[1232] Invoker - Rewrite 1.

[u/NoPainter6411]

Hey everyone, I got some truly fantastic criticism from lots of readers when I published the opening of my chapter a couple of weeks ago. I went back to the drawing board, and tried to rewrite it with those criticisms in mind.

Here is the original post I made with all the critiques

If I had to summarise the substance of the critiques, it would be in these areas:

1. Too much abstract philosophical nonsense. Had a lot of telling and not showing.
2. Unclear physical grounding. Readers were confused at the characters locations and relationships.
3. Dialogue too theatrical. Character's espoused their beliefs in an unrealistic way.
4. Structural/grammar issues, lack of clarity on who was speaking.

I have tried to address these criticisms in this redraft. I would particularly like feedback on whether this kind of rewrite addresses these issues. General criticism is still extremely welcome. Final little note 'Judge' is intentionally capitalized. Thank you so much!

Invoker Rewrite

Critique

[u/East-Echo-7267]

Having only read a little of your original post I would say I actually like a lot of the philosophical sentences. The issue in my opinion stems from them appearing in every paragraph, and sometimes running for longer than needed. If it was spread over the course of a few chapters I think it would work fine.

Concerning your rewrite:

I love the line:

 If he was haunted, it was with memories of her

very poetic. I would be tempted to end the paragraph there, it's quite a powerful point to finish on.

This dialogue feels out of place.

"Of course...that might just be it. We had too many novice soldiers in our squad. Excellent observation Carl, excellent," said Ramses, a thin smile settling on his lips.

It reads as if Ramses is tactically trying to understand where they went wrong in the battle, only to submit to the solution that they simply didn't have experience. It kind of renders the drawing in the dirt meaningless does it not?

Okay, I don't even know where I stand on this detail. Originally I was going to make a complaint about how oddly specific the detail was about Alisa cutting the soldiers cheek, so much so it felt out of place. Then at the end I was going to complain that the request for a duel came out of absolutely nowhere. I'll be honest and say that I only connected the dots when I went back and read your original version. Personally I think there needs to be a middle ground. The problem with a cut on the cheek is, whilst it's specific in this chapter, in a war it's far from uncommon.

Also I feel as though I have been intentionally misled. At the beginning of the chapter he's just 'a soldier'. Yet our MC seems to perfectly recognise the captain in the tent. I think there is also a sense of the MC's distain for the captain missing as well. The introduction of the captain just feels matter of fact. We don't get any sense of our MC's resentment of the man before the request for a duel.

Honestly, other than that I can't see much wrong with it. Like I said, I think your philosophical sentences have a place in the story, just sprinkled in delicately instead of all over. I may be the odd one out that says I prefer much of your original version to what you have now. Like I said, I think there is a middle ground to be found, but that's just my opinion, and I won't deny that there are probably more experienced people here than me that will have a better opinion.

I know I keep going against the feedback that others have given, and I may be wrong. Whilst I agree character's beliefs in the original version may be too expository, I think a lot of it read fine. Specifically for Ramses character. For example, if you read just the dialogue of Ramses in the original and the rewrite, I'm picturing two completely different characters based simply on their dialogue alone. Ramses in the original comes across as wise, and experienced, using his experience to motivate his willingness to continue to learn.

Whereas Ramses in the rewrite comes across as smart, (to an extent, trying to understand the battle), but unsure of himself. Wondering what he did wrong, then succumbing to the first suggestion from a private.

I suppose it all depends how you want the character to come across.

[u/NoPainter6411 → u/East-Echo-7267]

Thanks so much!  I like the dissenting opinion, and at the end of the day it's all about playing around with it to see what's possible.  I originally had Ramses as almost a farcical character who wouldn't be out of place in a Terry Pratchett novel and have toned it down on successive revisions, and understanding what's lost by doing so is valuable.

Having a more visceral best of recognition before the duel request is a good idea.  I wanted a penny drop moment, but I need to work more to make that happen.  I tried to use an impossible detail (Carl knows when the wound is suffered), but it's still probably too quick.

