victimized table…”: Tables cannot be victimized. They are inanimate objects. Simply clean up the sentence to read,”..into the nearest object, the remains of a side table. The blast of energy reduced those remains to a fine gray ash…” or something like that.

I’m going to critique the critiquer for a moment. Far too many crits forget that literature–which this is, at least nominally–can use Figurative Language. Personification “is a figure of speech that gives an inanimate object or abstract idea human traits and qualities, such as emotions, desires, sensations, physical gestures and speech. In English literature, personification is oft-used as a literary device.”

I do not have an issue with letting the table be victimized. (Though I wasn’t sure why he victimized the poor table…) I have an issue with the over-abundance of personification used here, along with all the other overdone verbiage. Go ahead and use personification. But don’t use it too much. Let stuff stab through your hero’s mind, because, you know, that’s what it feels like to him. But don’t overdo. I ditto Karen T’s recommendation of SELF-EDITING FOR FICTION WRITERS by Browne and King.

Also–it sounds to me like you’re not using an Actual Parallel Universe. You’re using a Fantasy Universe which correlates with our own universe only insomuch as it has a feudal government and the inhabitants look like us. And in that case, yes, the date is irrelevant, as is the name of the city.

My question now is–why start here? Apparently, this is backstory. So why put it on stage? Why not begin at the actual beginning of the story you want to tell? Honestly, this feels like a fish head to me. (I heard the description from Britta Coleman, author of POTTER SPRINGS, who got it from someone else, but I don’t remember who.) A lot of stories don’t start in the right place. There’s this whole inedible fish head before you get to the meat of the story, and you have to cut it off and toss it out. It’s important to your story (like the fish’s head is important to the fish), but it’s not necessary to eat the fish/read the story. If this amora is not the heroine of the story, if the story is about your hero’s relationship with a whole nother woman, why not begin the story with Her and feed in this loss with the rest of the back story??

I’ve read the openings of only two stories that opened too late in the story rather than too early. One began just after a big Fight, where the hero was attacked, and the other began just after the hero and heroine made love for the first time. Most other rookie authors tend to start too early. You might need this prologue, but I’m thinking you’d probably be better off starting on The Day That’s Different–where the fate of the actual Heroine gets tangled up with the fate of the hero.

Squeeze the purple out of your prose and take a critical look at your fish–er, story–and see whether the fish head needs to be removed.

To me, calling the doors “solid oak” is NOT in his POV. Unless he has X-ray vision, or some sort of special skill that allows him to know in an instant what the inner makings of the door are, there’s no way he’d know that! It doesn’t read as though he’s been in this location before, either.

So those words alone put me more in the position of listening to a narrator tell the story, rather than watching the story unfold through his eyes. That’s why I changed “solid” to “heavy”… because “heavy” is an adjective that you CAN tell very quickly without having to notice. “Oak” is noticeable to some people, so it doesn’t pull me out of POV like “solid” did. This isn’t much different than what someone said (above) about the fact that a character doesn’t think about what color their eyes are. You’ve got to wait to tell your readers that until you give ANOTHER character reason to notice it or think about it.

Anyway… keep these kinds of things in mind as you write, to make your POV stronger. You want to color and flavor your world, but you want to do it through the eyes of your characters.

The best of everything to you!

But frankly, I couldn’t see the story for all the words, either (this heightened by my being in edit mode, m’self). Ideally, writing should be as invisible as possible; the more words used, especially in a scene that should be all about shock and outrage, the less impact. IMO, the writing should be terse almost to fragmentation in order to suck the reader into the horror the protagonist feels. Explanations can come later (you don’t have to cram everything into the first page), and certainly more languid prose has its place — in the story’s more languid moments. Not here.

The good news is, most new writers mistake “more” for “good,” so you’re not alone. Unpublished contests are rife with overwrought prose. The better news is, it’s an easy fix. You may still find yourself doing the slash-and-burn thing during edits even after many, many books (she said, rolling her eyes and whistling), but you can certainly train yourself to spot/delete the over-verbiage.

I highly recommend SELF-EDITING FOR FICTION WRITERS by Renni Browne and Dave King.

