Ishio_Mitsume
New member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2022
- Messages
- 6
- Points
- 1
Thank you for the feedback and I appreciate the time you spent reading and providing criticism ^_^Good day to you. Before I start with the feedback, I would mention that English is my second language. I stopped reading after finishing CHAPTER 1.
It's cringe, messy, badly written, and illogical. If I had to rate it, I wouldn't give it more than 1.75 stars. I would love to stop the feedback here, but I will elaborate as I brought this upon myself when I started this thread.
First of all, your 'killer feature.' Clicking on the previous chapter instead of the next chapter is a minor inconvenience at max. When I saw your story for the first time, I thought it was weird, and then I forgot about it after a couple of hours passed. I've only remembered this feature when I looked at your novel again to read it for feedback.
Let's start with the fact that the space between your paragraphs is unnecessarily large. The way you group sentences into paragraphs is also weird.
Example.
Yet, it ended after 26 years of brutal and intense warfare.
The final stronghold of the invaders fell under the leadership of a young yet brilliant minor noble that led the [Alliance] for the past 7 years.
In those 7 years, he led hundreds of thousands of soldiers to battle and won stunning and brilliant victories against the unearthly invaders.
Finally the end of the war would see to its conclusion with the final siege of the unearthly bastion.
To the surprise and astonishment of the [Alliance], the siege ended in just a month. News of the bastion burning to ruins had overjoyed the populace.
The swift conquest of the bastion had once more made the young noble much more prominent and his influence grew as a result.
Yet, it ended after 26 years of brutal and intense warfare.
The final stronghold of the invaders fell under the leadership of a young yet brilliant minor noble that led the [Alliance] for the past 7 years. In those 7 years, he led hundreds of thousands of soldiers to battle and won stunning and brilliant victories against the unearthly invaders.
Finally the end of the war would see to its conclusion with the final siege of the unearthly bastion.
To the surprise and astonishment of the [Alliance], the siege ended in just a month. News of the bastion burning to ruins had overjoyed the populace. The swift conquest of the bastion had once more made the young noble much more prominent and his influence grew as a result.
What's the reason for writing one-sentence paragraphs?
Your tenses shift all the time.
Examples.
The noble takes the bag and swiftly begins to read through them as the fellow general leaves his castle while escorted by his personal guards.
It didn't take long for him to become aware of the situation and learn of the various plots going on within the court.
Informed of the plots, the young noble became disgruntled.
"I thought I had already conquered this fear before... I guess I'm still wrong... hehe..."
He takes a deep breath as he slips to a deep slumber.
Days passed until the day of his execution. By this point the once young general had seemed to have aged drastically.
"Look! How the mighty have fallen. Where was once your charm o solar general? Where was once your mocking tone?"
Yelled a man that the general recognize as one of the honored "heroes" that "fought" by his side.
"Well? Are you going to blame anyone? Are you not going to mock no more!" The man laughs mockingly.
There are a lot of weird phrases.
Examples.
The noble was angry, he didn't like that the upper class were busy increasing their own power and doing nothing to help rebuild for the betterment of the people. Rebuild what?
He gave his first forgiveness to the King when he wasn't honored as much as the other nobles and favored those that were deemed his enemies. Weirdly phrased.
Furthermore, as years progressed his soldiers would desert his march and end up marauding and harassing both the people of the lands and the general's army. Desert his march?
Despite the treatment he didn't resent, but when the King rewarded nobles that didn't deserve it, he began to feel resentment. Weirdly phrased
I was never a faithful person, but coming back to life makes me rethink my own beliefs. I understand what you wanted to say. "I was never a strong believer." I'm not sure about others, but when I hear that someone was never a faithful person, I think that person has cheated on his partner(s) a lot.
A typo.
The lands of the [Alliance] were burnt to sunders in order to slow his march. Probably burnt to sinders.
You also don't add enough details and descriptions. The text is very barebones, and there is almost nothing besides the descriptions of actions. MC did that; he proceeded to do that, then those people did that in return.
Why is it messy? Well, let's look at two paragraphs from your prologue.
Hearing of this, a [Patriarch] from a city-state made contact with the hero. He offered the noble to join his side, to join the Republics.
"Look! How the mighty have fallen. Where was once your charm o solar general? Where was once your mocking tone?" Yelled a man that the general recognize as one of the honored "heroes" that "fought" by his side.
Noticed something? You call the MC a general, and there is an old general. Then you call MC a noble, and there are a lot of other nobles. Then you call MC a hero, and there is another 'hero' who makes an appearance. How am I supposed to keep in my mind who is who and not confuse anything?
Why it's illogical?
For my safety, she quarantined herself.
"Anyways, can you go and feed your mother?"
He poured stew into a wooden bowl and handed it to me. ??????????
I don't even want to say how a young hero, a general who apparently was responsible for winning a war, lost against... logistics...
