APOSTLE'S CREED - a zombie story

[TGRF]

Spoiler Alert!

Originally Posted by TheAverageFan

I see. I assumed you were referring to prose rather than regular description—this is a positive as that was a problem last story.

Well my thoughts on the prose - as in the 'flowery language' for lack of a better term - comes down to what I originally said:

It's not so much long-winded, as it is the fact that the flowery language comes in clumps.

I love flowery language as much as the next guy, but in my (admittedly limited) experience, it works best when it's a single phrase amidst a paragraph of normalcy, used to bring attention to a singular point. And I never use it as dialogue, unless someone points it out immediately (like you did with whoever spoke right after Thomas went all flowery - Gene I think? See that bit worked.)

Originally Posted by TAF

Incorporating the elements I think work about the prologue into the rest of the narrative would prove very tricky, as a lot of it comes from the story's isolation and brevity. Those same elements exist in the side stories as well, but they wouldn't work in the main narrative where there's so much going on. I'll look into it, but tbh those short stories are a different animal format-wise.

Obviously I didn't write it, so I'm viewing it as an outsider. But what I think was the best part of that prologue though (aside from the descriptions which were especially good) was just the believability of it, especially of Thomas. However you described his internal thoughts - yeah, I would look into that specifically.

Originally Posted by TAF

I tried to give new characters stronger entrances (such as the first thing Jarek does is kill a monster and then save Thomas, or the first thing Irene does is kill her own boss, or the first thing Gauge does is surrender rather than fight) to have a more memorable impression that might define said character right at the get-go, as well as give existing characters stronger actions/choices in general (such as Jaxson choosing to go back for Stacey despite his state, Brooke's decision to stay with Henry at her own expense, or basically anything Reed does, good or bad).

Well I would say you succeeded here in spades. In TMHW, I frequently confused Reed and Gene, Stanley and Shelley, everyone from Abbey's group, and so on. That did not happen the least bit in AC with the new characters. I never had trouble keeping track of who Irene or Guage were, or even Jarek even though he was only there for like a chapter. And Reed differentiated himself pretty quickly, so that I stopped confusing him with Gene. So I would say as far as character definition goes, this worked flawlessly, so much so that I didn't even notice you doing it (and I'm looking for it, so that's especially tricky).

Now that makes characters distinctive, but investment is whole different game. I think I could have gotten invested in Thomas, Brooke, Stacey, Thorn, Guage, heck even Reed or Irene... but the shifting pov just didn't let me settle on any of them long enough to make that happen (or in the case of Stacey, it did, but then left). This kind of overshadowed the strong actions you mentioned (that and me questioning them).

Honestly if I were to recommend a way for you to keep the shifting pov/FIS, but somehow incorporate my criticisms of it, I would say look at the chapters where Stacey is captured. There are plenty of sections there where we switch back to the group or Jaxson, but I remained invested in Stacey, because we kept switching back to her (also if I'm honest I was on the edge of my seat a bit wanting to figure out how she'd get out - that helped).

If you could duplicate that level of character focus for Thomas, I feel like investment for him would skyrocket, while still allowing you to see things from the other character's viewpoints.

Originally Posted by TAF

It is regrettable that AMIS isn't around to boost my ego; I was really looking forward to seeing what he would think about the direction of this one. The things he did/didn't care about in the first were greatly different than your own after all, so there is a lot of feedback still potentially unexplored.

Yes, and that's yet another reason why no one should ever take my criticism as the absolute standard for anything. I am overly critical, highly nitpicky, and if my commentary is the reason you have lost faith in yourself as a writer, then I've obviously failed in my job as a critic. If there's anything I can do to fix that...

~TGRF.