Thanks so much everyone for your comments. I’ve got my manuscript right here and am working on changing a bunch of stuff as we speak- just needed a little break. My prologue has been the weakest link of my manuscript. For some reason my writing style in the prologue is completley different than what’s in the rest of my manuscript. It’s not as exhausting to read. However, I’m going to go through my entire manuscript with the finest tooth comb I can find.

Oh,I changed the Lycan name to Vilkasin. Still not sure if I like that, but it works until I can come up with something different.

Thanks

1623: I immediately tried to equate your story to Earth, and earth history. If this is on another planet, the date doesn’t help the world building.

Draven: immediately went to The Crow, and Lycan made me think of Underworld. I don’t know if either franchise has trademarked these words but they are so ingrained in people’s consciousness (at least the people who would be likely buyers of this) that it may be hard for the readers to look at your story without those filters in place.

Fuschia is one of those words that draw the eye. I wondered if there was some significance to the color. And the guard sobbing into the sheet was a bit over the top. This is who Draven has protecting his amora? No wonder she got taken.

Your hero comes off as unheroic. I know this is supposed to show how his power, his fury, his devotion to his amora, but he seems like a bully. I finished reading and my first thought was “Where the hell was he during all of this and why didn’t he drag his happy a$$ in to protect his amora?”

Which led to more questions: If they can communicate telepathically, why didn’t he know sooner that she was in trouble–and therefore get there faster? Where was he that he wasn’t protecting her–and why did she need to be protected? Why would she not want him to come get her, especially if he’s as badass as you’re making him out to be? Oh wait, she does at the end, so you might want to make that first “shadowing” of her thoughts something else. She’s got to know that if people are kidnapping her from her bedroom, it’s not to do brunch. (and wow, it would have been nice if she’d taken one of them out before they got away with her. Even if it’s all about the alphaness of the male, can’t we have a female who does not go gently into that good night? If Draven’s all that, why can’t his amora be too? Sheer numbers overpowered her, not being weak and waiting for her hero to rescue her. Okay, end rant…) Also is amora his intended or his wife? I think there’s a way drop this in to make this clearer for the reader and let them know if they’re going to have a romance or something else (cause we know the spine of the book sometimes lies…)

All these guards–I would assume they are elite if they’re assigned to protect the amora–and none of them got a lick in on the bad guys? Not one incapacitated enemy? Then again, maybe all the guards are lying in pools of blood because they cracked their heads slipping on the marble floor and the enemy have sticky feet.

Your voice is very dramatic, and that can work. But by the time I finished reading this sample, I was exhausted and emotionally drained. Same with the prologue. I would have to be in the mood for a drama-filled story to add this to my book basket, and I love paranormals and urban fantasy. I think reducing the adverbs and chopping up some of the sentences will drive the action and also ratchet up the tension.

I have to admit I find it hard to cold-critique a first page, not knowing genre, basic story structure, etc. I usually read the back cover before I start a book.

Anyway, kudos to the writer for submitting this. If I were an unpublished author just starting out, I don’t think I’d be brave enough to submit my work here.

I was an English teacher (very briefly) and I learned that marking every mistake in a student’s paper was not a good idea. I didn’t have time, for one. Also, I felt it was better to highlight the most important errors and make positive comments when I could. The writer is lucky to get so many in-depth critiques, but sometimes a pageful of “red ink” is less effective than a few pointed remarks.

I just want to say that I’m learning soo much from everyones comments.

The thing about critiques is it’s often just as valuable to pick apart someone else’s work–or observe from the sidelines–as it is to be the, ah, victim, for lack of a better term. Critiquing trains you to look at writing from a different place in your head. Opinions can often differ, but you know when many posters have similar comments, those are the important bits to file away and apply to your own writing.

Only problem is when you’re so deep in critique-mode that you nitpick every book you’re trying to read for pleasure. There are a bunch of authors I can’t read anymore because their mistakes/mediochre prose/repetitive phrasing/etc leap off the page and throw me out of the story. I’m not gonna name any names, tho, lol!

1. ON THE USE OF PARALLEL WORLDS

It doesn’t take place in the world as we know it, but in a parallel world (so the year 1623 doesn’t correspond with the year as we know it).

