# Need help with my "semi-prologue"



## Reese (May 28, 2010)

The age of man loomed, and crawled like an infant amid the dust of the lands it coveted. Societies of man expanded and heralded conflict over relevancy and supremacy. Boarders, and the wills that pushed them met to drive violence before diplomacy. The will of men became so great that it evolved and transcended its presence on the world in a way that had never been seen before. It allowed some to impose this will on others through witchcraft and trickery.


This_ Power_ quickly became a curse. Their wielders— centuries before the name of Tibaron passed upon the lips of men— were persecuted for their tricks of the mind. Men and women were labeled as outcasts and driven to near extinction but for the staying hand of either god or fate. In their seclusion the latter years had been more kind and across the land they found solace in communities as priests and sages. A host of them came to represent the very gods whose names were once used to curse them.

Slowly ambition became entwined with the _Power_ to give birth to the Cult of the One. The Cult had dictated the traditions and mores of their flock and sought to use their sway as leverage against the king. They preached the sanctity of the One, while claiming protection against His antithesis, the Other. Since a hundred years past the Cult had grown in power and permeated their presence in the lives of soldier, merchant and peasant alike


Ambition takes many forms however, and the manifestation of a different type of will was nurtured in the cradle of Tibaron. A second generation of ambition was born to the expansionist King Casimar. The boy named Tolehmay soon grew to a man and the Cult’s use of the P_ower_ haunted his thoughts. Upon Casimar’s death, he expelled the great Cult of the One from his lands. His suspicions of the Cult’s intent fueled his machinations. He attempted to cut away the veil of religion from his people’s eyes. It was not their blindness he minded, but who fashioned this veil.

The king’s people impulsively welcomed his reformation and relished the gold previously meant as their tithe to the Cult. They rallied to their king, but they proved to be shortsighted with their loyalty. They were pawns, nudged by the fingertips of great forces that wished to influence their minds, holdings and obligations. Tolehmay fought not for them, but for their will to serve him, and only him.


_- Lombadahr, traveling wiseman and scribe of Nokloreem_, Chronicles of the Rise and Ruin of Tibaron, Foreword to Volume II


----------



## Mister URL (May 28, 2010)

*Review*

_I see some things I don't like, and a few SPaG problems. But it doesn't totally suck. I am not sure what other reviewers found, but this is what I see.

First, the paragraphs need spaces between them to make it easier to read. I have put them in below. I will put missing commas in red.

_


> The age of man loomed, like  an infant crawling in the dust of the land he coveted. _(I do not like this simile, an infant crawling would not loom. Perhaps the age of man crept or something.)_ Societies of men  expanded and heralded conflict over relevancy and supremacy. Boarders _(do you mean 'borders' instead of 'boarders'?)_ ,  and the wills that pushed them, met and drove violence before diplomacy.
> _(blank line)_
> A second generation of  ambition was born in the Piastic Wetlands of Tibaron. King Tolehmay,  nephew of the expansionist King Casimar, expelled the great Cult of the  One from his lands. His suspicions of the Cult’s intent fueled his  machinations and he attempted to cut away the veil of religion from his  people’s eyes. It was not their blindness he minded, but who fashioned  this veil.
> The king’s people  impulsively (_I would get rid of this adverb. It doesn't add anything, in my opinion.)_ welcomed his reformation and relished the gold previously  meant as their tithe to the Cult. They rallied to their king, but were  shortsighted with their loyalty. They were pawns, nudged by the  fingertips of great forces that wished to influence their minds,  holdings and obligations. Tolehmay fought not for them but for their  will to serve him, and only him.
> ...


_I can't say this grabs me. I am not a fan of swords n' sorcery, and it looks like this is headed that way. But that is just me. Keep doing what you want.





_


----------



## Linton Robinson (May 28, 2010)

> The age of man loomed, like an infant crawling in the dust of the land he coveted.