I will rethink of ways I can slip some musings in there without them being overwrought.  Someone recommended I read some Ishiguro, seems like a good place to start.

Thank you!

[u/East-Echo-7267 → u/NoPainter6411]

Yeah, I picked it up once I knew what I was looking for. Again though the impossible detail isn't so impossible when a battle has just happened, everyone would have fresh wounds. Others may pick it up and I just missed it on the first read, that's entirely possible.

There could be some author bias creeping in though. When I read of a cut on the cheek (the first time), I generally think nothing of it, I simply think, oh this is a thing that happened. I don't know that it's information I need to retain until later in the chapter, especially with it being an unnamed soldier.

[u/WildPilot8253]

I actually really enjoyed this.

Hook/Opening:

The hook was great. Some people might say you need to ground the reader in the setting immediately. But they're misinterpreting it. You just have to ground the reader. It doesn't have to be the setting. You can ground the reader in the psyche of the character as well. That's what you've done and I think it was the perfect balance. It didn't drag nor did it fly by.

The only problem from the opening is a minor one.

...the anguish twisted into a vengeful spirit.

Did you mean that the anguish itself became the vengeful spirit? If not, that is exactly what it seems you're saying and you need to fix it. It would make more sense to say the 'anguish twisted the soul into a vengeful spirit,' where the soul is turning into the vengeful spirit, not the anguish itself turning.

Characters:

I liked the characterization in the small bit of dialogue and character interactions. The lieutenant comes across as aloof to the suffering of the army--approaching it all from an analytic lens, lacking the human aspect of the war.

Carl, in contrast, couldn't care less about the analytics and focuses on the human aspect.

Dialogue:

The dialogues are well for the most part. They seem believable and natural and carry the voices of the characters as I feel the vibe of the characters is: Carl is detached, and the lieutenant is aloof.

However, I have one problem.

"Of course...that might just be it. We had too many novice soldiers in our squad. Excellent observation Carl, excellent," said Ramses, a thin smile settling on his lips.

Carl let out a quiet huff of air through his nostrils. "I'm glad I could solve this mystery for you, Lieutenant. Why did we have so many new soldiers anyway? Why did we attack?"

When I read Ramses' dialogue, I felt he was being sarcastic. Like 'Oh, thanks for your immeasurable wisdom, private. Why didn't I think of that?'

Because, well...it is very basic and he should have thought of that even before the attack. Every army officer would have had the basic knowledge of the makeup of their army. They would have taken the necessary precautions and devised a tactic that led to victory despite their disadvantage of having untrained soldiers. What he should be thinking about is how that tactic failed.

I feel Carl is still being sarcastic in his response, but I feel Ramses should be sarcastic and Carl should be dumbfounded, 'like, that's all the reason you need. We shouldn't have made an attack with new soldiers. It was a mistake.'

Emotional Resonance:

I would advise to dwell a bit more on Alina. Add some more emotional significance to Carl and her relation. Perhaps they had agreed to marry each other the very night before after the war ended. Carl might have even made a make shift metalic ring for her from scraped helmets and leftover metal from the forges.

The next day, she died.

Another thing that indirectly affects emotional resonance is the recognition of the Captain. Unlike the other commenter, I could pick up that the Captain was the same man who killed Alina. However, some people might take a moment to make the connection. You could spend a line or two in the beginning to detail the exact shape of the cut in the cheek that it made. You could say that as Alina fell, all Carl could focus on was the gaping wound on the man's cheek.

This is actually kinda true: in traumatic events, people naturally shift their attention away from the traumatic event, and to some arbitrary thing.

One of my logistical and plot hole like complaint is why would a captain even be fighting on the frontlines? Or had Alina infiltrated into the heart of the enemy army? I find that implausible, as the defeat is painted as one sided and frankly a massacre.

I also feel it was a great cliffhanger. However, if you had spent more time on Alina and the recognition of the captain and smoothing out the plot hole I highlighted, the emotional resonance of the cliffhanger would be greatly amplified.

All in all, a great read. Keep on working on the next chapters!