Not a betrayal, not a cunning scheme, no. He SEIZED THE CAPITAL, and he decimated the armies. Yet somehow, after burning down their own lands and being beaten time and time again, his enemies got tons of soldiers(probably out of their butts) while he wasn't able to think of a temporary withdrawal. Truly a war genius.
Why it's cringe? All the problems I mentioned make the story very childish, yet you try hard to invoke feelings in me. Oh, he was so good! He wanted an equal world and fought against evil nobles! But as I said before, this good guy couldn't think of a temporary truce and lost because he is a brain-dead imbecile. How should I look at it with a serious face?
The cherry on top is his execution. Flayed and salted doesn't sound so bad, but it is followed by castration... C'mon dude! The contrast is so striking here that I don't know what to say.
I'm sorry for being so rude, but it was my honest feedback as a reader. If you want different feedback or some helpful criticism, you can look at other free feedback threads. The ones made by Anon2021, doravg, and whitesculptor.
In any case I would address the problems that you have took notice during the early phases of writing the story.
First of all, your 'killer feature.' Clicking on the previous chapter instead of the next chapter is a minor inconvenience at max. When I saw your story for the first time, I thought it was weird, and then I forgot about it after a couple of hours passed. I've only remembered this feature when I looked at your novel again to read it for feedback.
For one, this problem was on me. I didn't realize that the structure of the table of context was ordered to have new ones on top rather on the bottom as most novel sites have it structured to have the new below the old chapters; I have already fixed the problem, so thank you for telling me.
Let's start with the fact that the space between your paragraphs is unnecessarily large. The way you group sentences into paragraphs is also weird.
Secondly, the spacing of the paragraphs being 1.15 seemed too compact during the drafting of the story, which makes it harder to read and follow the story (based on the earlier versions); as such I added an extra space in order for the readers to have a sort of "break" in between paragraphs.
Thirdly, I would be going through each phrase that you have cited;
The noble was angry, he didn't like that the upper class were busy increasing their own power and doing nothing to help rebuild for the betterment of the people. Rebuild what?
This phrase doesn't necessarily require much information as the entire prologue was the summarization of events after the war. By context, the "rebuild" was in context of repairing loss infrastructure, settlements, and other structures that have been destroyed or damaged during the war.
He gave his first forgiveness to the King when he wasn't honored as much as the other nobles and favored those that were deemed his enemies. Weirdly phrased.
I agree that it is weirdly phrased, but it is weirdly phrased as such as I was translating the story to Japanese at this time to a Japanese site (syosetsu). In order for the English text to be translated in a way that it could be understood, I written it in this way as it translated into a more understood sentence.
Furthermore, as years progressed his soldiers would desert his march and end up marauding and harassing both the people of the lands and the general's army. Desert his march?
By the meaning "desert his march", it means to abandon the army. This phrase is used synonymous to "desert his army" as "march" and "army" were once synonymous to each other since when thinking of a "march" one would think of a large group or an army in this context.
Despite the treatment he didn't resent, but when the King rewarded nobles that didn't deserve it, he began to feel resentment. Weirdly phrased
Again, this is due to the time I was translating the story to Japanese.
I was never a faithful person, but coming back to life makes me rethink my own beliefs. I understand what you wanted to say. "I was never a strong believer." I'm not sure about others, but when I hear that someone was never a faithful person, I think that person has cheated on his partner(s) a lot.
By context, one would already think of either an ideology or religion, as faithful inherently means "to be religious" or "loyal". Despite this, you are right that he was never a faithful man, but I didn't write much of his romantic life as the prologue was the summarization of events after the war.
Fourthly, I do agree in the typos as I would often mistaken a word to a similar sounding word and mix their meaning such as the one you mentioned; sunders rather than cinders.
You also don't add enough details and descriptions. The text is very barebones, and there is almost nothing besides the descriptions of actions. MC did that; he proceeded to do that, then those people did that in return.
This is because the prologue is a rapid fast summarization of the events prior to his reincarnation. The readers do not need to know what meals he eats, how large his castle or manor is, how large his armies were, or the tactics he had employed during his battles.
They simply need to know a brief explanation of the things the MC did before he was reincarnated. While, yes, I can write a proper explanation of tactics used and description of each battle, but that would prolong a prologue; which, in writing, shouldn't be done as it would be too overly explained.
Why is it messy? Well, let's look at two paragraphs from your prologue.
Hearing of this, a [Patriarch] from a city-state made contact with the hero. He offered the noble to join his side, to join the Republics.
"Look! How the mighty have fallen. Where was once your charm o solar general? Where was once your mocking tone?" Yelled a man that the general recognize as one of the honored "heroes" that "fought" by his side.
Noticed something? You call the MC a general, and there is an old general. Then you call MC a noble, and there are a lot of other nobles. Then you call MC a hero, and there is another 'hero' who makes an appearance. How am I supposed to keep in my mind who is who and not confuse anything?