This sentence is a total trainwreck.  You're trying WAY to hard here.   The age of man?  Does that mean some epoch, or the age of the "he" at the end?

Infants covet land?    A crawling infant "looms"?    Needs a major overhaul.  I have trouble imagining anybody reading past that.


----------



## Reese (May 28, 2010)

"I do not like this simile, an infant crawling would not loom. Perhaps the age of man crept or something."


The infant may loom, if you were merely dirt that the infant crawled across. The point here is that the land was little more than dirt that mankind may move across as it seeks...seeks whatever man tends to seek as it moves forwards across a land that has yet to be explored. Like an infant, that has as of yet, explored nothing.


"I would get rid of this adverb. It doesn't add anything, in my opinion."


It was supposed to instinctively link with the metaphore of man as an infant exploring new lands. The naturely impulse of people to move forward, towards "greener pastures." Perhaps you're right, this entire mataphor must be re-written.


The lack of blank lines and indentation is just formatting. Plus, it's a prologue, who said it needs lines between paragraphs? 

"Infants covet land? A crawling infant "looms"? Needs a major overhaul. I have trouble imagining anybody reading past that.'

Men can be "infant-like" in their coveting of land.

Yes, I see, the entire metaphor has to be re-evaluated in terms of the words selected.

"I have trouble imagining anybody reading past that."

Yeah, I understand. But remember, it is just a prologue.

I will re-think the use of that metaphor and attempt to devise something better.


----------



## Linton Robinson (May 28, 2010)

I don't think we're going to be able to help you much.


----------



## Reese (May 29, 2010)

Yeah, for someone who stopped reading after "looms," then I'm not terribly surprised.


----------



## Tourniquet (May 29, 2010)

I think he's referring to the fact that you tried to write off every one of their (very valid) issues with your writing.  Why post it seeking advice if you just shoot it all down in favor of insisting you are correct?

Back on track - I think you're trying a bit too hard to write.  Just simplify it, and write with words that you are more, eh, comfortable using?


----------



## Reese (May 29, 2010)

I didn't really try to shoot anything down. The first sentence had issues. Was it so bad that someone couldn't read further than that?

I earnestly want feedback on this prologue. Maybe it's a shitty prologue. Maybe it shouldn't exist. Maybe the whole thing should be scrapped and re-written. That's why I came to this forum.


----------



## Linton Robinson (May 29, 2010)

It's a shitty prologue.  But my guess is, you don't believe that.


But, shitty and all, I did read most of it.   But the point is, if you've got people not reading by your first sentence, you've got problems.


And making excuses for problems doesn't solve them.


----------



## Reese (May 29, 2010)

So the fact that the first sentence had problems actually kept you from reading the rest of the whatever you've read? Wow, you must not have finished many books.

It's a mere 600 words, and you couldn't read it? Did I copy and paste 5000 words of inteligable nonsense that no one can decipher?

Christ, this forum has gone to shit when I have "lin" comment on it and not really read it.


----------



## Tourniquet (May 29, 2010)

He said he read most of it.  Plus, you asked for opinions or help reworking it.  He said it's shitty - basically, he's saying he doesn't like it and thinks you need to start over.  Writing isn't a hobby for those who cannot take criticism.


----------



## Linton Robinson (May 29, 2010)

No, I already said I read more.
Yes, people will stop reading if the first sentence is a trainwreck.
This is something that writers all realize or come to know.

Obviously I CAN read it, why SHOULD I?  Why would I want to read something poorly written and uninteresting?  It's not like anybody has an obvligation to read whatever crap somebody decides to write.

It's the writer's job to make their work readable.

If you have any intention of being a writer, it's not to soon to start figuring that out.

And when you're submitting work you don't get to stand there and make excuses and tell the editor he's full of shit.


If you're here to learn about writing, you can learn somethings here.
But YOU have to do the learning.  It's not up to the rest of the world to learn why they should like your stuff.


