I can also see why Kilo recommended you to contact me, our stories share several traits and we also seem to focus on the same things. We both start the same way, with the end and the story itself being narrated; in your case, mainly through the deciphered letters, in mine, through one man telling the other. The old lady and the consul have a function very similar to that of the old man and the priest in my case. You have done your characters well, and though I don’t know much about them, I and probably most readers got quite deeply invested in them. And because we care about them, that makes us care about what happened to them that made them end up where they are.
They both have a past that has shaped them and we really want to know what it is. What did Avle do that made such a great impression on the Etruscans and the Romans? What caused his dramatic fall? Did the consul fight the Etruscans in his youth? What is causing him to act the way he does?
I also loved your numerous nods to history, such as the chimera, that make the world you are building so much richer. You did it well so far, they were placed perfectly and thus did not come off as forced.
The most significant information that every reader gets from your prologue is an implicit one: The story to come has consequences. We see some of them in the characters of the prologue; decades after the events came to pass.
One of the paths to not accomplishing anything is wanting too much and not being able to sacrifice one thing for the other. It seems so far that you’ve been good at avoiding that peril.
Obviously everything we do comes with trade-offs. As you correctly noted in my thread, we both struggle with our beginnings. It’s due to two things: Both of our story seem more character- than plotdriven, which automatically slows the start down significantly, and we both have a rather complex narration that automatically makes for a slower start but can also result in a much higher reward. I can’t recommend you anything to speed this up, especially given that I’m struggling the same way you do. The same measures to limit the exposition which I’m employing extensively I see also done in your story.
Everything in your story so far seems to have a purpose, your titles catch our interest and are reflected in the texts below (“the tallest poppies” being my favourite title because of the dark turn: “…are the first to be cut down”).
You are also doing control of information a lot, which I also like, and the amount of redundant information is being kept to a minimum. You are leaving the reader with some open questions, which I also like. Those ensure the reader keeps his interest. Control of information might perhaps be the only thing you should maybe emphasize more, but not necessarily, as the accompanying ambience and such minor storylines as the broken wrist are doing a wonderful job.
Your chapters/parts also have an internal structure and are dealing with one major issue at a time. Every part thus serves a purpose, and often with a clear ending.
I see the purpose, structure and control of information, title, pacing all best exemplified in chapter one.
Main storyline: Avle explains to us in the beginning he’s dealing with a dilemma. What is his oath? We do not know, but we look forward to finding out. At the very end he informs us he’s decided to break his oath to save his brother.
Secondary story: We’re informed in a perfect way about his wrist, and are wondering how that came to be. At the end we find why, and this also feeds back to the main story, as that accident helped him make his decision. The same wrist is also used for continuation in part 3, which makes it just perfect.
You are also avoiding expositions, which is also the same choice I made, and are providing the information along the way; which again is a good way of doing all of this, and you are doing this in a rather elegant way that simultaneously adds to the ambience and enriches our understanding of the ancient world.
This is perhaps another thing you could emphasize more on and build more on.
Which is where I’d come to my
first criticism: Dramatis personae in the introduction.
I’m not a huge fan of those. Even though they aren’t part of the text itself, they do make for some sort of exposition and prolong the text. The persons are hard to remember from the original post down to where they are introduced, and it informs us maybe of a bit too much in a bit too blunt way. So now for instance we already know Brennus is the main antagonist in Book 1. I’d rather infer that from the text alone, as he’d be built up accordingly to a menace. Which you do later on.
The first chapter on the other hand could use the same kind of recap as the others, mainly because I’d already forgotten who Arnth was by the time I was reading chapter 1.
We were informed about him in the original post amongst 9 other characters, so I probably forgot about him as soon as I read about the next character.
Additionally I’d recommend to maybe employ the measures you already have at your disposal more. How about having Peticus ask himself who Arnth was, or having to ask one of his aides. Doesn’t have to be long, doesn’t have to be much (“ah yeah, that one!”), and’d do better at reminding us that there’s an additional storyline 50 years later. In short: Recaps very good. Dramatis personae in the intro not my thing.
Structure:
I’d recommend you’d call your chapters letters instead, since that’s what they are (e.g. letter one, letter two, letter three part one, two & three), and also since that's very befitting of the antiquity. You can put the writer and the addressed in a subtitle (e.g. Avle to Ramthe). You can also consider putting Peticus stuff (which so far has only been in chapter one) before the title, and, whenever needed, after the letter. That could help you keep both storylines rolling simultaneously whilst also keeping them distinct. It’d also help to make the breaks between the part 1-4 of the same letter in chapter three more natural if you explained that with e.g. Peticus taking a break or something similar.
You should keep the Peticus storyline rolling as well. A little bit. Not much necessarily, just to remind us that he's still there.