Why it's illogical?
I've written it as such as I was writing it in a way to not reveal identities. While, yes, I can write down the name of each character, however, this is a story of his reincarnation and not of his past. By context clues, the readers or audience should know who is who and who is speaking by either the voice they have imagined or on phrasing.
Furthermore, the MC was a noble who was raised to be a general that was praised by the public as a hero. While confusing, I have written the phrases in a way that the readers should be able to understand based on context.
For my safety, she quarantined herself.
"Anyways, can you go and feed your mother?"
He poured stew into a wooden bowl and handed it to me. ??????????
This is structured as dialogue before action. In which I have written due to me writing it as a Japanese novel and in Japanese novels I have read, dialogues are not sentenced similarly like in the west by which the character is said to have spoken before the action they took.
Western example: "But, sir, how could we win this fight?" says the squire as he unsheathes his sword from his belt, feeling unease.
Japanese example:
"But, sir, how could we win this fight?" (「しかし、どうすればこの戦いに勝つことができるでしょうか?」)
The squire unsheathes his sword from his belt, unease is shown from his face. (従者は彼のベルトから彼の剣を外し、彼の顔から不安が示されます。)
I don't even want to say how a young hero, a general who apparently was responsible for winning a war, lost against... logistics...
Not a betrayal, not a cunning scheme, no. He SEIZED THE CAPITAL, and he decimated the armies. Yet somehow, after burning down their own lands and being beaten time and time again, his enemies got tons of soldiers(probably out of their butts) while he wasn't able to think of a temporary withdrawal. Truly a war genius.
Throughout history, no general of excellent stratagem has ever won without showing care of logistics. By context, the MC is fighting a war against a Alliance of various kingdoms, principalities, and empires, whereas he is siding with a coalition of city-states. The Alliance is not only larger, but they also have more resources, more people, and more land to feed their armies where as the city-states or republics are limited to what they have. Even Alexander had to care for his logistics, but the difference between Alexander and the MC is that Alexander has control over his logistics while the MC does not as that is provided by the city-states not from his own territory.
Yes, he seized a capital, but that is just the capital of the Kingdom he once served in, not the capital of the whole Alliance by which there is no official one. In modern understanding, think of Russia invading Finland but by doing so Russia is fighting the whole of NATO; even if Russia took Finland's capital and decimated Finland's army, they still need to take the capitals of the majority of NATO members that they are fighting.
By further context, I written down the MC's rebellion during the prologue similar to the 2nd Punic War in which no matter how many cities Hannibal took against Rome and no matter how many tens of thousands of soldiers Hannibal killed, Rome would always be able to match Hannibal's army and eventually defeat him throughout the years. Similar to the 2nd Punic War, the MC is fighting with an army that he was provided with by the coalition of Republics against the entirety of the Alliance
To add more into this, even if the MC wanted a truce would the Alliance accept it? The MC had burned down their lands, conquered their cities, butchered their armies, and humiliated their dignity. If you were a King in the Alliance and the MC sent a truce to not only you but to everyone he had fought, would you accept it after being humiliated in battle, and if you were the only one to accept; everyone would question your authority and dignity.
Furthermore, in order to carry momentum and take advantage of his victories the MC has no other choice but to keep fighting in order to capitalize the lead he has. Remember, he is fighting a larger alliance than the republics, if he were to give them time by withdrawing and rebuild his army the Alliance would also be able to rebuild theirs and form a much larger army than his. No matter how much of a genius he is, if he has an army of 10,000 versus 150,000 than he would be defeated by attrition alone especially if both armies are equally disciplined, equally motivated, and equally equipped no matter how much time he is given he would never be able to match the Alliance in terms of numbers.
Sorry if I went on a tangent on this one, I adore military science and history and have to explain why I have written it as such.
Why it's cringe? All the problems I mentioned make the story very childish, yet you try hard to invoke feelings in me. Oh, he was so good! He wanted an equal world and fought against evil nobles! But as I said before, this good guy couldn't think of a temporary truce and lost because he is a brain-dead imbecile. How should I look at it with a serious face?
The cherry on top is his execution. Flayed and salted doesn't sound so bad, but it is followed by castration... C'mon dude! The contrast is so striking here that I don't know what to say.
Honestly, I haven't written the story in order to invoke emotion upon the reader; I write the story in order to show a story regardless on how the readers feel. The story is a drama and as such there will be times where I write that seems emotional, but I could care less about that for as long as it advances the narrative.
Again, my explanation of why he didn't strike a truce is above this one.
In terms of how he died, the castration is just a cherry on top to further humiliate him as he is hated by the Alliance so much due to massive damages he had caused against them. I have read examples of medieval executions, and I could have written down more grotesque ways he could die and be tortured before his death, but this one is the one I have written as it was the least inhumane one I have thought of.
In any case, thank you for providing feedback and I appreciate it (●'◡'●)