And I'm not the only one who has noticed this.  (Anybody who reads it would notice from the very first line that it's a trouble piece)  Others have said the same things, and you write them off in the same sophomoric fashion.


It's what you make of it.  Nobody else's problem or task.


----------



## Reese (May 29, 2010)

Ok, it's a piece of shit. I agree. No one likes it. I agree. It requires a dozen (or more) re-writes. I agree.

Tell me why. Tell me what you get from it and tell me what I need to do to make it better.


----------



## Like a Fox (May 30, 2010)

Reese, what I think you need to understand is people take the time to read your work, however short, and then put thought into giving you a helpful critique. You should appreciate this no matter what, and you should approach your own critiques around here thinking - How can I best help this person? We're all here to help each other, or should be, and you need to employ that attitude if you want to receive it. You're asking for a lot when you say "Tell me why. Tell me what you get from it and tell me what I need to do to make it better." That's work. I've just dedicated easily twenty minutes to reading and typing this up for you. That might not mean much, but it's more time than I've given to anything on the forum for a while.  I'm hoping this will encourage you to do the same for others.

First of all, the _Edit_ tool can help you reformat it. It's common courtesy on the forum to put a line break between paragraphs. Reading on screen is an ask in itself, why alienate people further?

Secondly, don't go saying your own work is a piece of shit. If you truly think that, why post it? That's classic self-deprecation to make it look like you didn't try. It's how I approach sports, but if you're serious about your writing, don't do this. It inspires no confidence. If you did try, then you should really want to hear what people have to say. If you didn't, then in future - do.

Now as to the writing – The sense of time is a bit convoluted here. I feel this is a lead up to the beginning, so this should feel chronological and it doesn’t. Starting with the simple past tense with “The age of man loomed” doesn’t help. When? Before all this other stuff, or is all this other stuff the description of the age of man looming?

I agree with what’s been said about the first line. If you pick up a book and read the very first sentence and it contains a mixed metaphor that is difficult to picture, do you really want to see what the next sentence holds? You have to seduce your reader, not make them work to understand you. In critique etiquette 101, it’s better not to try to defend it, just understand that it’s being misunderstood by more than one reader. That’s all you need to know. What you’re picturing might be right, the way you’re saying it isn’t getting through to us clearly. 

You say a lot of things that are vague. This is my novel-writing teacher’s favourite thing to pick on, and it does make you re-evaluate your words. I’ll pick out some things that I struggle to comprehend/picture.

Examples:
The age of man – is this about the age of human man? If so this could be forgiven based on whatever genre it falls into, but as it is it reads vague. Specifics are richer for the reader.

Societies of men expanded and heralded conflict over relevancy and supremacy – Choose one. Make it either relevancy or supremacy. If it’s both, then express it differently. Readers don’t want lists.

Boarders, and the wills that pushed them – I don’t think you mean boarders, and what do the wills that pushed them look like? Maybe it’s poetic but it becomes diluted in its ambiguity. It also reads a little passive. Even just changing it to - “The Borders, with their infamous wills pushing them to….” – makes it stronger.

generation of ambition – Again, this is poetic, but it ends up being a bit loose, hard to grasp.

influence their minds, holdings and obligations – Why the list? Just choose the strongest thing it influences. What are holdings and obligations? I’m not asking because I don’t know, but they’re just words here. 

dictated the traditions and mores of their flock – Again with two things, just choose one. It will read much stronger.

It was not their blindness he minded, but who fashioned this veil. – I don’t think ‘minded’ is the best word here. Pretty tame word for how you should portray how he feels about it.

I’m a bit lost with the tense you’ve used here. In general I’m a bit lost. The vocabulary feels unnecessarily verbose, and maybe that’s a stylistic choice. I don’t read a lot of this genre though I did when I was younger, and I absolutely wouldn’t have been able to plough through language like this. My mind is a bit ADD and my own writing features a simple vocab. I’m not saying you have to change that for me, but, I like one writer’s advice I received – Just use the word that first comes into your head. You can go back later and jazz it up a bit but this prologue has a thesaurus feel to it. And I hate reading something where I’m only getting the gist of a word. it makes me feel stupid, and I don’t want to look it up.

