Synopsis Feedback

[PBJ_Time]

I recently revised my synopsis last night, with the goal to make it as short as possible while also making it as concise as possible. Please let me know what you think.

Slay The Cross [Isekai LitRPG]

Hajime always believed that fire was the greatest tool of all. A young rebel’s heart would be nothing without it.

But how much fire do you need to set a much brighter future in another world? Either way, he’s utterly done trying to understand why the gods of Parallaxis “need” to watch over mortals like a camera drone. Not to mention the lightning strikes toward “heretics.” Gods belong in a church, not above the heads of humans and nonhumans alike.

Cue “When Doves Cry” playing on his earpods. Please don’t ask how he still has them.

Edit: I revised my synopsis to make it clear how the gods act in my story.

 

[TheMonotonePuppet]

I recently revised my synopsis last night, with the goal to make it as short as possible while also making it as concise as possible. Please let me know what you think.

Slay The Cross [Isekai LitRPG]
View attachment 19104
Hajime always believed that fire was the greatest tool of all. A young rebel’s heart would be nothing without it. But how much fire do you need to set a much brighter future in another world? Either way, he’s utterly done trying to understand why the gods of Parallaxis “need” to watch over mortals like a camera drone. Gods belong in a church, not above the heads of humans and nonhumans alike.

Cue “When Doves Cry” playing on his earpods. Please don’t ask how he still has them.

I think it's great! Sets up a philosophy in a absolutely intriguing and informative way, and in only two sentences to boot. Connects it to a peculiar theology that draws you in, and adds a bit of humor and an interesting tidbit right at the end.
Honestly, I think that a lot of people (... perhaps... PERHAPS... myself included...) could use that as an inspiration and useful example for our synopses.

 

[georgelee5786]

Hajime always believed that fire was the greatest tool of all. A young rebel’s heart would be nothing without it. But how much fire do you need to set a much brighter future in another world?

Set a much brighter future? That doesn't make much sense.

Either way, he’s utterly done trying to understand why the gods of Parallaxis “need” to watch over mortals like a camera drone. Gods belong in a church, not above the heads of humans and nonhumans alike.

why is 'need' in quotation marks? Perhaps you meant to italicize it or make it bold.

Also, churches are places where gods are worshipped, not where they live, though that critique is minor.

Cue “When Doves Cry” playing on his earpods. Please don’t ask how he still has them.

kinda funi

 

[Deleted member 113259]

Gods belong in a church, not above the heads of humans and nonhumans alike.

This one line makes it sound like you don't understand Gods which puts into question why you wrote something about slaying them.

 

[PBJ_Time]

This one line makes it sound like you don't understand Gods which puts into question why you wrote something about slaying them.

It's a metaphor about how gods in Parallaxis are literally spying on everyone from above, instead of leaving them alone and being mentioned in places of worship or in someone's prayers.

Frankly, it's mostly about my view on organized religion, what with the country I'm living in (Philippines).

 

[TheMonotonePuppet]

Set a much brighter future? That doesn't make much sense.

why is 'need' in quotation marks? Perhaps you meant to italicize it or make it bold.

Also, churches are places where gods are worshipped, not where they live, though that critique is minor.

kinda funi

Rebellions are often done with the clear intent to make a better, brighter future. It makes comple
... Quotations seem pretty on point to me, not italics nor bold. From the dryer wit comparing the gods to camera drones, these don't seem like eldritch or inhuman gods, which that kind of emphasis (italic and/or bold) could imply.
As PBJ has just posted to Controversial Opinion before I could to you, the metaphor was clear enough. The distinction between church and outside of it is being blurred by the gods, who can't leave well enough alone and stick to focusing on their places of worship.
Kind of lacking on critical extrospection there, georgelee5786.

 

[Deleted member 113259]

It's a metaphor about how gods in Parallaxis are literally spying on everyone from above, instead of leaving them alone and being mentioned in places of worship or in someone's prayers.

Frankly, it's mostly about my view on organized religion, what with the country I'm living in (Philippines).

Exactly, it doesn't make sense to criticize the gods for watching from above instead of staying in a church when they don't belong in a church. That follows the line of logic that humans create Gods, not the other way around, which would be an impossible tale to tell in a world where Gods definitely exist and are being slain.