Next criticism: Language and style are a bit too perfect.
One: The style doesn’t perfectly fit a letter being translated by someone who isn’t fluent in Etruscan, especially not when those letters are probably in decay. You can use Peticus deciphering as a story device, and also have some holes in the story, where he can’t read what’s been written or doesn’t understand the words and maybe him asking his aides.
Two: In chapter two Arnth is writing with a bit too much pathos to my taste.
Three: In the prologue with the old woman and the consul conversing you inform us both talk to the other in the language of the other, and broken. You don’t see any of that in the following discourse, as both are answering with complex sentences and words. Also, it wouldn’t necessarily make sense: Greek was the language of the upper class in Rome. It might have happened later when the Romans started conquering much of Magna Graecia and got all those Greek slaves, but Peticus at least is already well-versed in it. The Etruscans likewise had a lot of contacts with the Greeks. Both trade wise and also in war. Dionysios raided the Etruscans, and founded numerous colonies near the Etruscans that remain important to this day.
The first two coincide with what you are writing here:
Quote:
I'm still struggling to balance writing the style of writing prose fiction and writing correspondence. Part of this is that I assume readers will want a more conventional narrative flow, but the feedback I've been getting seems to indicate otherwise. I generally agree that I need to “commit to the bit” as they say. If I've determined to write this story in a letter format, it has to read like a letter.
Thankfully, you have already given yourself the means to switch between narrative styles whenever you like. Peticus doesn’t have to get every detail from this archive. He could also get some from various people orally, or some other documents.
But I wouldn’t change that much about the letters themselves. I like the prose (maybe tone it down a tiny little bit but not much) and as to how much you need to commit still comes down to personal taste. I generally agree that you should commit a tad more, but that obviously comes with sacrifice. Doing it too realistically could ruin the story.
Next criticism: As you wrote to me, the kingsblood quadriga is supposed to be a bit of a McGuffin of the story. I’m not sure yet as to why. I also have the impression that your focus changed a bit away from the chariot to the man whilst you were writing it. I might be wrong but kingsblood quadriga might be the title of the story you initially envisioned. It doesn’t matter much, but so far this quadriga (or rather, its name) is the only thing that doesn’t have a purpose so far. Though I wouldn’t say that’s a bad thing because I don't know what you've planned out for it.
To be a bit knitpicky: I can understand the name sounds good in English, but composite words are a very Germanic thing. Romans didn’t have that, and Etruscans probably neither (it’d be quadriga sanguinis regis or something like that – Quadriga of the blood of the kings), which wouldn’t make for a name that rolls readily of ones tongue. But then again, latin never does.
It’s not much of an issue, I just wanted to point that out, given your interest in linguistics, and because I had to think about that when I read about Peticus repeating the name of that cart repeatedly. I also didn’t get why he’d care so much about the name if he didn’t even know what that cart was… There’s a contradiction between a terrible weapon everyone is rumouring about and simultaneously no one talking about what that weapon is, and also between this chariot being unknown and simultaneously having so much emphasis on the name, which led to my suspicion that you originally envisioned it as the title of your story. I can’t recommend you precisely what to do, nor do you have to, but if you were to put a gun to my head, I’d recommend to add either more mystery to the name or remove a bit of the emphasis from it. A name is best when it’s earned.
Also regarding linguistics, which we talked about
:
For all intents and purposes it’d be wholly legitimate for you to act as if Etruscan is indo-European, for a multitude of reasons. It is a valid theory anyway, as you pointed out yourself, and operating under that assumption would likely make things a bit easier for you.
Minor criticism: “Say hello to Arnth” is a bit too modern. You might want to replace it with: “This is Arnth”
Quote:
How is everyone feeling about the length of posts as they are now? How do you feel about the amount of pics for a battle scene? I wanted to get in a trial run of a 'battle post' before I got to some important ones coming up, so any feedback will be appreciated on that. (Although future battles will be broken up over multiple posts, so they will come in shorter than this.)
I’m not much of a sucker for battle scenes, but I liked this one. The length was appropriate. Action scenes can be irritating when the outcome is predictable and the changes caused by them benign, but this one here had its purposes. Especially the intro of Brennus was slick!
I’d focus more on personal experiences and less on godlike eagle eyed omniscient portrayal, which is the only thing that might have been a bit faulty here:
Quote:
It was barricaded and garrisoned only by watchmen with horns. We found their horns later. We never found the watchmen.
Followed by this:
Quote:
This is when I must've passed out. I awoke in darkness feeling someone take my greaves off me. I must have been concealed beneath a pile of the dead. That's the only reason I survived. […] I laid in the stink and sick for the rest of the day. When night came, I stole a horse and made my way here.
How does this guy know so much and when exactly did they have the opportunity to search for the watchmen?
