The Wanderer's Library
Collections
Browse…
Community
Join & Create!
This is my new tale about a warrior on a journey to overthrow the Truth that is ruling the world. It also uses some terms from my previous tale (link included in the post), I hope you can read it if you haven't read it yet. The tale is quite long, but I hope everyone will read it and give me advices. Thank you.
Here is the sandbox: http://wanderers-sandbox-2.wikidot.com/the-sword-cut-off-the-truth
I've quoted some of the lines in your story, adding advice where I see fit. I'm still new to giving crit, so take my points with a grain of salt.
Crossed out portions I think should be removed, and I underlined words I added.
on the opposite side, similar powerful individuals on the side of Evil are called the 72 Demon Kings
We already know the opposite side is evil, so you don't really need to specify that again.
These are the main fighting forces of both sides, and if this force on one side is completely destroyed, the end of the battle is almost certain, however, every time a person using Authority on one side is destroyed, immediately a replacement on the same side will appear.
Too much use of the word "side". I feel like there are, perhaps, more interesting ways to illustrate the duality between the two forces.
Also, wouldn't it be, "the end of a battle is almost certain," (not "the") as there are multiple battles going on, I presume?
In the pitch-black night of turmoil, there once shone a brilliant light[…]He became a beacon of hope, the sole person instilling the belief that he would bring an end to this world's endless, unyielding war.
Just noting that I think the final paragraph of the introduction leaves things off on a pretty decent note; the prose here is good.
Even though I am the child of two Saints of the Good side, I carry within me something I should not have, one of the seven original sins that the Hell's Princes embody: the great sin called Wrath.
This is an interesting concept, but one thing that I didn't really see answered here is "why". Why does Ash embody wrath? Was King David or his mother is some way, wrathful? — even moreso than the other warriors of their nation? This should be answered.
I am Ash, son of Undefeated Saint King David
Question: Does the name "Ash" symbolize something? That he was, perhaps, born to burn everything down, like a wildfire? If so, this symbolism could be explored more.
An existence full of flaws, violating the priciple of the universe, makes me shunned and hated by everyone.
I feel like this more telling instead of showing. We never really see examples of people hating him, or how this has shaped him. Also noting that "principle" is misspelt.
To do that, I decide to become an enemy of both sides. I declare my feat of defeating the Invincible Holy King, and then hunt down the remaining 2 Princes of Hell.
Earlier, it was stated that every time a leader on one side died, they were quickly replaced. So why are there only 2 remaining Princes of Hell? Were the other five permanently killed when they fought David? This needs to be made clear.
Yo, Truth. I have come to destroy you. Could you please jump down and take the punishment?
Use of a modern word like "Yo" is completely immersion-breaking. I feel like the MC is too sarcastic here. saying "please" and such. It just doesn't match the rest of the tone here. Similar issues with the next line of dialogue…
Well, okay. Anyway,
Words like "Okay" don't work. It just feels too casual. Most of the tone up until this point has been solid, but this casual style of dialogue isn't working for me.
Don't joke with me! - I roared angrily
It is already clear that he is angry.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Maybe this is intentional, but I find Ash a bit hypocritical, since he is doing the same thing both sides are doing, which is fighting. I get that he thinks the good side is "self-righteous", but what is driving him to be so neutral? If the Evil side is truly wicked, I see no reason for someone not to hate them more. We need stronger characterization for both sides, because right now the two nations feel like abstract concepts rather than tangible cultures.
And since both Good and Evil dispositions seem to be immutable, genetically-inherited characteristics, it would make more sense for Ash to have one parent from each faction, making him a half-breed, a truly neutral force. If not, he should be somewhat biased towards good.
Really thank you for your critique and feedback, I will improve my tale based on your comments.
About some of your question, I will explain a bit.
Maybe this is intentional, but I find Ash a bit hypocritical, since he is doing the same thing both sides are doing, which is fighting.