Now to the real bones. What are you trying to say with this prologue? Because I had to read it three times to really get a clear sense of what was happening. You’ve got names and places and time jumps here. I suggest you make sure it’s clear in your head. Write it down in dot point first. Then elaborate. Then add your poetic element to it, once you’re sure the meaning won’t be lost.

And my final point – Why have this prologue at all? I get that it gives a sense of history, but other than that – does it serve your story? Could the history not come out organically in the narrative? Is it absolutely necessary in this form, and if it is, can it not be simply the start of chapter one?

So there's my two cents. I apologise if it seems a little harsh and of course all my suggestions are merely suggestions. It is what I would do were it my work. I agree mostly that this is hard to get through because I think you need to loosen up a little when you're writing. Respect simplicity, sometimes it is the most powerful thing, and I really do like your penchant for poetry - I'm not sure if you're aware of it. You have the power to work it nicely through this, but use it wisely.


----------



## The Backward OX (May 30, 2010)

[ot]





Like a Fox said:


> I hate reading something where I’m only getting the gist of a word. it makes me feel stupid, and I don’t want to look it up.


Are you saying then that all writers should dumb down their writing to the lowest common denominator? That's sure what it sounds like from here. I thought people stretched their vocabularies by reading. Why for example should I not use a word like antediluvian simply because someone who picks up my book may not know the word? Phooey. As it happens, I probably wouldn't use it, but that's not the point.
[/ot]


----------



## Like a Fox (May 30, 2010)

*sigh* I go right on to say that Reese shouldn't have to change that for me. It's a comment that makes sense in context. For the record I can stand the word or two I don't know. A piece of writing that is littered with them, where I have to check to make sure I have the meaning right, I find tiresome. That was my point, and you know that. 

Sorry for the derail Reese.


----------



## Linton Robinson (May 30, 2010)

> As it happens, I probably wouldn't use it,



Odd, because I've always thought of you as an antedeluvian kind of guy.


----------



## The Backward OX (May 30, 2010)

Haha


----------



## Vaecrius (Jun 5, 2010)

Hey Reese,

A friend linked this to me and asked for my opinion and I thought I'd take a stab at suggesting what could be changed. At the very real risk of coming off as an incontinent n00b and tainting my good name forever, here is the result:



> King Casimar began a great campaign to expand his territory in the wetlands of Tibaron. When his nephew Tolemhay succeeded him, he took pains to secure the control his uncle had established and in his efforts expelled the great Cult of the One.
> 
> The king’s people welcomed his reformation and their newfound wealth, free of the tithes and moral diktats of the Cult. Over many generations the Cult had leveraged their influence against the king, whom they in their treason identified with the unholy Other, fit only to be vanquished by the One and His holy light.
> 
> ...



Stuff I changed:


 I'll counter-assert that a prologue shouldn't be "vague" so much as able to give the reader a very basic idea of the initial setup of the story without giving too much away. Yes, I'm also asserting that there is a difference there.
 With that in mind: The original first sentence was utterly baffling even when I understood its intent, while telling me nothing about the setting or the characters. Gone.
 I also got rid of the generic blah-blah-blah about a time of power struggles and whatnot. There is simply no need for it because any history talking about kings and expansion and stuff would imply it.
 I notice I've incidentally gotten rid of all the "man" (e.g., "age of man") language, which is just as well since I personally find it cringe-inducing.
 I've changed or gotten rid of the sentences that had an abstract entity as the subject. The sole exception is the Cult which is basically a character in its own right. (the Christian Church in real life has long been considered its own person, distinct from the sum of its members, and of course there are corporations that follow the same principle.)
 Name change: "Piastic" looks too much like "Plastic" and it seems awkward. If the word actually means something, feel free to add it back in.
 Name change: I've changed "Tolehmay" to "Tolemhay". It just has a nicer ring to it, possibly because of the resemblance to actual attested names "Ptolemy" and "Tecumseh" (and also because all the sounds are found in English and the name is thus less likely to trip up someone who just wants to read a decent sword-and-sorcery adventure without learning a whole new conlang). I assume there's no already-well-defined ethnolinguistic background for the form "Tolehmay", and if there is I apologize for my haste.
 I made a few assumptions about the chronology of Casimar's expansion and Tolemhay's expulsion of the Cult. If it isn't a simple sequence as I've made it out to be, it should be easy enough to edit accordingly.
 I got rid of the stuff about shortsightedness and pawns since it seemed awkward and very much "tell not show" in its morally judgmental tone. However, I do recognize this could be a writing schtick held by Lombadahr as an unreliable narrator in which case I suppose you could put that stuff back in as it was.
 I've used "oath-breaker" instead of "warlock" since otherwise it seems like you're just naively thinking "witches are women so the male form is warlock" which I'm sure was not your intent. 
 The "driven to extinction" part almost made it sound like you were talking about wolves or something rather than people, so I took that wording out.
 The rest is just sorta me re-splicing and re-slicing the content into sentences I felt to run a bit more smoothly.

I like the premise of the story, though. Lots of neat little references to religion and philosophy cleverly tucked away even in the Cult's basic premise and function. I really dig the dichotomy between the implicitly patriarchal One and the alien Other and the complexities (or perhaps just irony) of the King figure being the main opponent against that construct. [/pale fire]

Hope all that turns out helpful somehow.


Matt
(woooo first post)


----------



## Reese (Jun 5, 2010)

Like a Fox and Vaecrius, I appreciate your critique. Thank you for the the time you took to read it.

From both of your suggestions, I can see that I attempted to fit too much into the medium intended for the this particular type of prologue. I am not an overly verbose writer. I try to get to the point and capture how that particular person is feeling in that exact situation.

It doesn't make well for an over-encompassing prologue that tries to sum up a "history" of what exactly is going on. I jumped around a lot. It was just meant to be a recap of...well, I guess of what happened in Foreword I. Just a "quikie." But as an introduction to the reader, I can see how it is inefficient.

Vaecrius, very well written. I like your piece. Written much more eloquently than mine!


----------



## Stardog (Jun 7, 2010)

Reese said:


> Yeah, for someone who stopped reading after "looms," then I'm not terribly surprised.


An agent wouldn't. :-#


----------



## MrDeadman (Jun 7, 2010)

I actually didn't mind the "age of man" part. After reading a lot of Greek mythology, age of man meant only one thing. It points out not just an epoch, but a long, expanding epochs in which man walk the Earth. However, there were some issues with clarity. In the beginning it is mentioned that the Cult is thrown out from the land because of their religion, but "His suspicions of the Cult’s intent fueled his machinations and he attempted to cut away the veil of religion from his people’s eyes." in this line did you mean "cult's religion, or their religion"? A king would be wise to establish some sort of religion, whether from established myths and traditions of long before, an alternat interpretation of a preexisting belief, and ect... so that he could build laws from, control people, or just have some sort of base as to how his people would live.


----------



## Vaecrius (Jun 8, 2010)

My reading of that, in context, was that the Cult _was_ the dominant religion of Tibaron after generations of wide and deliberate proselytization, and the king wanted to bring the country back to its pagan or secular (or both) roots. I can see a lot of parallels between this and both Rome as it was being Christianized and a lot of modern-day politics (North America, Middle East, Africa, SEA,...).

But without that context it seems almost like the king was a hardline Hitchens-style atheist.


----------



## garza (Jun 8, 2010)

It's not a matter of dumbing down. Remember what Twain said about the difference between the right word and almost the right word is the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug. When a word that is not quite right shows up in a sentence, the sense of the sentence is tilted. A chief cause of the problem is the use of the thesaurus. I don't believe in burning books but if I were forced to choose one to burn it would be the thesaurus.