In establishing your story in a parallel universe, you need to fully understand the concepts of the Multiverse and the Many-worlds interpretation in quantum physics.

Basically, you can’t have a world that is parallel to ours with vastly different characteristics. Physicist Hugh Everett III’s many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics proposes the existence of multiple universes, all of which are “identical”, exist in possibly different states. All SciFi and Fantasy authors honor this concept and it makes for immediately recognizable worlds with that we readers can dive into with relish.

This means that in your world in 1623 mirrors everything in 1623 in our known world but for the presence of robust communities of supernatural beings who seem to be the main populations of your parallel world.

These communities or nations though, would exist in a 1623 that follows some of the same historical and technological timeline and trajectory as ours in 1623, so, there might be a different kind of gun but there wouldn’t be a car or plane. Perhaps your world had a version of Leonardo da Vinci and his inventions were actually created and used….

This is a very important point in the credibility of your world for the reader. The most recent rendering of a parallel history is that of Naomi Novik’s Temeraire series. There, the integrity of our world history is honored, but we are given a delightful twist with the inclusion of dragons. Novik is successful for many things, not the least of which is her willingness to explore what it means to have a world with a population of sentient dragons.

Another recent example of a parallel Earth is Dr. Who episode 176 a) Rise of the Cybermen and b) The Age of Steel.

Star Trek also dealt with the concept of a parallel Earth.

2. OPENING SENTENCE

“Where is she?” Draven roared lethally…

I would never buy your book based on these three words: “Draven roared lethally.”

A) Draven? As others have said, the Underworld reference cannot be escaped. There are some great name resources online. You can find sites devoted to Merovingian names, names found in the Doomsday Book,…here’s an Italian Medieval Naming Guide Web site.

B) A person can only roar lethally if 1) they breathe fire 2) they have halitosis so bad that they can lay people out simply by exhaling or 3) they reach a decible level deep or high enough to burst ear drums.

A great book to buy to help you think through the minutae of character development is Noah Luckman’s The Plot Thickens. Luckman, an agent, makes the point that the plot is more than simply the stringing together of incidents.

3. CHARACTERIZATION

The guard’s face paled as he saw Draven’s power flowing out of his glowing hand, seeping into his throat. He struggled to breathe as his esophagus began compressing tighter and tighter, threatening to slowly suffocate him. The intense burning sensations prickling underneath his skin felt as if it were going to melt right off of his body like candle wax. As the Power of Light intensified, his flesh started to catch fire making him scream out in excruciating agony. “I’m sorry sir. We tried to reach her in time, but they flashed her out of here before we could get to her.”

By the time Draven grappled for control and recalled his magick back, the guard’s entire body was marred in a thin layer of cinereal ash. Loosening his hold, he let the guard drop to the floor and left him to suffer his wounds until sleep healed them.

What a jerk.

I forced myself to read the entire entry and was so turned off by Draven that I would have given the book away rather than finish reading it. I found him immature, bellicose, reactionary, needlessly violent, oh, and dumb…not attractive or interesting or loveable. Not even likeable. And usually, I can finish a book based on the likability of the hero.

4. ANACHRONISM

Be careful of anachonism. Weed it out of your manuscript. If you are placing the work of the book in 1623, you absolutely *must* know and understand world history and the state of technology in the early 17th century. All that knowledge will help ground your characters and their actions within the world.

Fuschia bedsheets would NOT be around in the 17ths century. Not in silk or cotton. Fuschia is a color that was available after the discovery of the analine dye process - in the 1850s. Fuschia is a member of the Magenta color family: “The name magenta comes from the dye magenta, commonly called fuchsine, discovered shortly after the 1859 Battle of Magenta near Magenta, Italy.” (Wikipedia)

And, more from Wikipedia:
“Rich magenta (1860)

“Before printer’s magenta was invented in the 1890s for CMYK printing, and electric magenta was invented in the 1980s for computer displays, these two artificially engineered colors were preceded by…*the color originally called magenta made from coal tar dyes in the year 1859.*[2]

“Besides being called original magenta, it is also called rich magenta to distinguish it from the colors electric magenta and printer’s magenta shown below.”

Here are some books on the history of color: pg 245 The Dictionary of Colour.

