|
Post by Emily on Oct 22, 2006 5:47:00 GMT -5
(Eaky, you sure know how to play your brownie points up!)
Ooooh! We should make a specific thread for the Wedding. Unless everyone is happy replying/making arrangements in various other threads ;D
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 22, 2006 8:57:50 GMT -5
This is my first review, so I don't know if I'm doing it right. I didn't find much criteria for how a review is supposed to be done, so I'll just wing it.
The story, in my opinion, is about the love between King Lion and his girlfriend Princess Okapi, and how their advisors try to use that love to take their respective thrones. I think that its purpose is to entertain through comedy, and I think your intended audience is your fellow guildians (and most likely the ones around your age, 15 or so).
Upon the basis of my preceding assumptions, I think that your story is very cute and ultimately mildly enjoyable. While it's never really funny, it is always fun, even if it does fall a little flat.
My chief problem is one of characterization. I think you've neglected your characters to move the plot forward, and you just offer some weak descriptions of them that don't hold true when taken into context with the way they act. The King is described as "wise", "egocentric and narcissistic, and well aware of his intellect", but nothing he does thereafter supports this. We are told that he and the princess love each other, but you give us no reason why they do or should, and seem at best very mildly indifferent to each other (The King doesn't even express relief that she's alive). We are told that the Vizier is intelligent and cunning, but he doesn't have the common sense to see how fundamentally flawed his plan is, or to realize that telling the truth about what he's done is not going to end well for him. In short, we are told too much, and shown too little. It seems that you just negligently get the character development out of the way by just giving us a bunch of adjectives that might as well be applied to cardboard cutouts, because that's what these four characters amount to.
On the bright side, it is very clear to see that you can do much better than this. Your intelligence oozes through with tidbits of your undoubtedly varied vocabulary, and it takes a keen sense of humor to know that you can make things funny by playing with your words instead of through your characters and their actions, even though the jokes often didn't work well, and when they did just elicited an "Oh, that's funny" instead of an actual laugh.
Another plus of this piece is the unintentional insight I feel I am getting into you. From the moment I read the first paragraph I felt that this story was less a story about those four characters and more a story about you. To me, the King Lion is you, and like him you are wise, you are egocentric and narcissistic, and well aware of your intellect. At least, that's what you present to us. But like the description of the King Lion, you are only using that to make yourself seem more interesting, but your intentions fall flat on both counts, because there is no real truth behind it.
I could just be blowing smoke from my rear, though. And I'm not trying to be mean when I say this. In fact, quite the opposite, I think that it humanizes you.
Anyway, in conclusion, I think that rounding out your characters will certainly aid in making this a more enjoyable read, and with just a little more of your "acumen" you get this story across that line from fun and funny. A noble effort nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by johnsapphire on Oct 22, 2006 13:27:07 GMT -5
*applauds*
My, Pesto, you certainly can attempt to give a review! I'm glad you picked up on my highlighting King Lion's positive features. I added those in after I finished writing the story because I liked his character.
JS
The most prolific writer here
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 22, 2006 14:38:37 GMT -5
lmao. Your current sig is hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by johnsapphire on Oct 31, 2006 16:22:30 GMT -5
I like including people in my signatures...
|
|
|
Post by eakyra on Oct 31, 2006 21:30:25 GMT -5
He booted his fiance to put you there Pesty, what a great honor. Just kidding...
|
|
|
Post by johnsapphire on Nov 1, 2006 18:20:42 GMT -5
And I'm going to boot you off in just a moment anyway...
|
|
|
Post by eakyra on Nov 1, 2006 21:00:09 GMT -5
*is stunned*
WHY?
|
|
|
Post by Cy Skywalker on Nov 3, 2006 15:59:54 GMT -5
Pretty good prose, excellent vocabulary.
"The same kingdom, in fact, that accommodated the princess whom King Fox was so very in love with. " King Lion, you mean.
"He had just settled into his favorite plotting chair next to the fire the steward of the castle informed him that a young girl had arrived to see the king." favorite plotting chair, lol! Nice characterization. You do need a when in 'He had just settled in...next to the fire (when) the steward of the castle'.
"the shaken Vizier asked her, spilling the tea he had been drinking on his third-best suit, which he happened to be wearing at the time the story takes place, which often happens when someone is introduced to someone else that a third someone informed the first someone was dead." This has strains of nice humor in it but runs on. The "which often happens when someone is introduced to someone else that a third someone informed the first someone was dead." is confusing and purposefull for humor by itself, so I'd make it a separate sentence or get rid of the "which he happened to be wearing at the time the story takes place" which has a "well yeah" factor going on.
"my kingdom does not permit women to come of age, marry, hold property, depart on quests, and participate in other such interesting matters until they are fifty.”" Funny! I mean sad at first, but then the outrageousness comes into it.
"at the time this story takes place, before the action of the story, currently located in King Lion’s Queendom, could continue." WELL YEAH...This sequence has humorous possibility but too many phrases. What do you mean by King Lion's Queendom? Ok, perhaps it is about the "queendom-quondam"--but why do you say that your historical accuracy is wrong if it's a fantasy and no one's going to care if you don't mention it? Obviously it is a kingdom, because King Lion is king of it. Keep your terms consistent to solidify the fictional world.
Hmm....so it is a moral tale, about how duplicity gets messed up. I think. Pretty good. I can picture the animal characters as anthropomorphic, though everything is tainted a little with Disney "The Lion King" feel because you don't describe in detail. Surely you did not want to because the purpose of the story wasn't really to be a fantasy at all. ?
Your characterization fails a little at the ending dialogue--though the plot itself is nicely complicated and classic, reactions are not realistic and perhaps this is why the apparent moral doesn't shine through. Of course, I could be getting the moral or wrong. Like Pestilence said, Lion's character doesn't appear in how he reacts with relief to Okapi being alive or in how he feels about the Fox who was once apparently loyal, or how he decides what to do with them. He seems a little daft, actually, going off without supplies and then being passive in the midst of all this. What do the Foxes feel about their demise? Fox who serves Lion is really really plain about admitting he plotted to kill the king, which is not in his wily character.
Hope that helped.
|
|
|
Post by johnsapphire on Nov 12, 2006 13:55:40 GMT -5
I love reviews. Keep it up!
|
|
|
Post by jollymcjollyson on Dec 1, 2006 12:29:16 GMT -5
I felt that most of the word choice seemed very forced. Like a thesaurus had been used every ten words or so rather than a mind, and that the thesaurus word had been taken as an exact synonym with the original word.
"The same kingdom that accomodated the princess" for instance, is a very strange use of that word.
"This king was known for his wisdom, and much sought after for his acumen. Unfortunately, he was both egocentric and narcissistic, and well aware of his intellect." -Why have wisdom and acument in the same sentence like that? It's a little bulky. Similarly, egocentrism and narcissism are similar enough that narcissistic alone would MORE than suffice.
|
|