What's more, it's unclear what exactly they're being slain for. A God spying on people certainly isn't grounds to kill the God, it's not even grounds to kill a human.

 

[PBJ_Time]

Exactly, it doesn't make sense to criticize the gods for watching from above instead of staying in a church when they don't belong in a church. That follows the line of logic that humans create Gods, not the other way around, which would be an impossible tale to tell in a world where Gods definitely exist and are being slain.

What's more, it's unclear what exactly they're being slain for. A God spying on people certainly isn't grounds to kill the God, it's not even grounds to kill a human.

Well, I was going to emphasize that the gods also shoot lightning bolts at "heretics" (read: people with slight grievances a doubts), but it felt it was gonna make my synopsis too long to follow. Maybe I should emphasize this all along?

Also, again, the church thing is just a metaphor.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

This thread makes me really interested in reading and seeing what's up.

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you yet. I'm still a long ways before I get to your story for feedback. Hopefully I'll get to it before you decide to start posting.

 

[Deleted member 113259]

Maybe I should emphasize this all along?

Yep, you should always make what's actually happening in your story clear. I made a similar mistake with my synopsis where I took a part of the prologue for it but then killed off the narrator which made the story misleading.

Also, again, the church thing is just a metaphor.

I was treating it as a metaphor, what you seem to be trying to get at is that the Gods should be confined to where they can be worshipped, like separating church and state, but limiting their range treats the Gods as if they are man-made which they are not.

 

[georgelee5786]

Rebellions are often done with the clear intent to make a better, brighter future. It makes comple

Except for all the times they didn't. Ever heard of a power grab? Not every rebellion is done for some noble goal. Some are done solely because a man wants power and he happens to make a brighter future. Also, I meant that literally. 'Set a brighter future" doesn't make sense as a sentence, not even in context.

... Quotations seem pretty on point to me, not italics nor bold.

Then why fucking add them? Quotations are used to reference someone speaking, that's it, so i imagine it is quoting someone, but i was clarifying.

From the dryer wit comparing the gods to camera drones, these don't seem like eldritch or inhuman gods, which that kind of emphasis (italic and/or bold) could imply.
As PBJ has just posted to Controversial Opinion before I could to you, the metaphor was clear enough. The distinction between church and outside of it is being blurred by the gods, who can't leave well enough alone and stick to focusing on their places of worship.

...ofc they don't stick to focusing on that. A god runs part of a world or performs a process in religions that have multiple deities. They can't not focus on the world as a whole.

Kind of lacking on critical extrospection there, georgelee5786.

I don't give a fuck.

 

[TheMonotonePuppet]

Except for all the times they didn't. Ever heard of a power grab? Not every rebellion is done for some noble goal. Some are done solely because a man wants power and he happens to make a brighter future. Also, I meant that literally. 'Set a brighter future" doesn't make sense as a sentence, not even in context.

Then why fucking add them? Quotations are used to reference someone speaking, that's it, so i imagine it is quoting someone, but i was clarifying.

...ofc they don't stick to focusing on that. A god runs part of a world or performs a process in religions that have multiple deities. They can't not focus on the world as a whole.

I don't give a fuck.

I am well aware of all the times they didn't. I'm just saying that the connection between a rebellion and a noble goal is easily drawn, even if it is rarely cut and dry. The synopsis is not the problem. Your cynicism is. It blinds you from seeing an idealistic point of view when it is clear as day in the synopsis.
Quotations are also used to add sarcasm. There is a reason finger quotes exist to emphasize verbal speech and it is emphasize sarcasm.
It also sounds, very obviously, that it is from a colliseum spectator point of view, where the gods are looking for entertainment.
And I understand that you don't give a fuck, but I myself do care, because you are trying to criticize for the sake of finding something to criticize. Your statements are unfounded and uninformed.

 

[georgelee5786]

I am well aware of all the times they didn't. I'm just saying that the connection between a rebellion and a noble goal is easily drawn, even if it is rarely cut and dry. The synopsis is not the problem.

Easily drawn? Here, yes, and I never disputed that. I merely pointed out you were wrong in general. Also, once more, I didn't care about the sentence's meaning, i cared about the fact it makes no fucking sense. You cannot set a brighter future. That isn't how grammar fucking works.