Pigment Compendium (great book) by Nicholas Eastaugh, Valentine Walsh, Tracey Chaplin, Ruth Siddall

A recent book by a well-known author who has steeped herself 16th century history is Sarah Dunant’s novel The Birth of Venus.

5. OVERALL SENSE OF CRAFT

I regret to say that, in this iteration of your manuscript, your writing is clunky and overwrought. Indeed, I get the sense while reading this excerpt that you haven’t put a lot of thought into the words you have chosen.

Here are some examples I’ve parsed:

a) “…roared lethally…”: See note above. This isn’t possible. No roar is lethal. It is loud, angry, pained, whiny, piercing, scary, etc. Noone comes to any bodily harm from a roar.

b) “…bed sheet drooping lifelessly…”: Bed sheets aren’t alive. Therefore, they cannot be lifeless. Though sheets can droop, a nicer construction to use is “limply draped” as sheets can be draped. If the woman was pulled out of the bed by force, you could simply describe the sheets being all pulled toward one side or another, or completely off the bed, or that there is evidence of her fighting her captors.

c) “…white energy ball congregating…”: Energy doesn’t congregate, people do. However, energy can coalesce, combine, merge, mix, fuse….into something, a sphere, etc.

d) “…victimized table…”: Tables cannot be victimized. They are inanimate objects. Simply clean up the sentence to read,”..into the nearest object, the remains of a side table. The blast of energy reduced those remains to a fine gray ash…” or something like that.

e) “…gasped sharply…”: 1. The adverb is not needed. 2. If you must keep the adverb, think about the shading: Do you mean sharply or quickly? This shading is important because to speak sharply to someone is to be harsh or caustic. Based on the way you wrote the scene, and the fear with which D inspires, “quickly” fits better.

f) “…voice stabbing through his mind like an accumulation of a thousand thrown knives…”: 1. This is overkill. 2. Voices do not stab. People do. But, even if I suspend my disbelief long enough to allow for the possibility that telepathic communication could hurt, why would his love’s voice hurt him? Let’s dive deeper here. I think that what is hurting D is his inability to get to his love and that knowledge hurts him when he picks up her protestations telepathically. This is the core of the feeling.

g) “…sweltering rage…”: This description makes me think of The Hulk, another guy with anger management issues.

h) “Her unyielding sense to shadow her fear…”: What does this mean? I don’t understand it. “Shadow her fear…” does this mean that she is shielding her fear from D? If it does, then call it what it is: Shielding her fear. How is it sensible for her to shield her fear form the very man who can rescue her? It doesn’t matter what your intentions are past this page. I need to understand on this page why it is sensible for a woman to make it impossible for her lover to rescue her. I read that and I immediately think TSTL. This is not a good way to be introduced to a character.

i) “…piqued frustration…”: I think I understand why you chose to put these words together. But this shading isn’t needed. They are redundant here. D could be piqued (a feeling of irritation or resentment, as from a wound to pride or self-esteem: to be in a pique.) by her not opening up and frustrated that he can’t get to her or get through to her. And even then having made the plain, I find the combination redundant.

j) “…he popped his eyes open…”: Not needed. Simple is best. Simply write, :”He opened his eyes…”

k) “His voice was exerted and taut…”: First of all, really awkward construction. Voices aren’t exerted. Energy is. Voices aren’t taut, vocal chords are. What are you really trying to say here? Keep it simple. Perhaps you are trying to convey D’s anger? Worry? Need for a speedy answer? Need for action? If so, then describe that. And to do that, describe the look in D’s eyes, the color of his face - is his face red from all the blood rushing up there interfering with his thinking? If so, that is a livid face.

l) “…as he seized his fingers around…”: This is an incorrect use of the word seize. A person seizes an object. So, D seized that man’s throat. Or he crushes the metal collar, or he seizes the metal collar and pulls the man to him…

m) “…the metal brim of the guard’s collar,…”: This is an awkward use of the word brim. Rather, use rim, for it better describes the edge of a collar.

It took a lot of guts for you to put this excerpt up, I think you have a fine idea, your execution though does need some work. I wish you the best regarding the intereste displayed by the agency.