Well, Ash has never been a good or at least moral person. In fact, he fights them all is simply because he hates them all, and he even hates himself for it.
We need stronger characterization for both sides, because right now the two nations feel like abstract concepts rather than tangible cultures.
Err, actually I was deliberately trying to portray these two side as abstract forces. I understand you wanting to add a description of the forces on both sides, and I wanted to do that, but the tale got too long so I decided to shelve that.
And since both Good and Evil dispositions seem to be immutable, genetically-inherited characteristics, it would make more sense for Ash to have one parent from each faction, making him a half-breed, a truly neutral force. If not, he should be somewhat biased towards good.
In fact, good and evil characteristics are not inherited. As you can see at the end, Avesta colors the highlights haphazardly and without any rules. So it's completely possible for children and parents to be on two different sides, not just for Ash. I also thought about having Ash's parents come from both sides, but I gave up on that thought, because the situation was always that the two sides were forced to fight, so there was no reason for them to love each other. Plus, Ash was neutral from the beginning, because he is the Truth beyond the rule of the world, not an ordinary human.
This is an interesting concept, but one thing that I didn't really see answered here is "why". Why does Ash embody wrath? Was King David or his mother is some way, wrathful? — even moreso than the other warriors of their nation? This should be answered.
Actually it has already been answered in the tale. Ash is originally the Truth of Wrath, so his Law guise is Wrath, it has to be.
I feel like this more telling instead of showing. We never really see examples of people hating him, or how this has shaped him. Also noting that "principle" is misspelt.
It was shown that he was kidnapped, subjected to an assassination attempt, and after escaping he was abandoned and had to survive on his own for many years. And I'm sorry about the misspelt.
Earlier, it was stated that every time a leader on one side died, they were quickly replaced. So why are there only 2 remaining Princes of Hell? Were the other five permanently killed when they fought David? This needs to be made clear.
In fact, supplementation is about quantity, not quality. 5 dead Authority owners will be replaced by 5 new owners on the same side, but that doesn't mean the power of these 5 new people will be at the Princes of Hell level like the old 5 people.
The response is a bit long, sorry if that upsets you, I just wanted to clarify some easily misunderstood things in the article. Again, thanks for your comment.
Err, actually I was deliberately trying to portray these two side as abstract forces.
Definitely fair, though I do still feel like they are described at such a distance that it is harder for me to relate.
In fact, good and evil characteristics are not inherited. […] So it's completely possible for children and parents to be on two different sides, not just for Ash.
Would it be possible for this to be explained in the introduction? Right now, I feel like this could be clearer.
I do think that this tidbit has intresting implications though, such as evil children being born to good parents or vice versa. This may add depth to you story if that is explored more.
Actually it has already been answered in the tale. Ash is originally the Truth of Wrath, so his Law guise is Wrath, it has to be.
I admittedly missed that on my first read through.
It was shown that he was kidnapped, subjected to an assassination attempt
Being the victim of an assassination attempt does not necessary make one an outcast, just a controversial figure. Abraham Lincoln, for example, had a lot of haters (hence, he was killed), but he was still a part of society. I want to see more examples of Ash interacting with the general population and being chased away, scornfully rejected, etc. Alternatively you could state that the assassination was staged by the whold nation, which would make it clear they all hate him.
In fact, supplementation is about quantity, not quality. 5 dead Authority owners will be replaced by 5 new owners on the same side, but that doesn't mean the power of these 5 new people will be at the Princes of Hell level like the old 5 people.
You seem to have the world building figured out, which is good. Just make sure to put it in the story, because right now the intro only says "they will be replaced", which is vague compared to the explaination here.
Understood, thank you for your comments. I will add what you requested to my tale.
Oh, by the way, regarding the clear description of the two sides Good and Evil, my vague description also implies that the two sides are no different in terms of force, shape, ideology,… The only thing that set them apart was the faction they belonged to, but just because of that they had to constantly fight each other. No different from real-life wars. I hope readers can feel that subtext.
