Clarity needs to be paramount above all else. (unrelated NB: clarity is not the opposite of ambiguity - you don't have to reveal everything, you just have to be clear about what's revealed. Which leads nicely onto...)
The Loom at the Threshold
This story has soooo much potential. Sadly I believe most of it is squandered. I love the slow and building sense of dread that worms its way into your brain. I love the development of the character as he begins to doubt everything he knows. I love the mystery of it, as you sense something's wrong but you can't work out what.
But alas, the structure is a mess! The central conflict is the main character's uncertainty about the righteousness of his cause - this is introduced at the beginning and grows over the story. But it's never clearly dramatised. There's no climax, the tension doesn't come to a head - it's never resolved. The character doesn't have to make any key decisions that actually define him or demonstrate any clear change. There are high stakes but there are no obvious goals or urgency. If you'd just introduced some macguffin like a countdown, and the character is forced to side with the seraphon or the lustrians before it reaches zero, it would have made a huge difference. At the moment there's no focus or direction, and the ending is frankly limp.
This story above all others probably would benefit the most from clarity and concision. It's way too long and I find it very difficult to understand what's actually happening - not in the sense that it's enigmatically ambiguous about characters' thoughts or such, but in the sense that I literally don't understand the dilemma or the situation. You really need to zero in on the key structure and set-up of the story, and find a way to convey it clearly and succinctly, so that we can then get on with the fun stuff of how the character responds.
I feel I've been quite harsh here - but that's only because I think it's *so close* to being something really great. A lot of the style and phrasing is truly wonderful, btw.
Changing Times
One tiny thing that makes a big difference: put asterisks or some kind of break between different sections of narrative when you jump to a completely different setting. Otherwise it's confusing on a first read.
I like the pace of this piece. I think having multiple stories that slowly weave together is a great way to generate drama and tension around a theme. All the big TV shows are doing it these days. The short segments with each character were streamlined and punchy, making it exciting to read. Each character has their own clear motivations and personality. And it's all leading to one big direct and obvious conflict, with high stakes, a huge amount of urgency and concrete goals for everyone involved - great stuff.
The main problem for me is that the ending is a little bit of a let down. Why? Because there's a fight, the good guys win, and that's it. You've used a classic example of a deus ex machina (the second slann saves them at the last minute), which is well known as a bad idea for fiction unless there's some thematic point to it. Having a last minute save is unsatisfying for the reader because it means that the characters who you've come to know are basically pointless - they have no impact on the resolution. Instead, it would be way stronger to end the story in a way that shows real development for the characters. Again, it's about having them make difficult choices and change as a result. All of your characters just go with the flow and then either die or win - there's not much drama in that.
Sunblood
This is a beautiful, lyrical piece. Like "A Day in the Life...", it succeeds because it's not a conventional story and it's not trying to be. It begins *after* the key conflict has been resolved. The rest can be a lovely meditation on change, loss, and rebirth and how it's experienced directly from the eyes of a participant. There's not much more I think I can add except...
Why is it in italics?
Certainty
I've already commented on this one - I said that I liked the ambiguity of the thought processes, although there was too much telling, and not enough showing or action. This ties into the structural points I'm trying to emphasise - you have a key conflict here (like "Out of Formation", it's loyalty vs independence), but it's not dramatised, because nothing actually takes place. The oldblood sits around and thinks about stuff and has memories, but we never see him act in the presence. There're stakes but no urgency. This massively reduces the tension of the piece.
Even despite this, I like the story, because what it does really well is character development. I've said that the character has to change by the end, but that can mean many different things. This story is a great reminder that "development" doesn't always mean that the character is reborn or is radically different. In this piece, the character grapples with a difficult dilemma (obey or disobey) and reaches a decision (obey). They haven't changed in a big obvious way, (they're still loyal), but they have changed in a subtle and arguably more interesting way (they now understand the meaning of doubt). In any event, the important thing is that they make a decision - even if the choice they make is one not to change. It might be a bleak resolution, but it's satisfying at the story level. As long as there's an interesting decision and a meaningful choice at the end of it, there's good drama to be found.
The Monument
So again, there are lots of great things about this story, but it could be even better. You have a fairly traditional "hero" set up - a relatively unknown, inexperienced warrior who finds himself entrusted with a very important task. That's great. But you need to find where the drama really lies in this and focus on it.
I love the first few paragraphs - establishing the flashback and the predicament of the skinks hiding from a much more powerful enemy. Immediately you have urgency (they're being shot at!) and high stakes (they could die!) and clear goals (need to report to HQ to save the lizard army). The problem is, all of this stuff slowly fades away over the course of the following paragraphs. The hero is left alone and does nothing but follow orders. You literally tell us that he sits around for several hours. Soon the ratty threat doesn't seem so scary; the task of reporting to the slann doesn't seem so crucial. When he finally leaves with the terradon, it's easily achieved, there's no tension or fear that he might fail.
Worse than this - there's no character development at all. At no point do you show the hero's motivations or personality. So there's no way of showing how he changes as a result of this heroic episode. The only people who do anything or make significant decisions are the mentor character (X-something) and the chieftain. It's a shame because once again there's much potential here and some really high quality writing in parts!
Sun Turns Gears of War
This feels like writing for a novel, not a short story. It's almost as if it's part of some larger continuity with a set of ongoing characters in a specific location oh wait. I'm a broken record at this point but guess what I'm going to say: streamline it, by chotec! Post the expanded version in your own fluff thread, but for a standalone short story you need to cut to the chase and chop it way down. This story rambles, when it needs to cry out with passion! You need to find one specific point you want to make, one key moment of conflict, and make the story completely about that.
The main drama here seems to be about the hero proving himself - but we only know that because you've told us directly. The hero himself seems to have no respect or care for the "Trials" by which he is supposed to restore his honour. So he hasn't really proved himself at all. His decision to speak out against the commander at the end is powerful, but it would have been much more powerful if you'd shown how hard it was for him to do so, and what he is sacrificing by doing it. The fact that he fails to achieve anything leaves us with no resolution - I'm sure that's because you plan to continue the story, but if this extract is all we have to go on, it's unsatisfying.
Again, I'm only being critical because there's so much good stuff here as well. The idea of a skink priest's mystical experiences in the wilderness, which leave him a changed lizard, is a great one! The idea of a lone voice speaking up against an entire culture's unthinking obsession with war is fantastic! It's just about creating the right structure to tell the story. Just because I can see ways to make it better doesn't mean I didn't really enjoy it as it is - I did!
*
Well that's about it. Sorry for the mad length of this post: tis the work of a truly insane mind. But not really sorry - I've got a lot out of writing it. Another round of congrats to everyone here!
.