Your cynicism is.

I'm flattered

Your statements are unfounded and uninformed.

Ironic that you say that after ignoring all my counterpoint, particularly the major one of 'Set a brighter future' makes no fucking sense as a sentence

 

[TheMonotonePuppet]

Easily drawn? Here, yes, and I never disputed that. I merely pointed out you were wrong in general. Also, once more, I didn't care about the sentence's meaning, i cared about the fact it makes no fucking sense. You cannot set a brighter future. That isn't how grammar fucking works.

I'm flattered

Ironic that you say that after ignoring all my counterpoint, particularly the major one of 'Set a brighter future' makes no fucking sense as a sentence

I ignored that one, because it just came off as unfounded cynicism. I didn't even understand what you meant on how it makes no sense as a sentence, because it makes perfect sense to me. I could not comprehend your lack of comprehension.
When you set up a brighter future, you lay things into place to make it better. Have you never read sentences like that? In books like "Fly Trap" by Frances Hardinge, or other similarly classical writing styles, phrases like that are common-place. Particularly when dealing with rebellion.
And when gods are tending to things professionally, they shall carry it out and derive enjoyment from their part of the cycle. Of course they watch, but not to the point of invasiveness. As a Ride Operator at an amusement park, I understand professionalism and watching but not investing myself into the customers' lives unless it helps me carry out my job. But these gods are hedonistic and leeching all of the entertainment they can get, doing what they can to extract such amusement. They are lacking in professionalism, and do much outside of their "job" i.e. the purview of their religion.

 

[georgelee5786]

I ignored that one, because it just came off as unfounded cynicism. I didn't even understand what you meant on how it makes no sense as a sentence, because it makes perfect sense to me. I could not comprehend your lack of comprehension.
When you set up a brighter future, you lay things into place to make it better.

He didnt say 'set up' he said 'set'. That makes no fucking sense. I understand he is trying to reference how you set something ablaze, but it fails here. Unless, by some magic, you can explain how you set(not set up, set!) a future.

Have you never read sentences like that? In books like "Fly Trap" by Frances Hardinge, or other similarly classical writing styles, phrases like that are common-place. Particularly when dealing with rebellion.
And when gods are tending to things professionally, they shall carry it out and derive enjoyment from their part of the cycle. Of course they watch, but not to the point of invasiveness.

You wanna get technical? The Christian(true) God watches everyone and everything invasively, technically, because He is omnipresent. As is allah, i think. So it is plausible they watch invasively, but not necessarily because they decide to.

As a Ride Operator at an amusement park, I understand professionalism and watching but not investing myself into the customers' lives unless it helps me carry out my job.
But these gods are hedonistic and leeching all of the entertainment they can get, doing what they can to extract such amusement. They are lacking in professionalism, and do much outside of their "job" i.e. the purview of their religion.

And where, oh where, in the synopsis does it say that? In fact, aside from the gods watching over people too much, they aren't mentioned as doing anything hedonistic, you've just assumed that. You're probably right, ofc, but I'm just pointing out you've made a baseless assumption that is in no way supported by the synopsis, which is the topic of discussion.

 

[TheMonotonePuppet]

He didnt say 'set up' he said 'set'. That makes no fucking sense. I understand he is trying to reference how you set something ablaze, but it fails here. Unless, by some magic, you can explain how you set(not set up, set!) a future.

You wanna get technical? The Christian(true) God watches everyone and everything invasively, technically, because He is omnipresent. As is allah, i think. So it is plausible they watch invasively, but not necessarily because they decide to.

And where, oh where, in the synopsis does it say that? In fact, aside from the gods watching over people too much, they aren't mentioned as doing anything hedonistic, you've just assumed that. You're probably right, ofc, but I'm just pointing out you've made a baseless assumption that is in no way supported by the synopsis, which is the topic of discussion.