----------



## Eiji Tunsinagi (Jun 9, 2010)

For some reason I get the impression this is not the voice you should be using for this work.  I feel that you do know what you're going for with this prologue (an epic scale) -- but -- is that really the voice you want to be using?  Haven't we seen that before?  Think about the prologue from a marketing standpoint.  Do you want to do something really well that everyone is familiar with, or do you want to do something really well that is shocking and unique (unfortunately, not this (at least to me) -- and, at least, not yet.) -- I'm not saying the content should change, simply, maybe the presentation?  I know the best critique provides no personal opinion and is solely regarding spelling/structure/grammatical etc -- but, I want to see some honestly unique writing.  That's what is important.


stephen


----------



## Reese (Jun 17, 2010)

I refined it. I tried to streamline it a bit in the original post, and make it lead towards a central point. Opinions?

Bleh, I can't help but read it as a pos.

1) Man has just emerged on land (a tricky thing to pull off)

2) The "will" of man evolved into the _Power_

3) This _Power_ turned into the Cult of the One

4) There was a king that sought to fight this Cult of the One

I hate prologues.


----------



## Reese (Jun 17, 2010)

"Haven't we seen that before? Think about the prologue from a marketing standpoint. Do you want to do something really well that everyone is familiar with, or do you want to do something really well that is shocking and unique"

Yeah, I guess so. I was given free reign with the prologue to really turn it into...something. I suppose I'm failing. It's supposed to provide the perspective of a person outside of the scope of the original story. It was supposed to be broad. It was supposed to provide context on a grand scale. That's why I used Lombadahr, the traveling scribe, who was documenting the age before the actual story.

I guess I fail with my "grand scope."


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 20, 2010)

The question here is whether you _need_ to establish the grand scale in the first place. The story itself could be a much better place to establish that scale, with a sense of historical depth and big events.



Whatever the reason, I would not read past this prologue if I picked the book up in a store. There are some glaring errors of word use, as well as a lot of info-dumping--and irrelevant and contextless infodumping at that.

As an example of poor word use, the direct object of "permeated" is "the lives of...". It does not take another object like "their presence". The correct way to write that sentence would be "the cult had permeated the lives of..." which implies its presence and clears up the mistake.  It's generally better not to use a word you don't entirely understand.

As far as irrelevancy, none of the information of the prolog means anything to me, because I can't view it from the perspective of any characters, or from immediate knowledge of the present world in the story.  If the prolog does not contain information with an obvious significance to the plot, it's probably better to just start the main story and do away with the prolog entirely.

My final question is: Why would you write a prologue if you hate them so much?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 20, 2010)

I once congratulated Sam W on one of his titles and said how effective I always found them. he came back and thanked me and said that he always took the greatest pains over the title and the first line, he is right. It is not "only a prologue", it is the introduction to the rest of the book, the thing people read first.
From the general to the particular.


> The age of man loomed, and crawled like an infant amid the dust of the lands it coveted​



The object of the sentence is "The age of man", it cannot crawl and it cannot covet, man does that, try:-

The age of man loomed, as he crawled like an infant amid the dust of the lands he coveted.

Personally I don't like the pretentious style that seems to be de rigeur for fantasy, but at least it makes sense.


> Societies of man expanded and heralded conflict over relevancy and supremacy


I would then cut this second sentence to:-

Societies expanded, heralding conflict.

Well, we are not talking merecat societies are we, and what are societies always in conflict about?

I would go through it reducing it as much as possible in similar ways, then I would make sure I had not cut anything essential. It will also be easier to see if anything is left out without so much dead wood in it.

Of course everyone has their own way of going about things, but I would hold that the first bit that people read needs the greatest attention in order to draw them in, by page 150 they may forgive you a bit to find out what happened, at the beginning they will put the book back down.


----------