One. Words can be implied in an informal setting. Yes. It may be annoying, but that is more of a minor change, rather than something that completely rids the sentence of all sense.
Two. The God in each respective religion does do that, but is he invasive? No. In those religions, he is simply there, an omnipresent force that isn't meddling in things for hedonistic purposes.
Three. And I did assume that. But. I offer you this. What are the common connotations of the camera drone? A leering individual is behind the controller, ducking the drone into private spaces. This is one such connotation. It is not baseless, as I am guessing at the meaning behind the metaphor, much like art critics do.
You may answer this with your own response, but as you can tell from my terse replies, I grow tired. This is mainly due to the fact that it is 1:28 am where I live, I have a 10 hour shift tomorrow, and I have a cold. I will not be responding. So please don't say something like "You are backing out because you see my reason" or some other falsity like that.

 

[PBJ_Time]

And where, oh where, in the synopsis does it say that? In fact, aside from the gods watching over people too much, they aren't mentioned as doing anything hedonistic, you've just assumed that. You're probably right, ofc, but I'm just pointing out you've made a baseless assumption that is in no way supported by the synopsis, which is the topic of discussion.

Hello. I just want you to know I revised my synopsis to make it clearer. I hope you understand now, instead of arguing with @TheMonotonePuppet, even though they were right on the money with what I was going for.

 

[Reinaislost]

It is rather good. Though, I fixed the gramatical inconsistencies and modified it a bit. Let me know if it works.

Hajime always believed that fire was the greatest tool of all; a young rebel heart would be nothing without it. But how much fire one needs to set alight a much brighter future in another world?

Either way, he was utterly done trying to understand why the gods of Parallaxis "needed" to watch over mortals like a camera drone. Gods belong in churches, not above the heads of humans and non-humans alike.

Suddenly, "When Doves Cry" began playing on his earpods. Please don't ask how he still had them.

why is 'need' in quotation marks? Perhaps you meant to italicize it or make it bold.

I think it fits in the context, as it adds nuance to the word. For example:

My friend has "special" needs, so I won't be able to come. Sorry. => Implying a different meaning to the word 'special'

My friend has special needs, so I won't be able to come. Sorry. => Emphasising it.

My friend has special needs, so I won't be able to come. Sorry. => Could be used to imply different things.

Or atleast, that's how I see it.

 

[Deleted member 113259]

Hello. I just want you to know I revised my synopsis to make it clearer. I hope you understand now, instead of arguing with @TheMonotonePuppet, even though they were right on the money with what I was going for.

That's childish.

 

[georgelee5786]

One. Words can be implied in an informal setting.

This isnt an informal setting. A synposis isnt a casual conversation with an old friend. You must be as careful as possible to ensure there is no confusion. This includes not leaving out a word that makes your sentence incomprehensible, so your point is stupid.

Yes. It may be annoying, but that is more of a minor change, rather than something that completely rids the sentence of all sense.

Yes, but minor errors are still annoying, so they should be pointed out, which is what I was doing in an attempt to help and give feedback.

Two. The God in each respective religion does do that, but is he invasive? No. In those religions, he is simply there, an omnipresent force that isn't meddling in things for hedonistic purposes.

The definition of invasive:

tending to intrude on a person's thoughts or privacy.

Therefore, it is invasive and you are wrong. An omnipresent is, by definition, invasive since it intrudes on privacy.

Three. And I did assume that. But. I offer you this. What are the common connotations of the camera drone? A leering individual is behind the controller, ducking the drone into private spaces.

And I'm the cynic? What if the guy is just testing a camera? Filming something for a project?

This is one such connotation. It is not baseless,

It is. Being invasive doesn't make one hedonistic.

as I am guessing at the meaning behind the metaphor

If you have to guess at something in a synposis, the synposis is bad. There are exceptions, ofc, such as when the synposis alludes to a major plot point in a manner that one can't understand until later, but that is not happening here.

It is rather good. Though, I fixed the gramatical inconsistencies and modified it a bit. Let me know if it works.




I think it fits in the context, as it adds nuance to the word. For example:

My friend has "special" needs, so I won't be able to come, sorry. => Implying a different meaning to the word 'special'

My friend has special needs, so I won't be able to come, sorry. => Emphasising it.

My friend has special needs, so I won't be able to come, sorry. => Could be used to imply different things.

Or atleast, that's how I see it.

And that makes sense, I was merely trying to clarify.

Hello. I just want you to know I revised my synopsis to make it clearer. I hope you understand now, instead of arguing with @TheMonotonePuppet, even though they were right on the money with what I was going for.

Now it makes more sense. It is good enough.