Khalilzad in 1995 (chapter one)

Deleted (primarily for concerns about losing electronic publishing rights and freaking out about its current length and my ability to publish it later). Feel free to PM me if you're a former reader wondering where it is now. If the mods would rather delete this entirely, feel free. The reviews are sort of nice to look back on now and then as pick me ups though.

Hey, Pattycakes! Welcome to YWS.

Oooh, PD. XD I'm an extemper, so I've been lured to the Dark Side several times, but have always frolicked back to the file box because I missed my seven-minute-thirteen-second time slot. Debaters, frankly, have balls--and that's just what this character portrayed. He's kind of brash and talkative, but he knows what he's talking about. For a first brush with first person, that's really impressive. *high fives*

On to the critique?

EAT FRESH

I realize that debaters don't have to speak on five different countries at each tournament, but. You'll want to keep your topics/questions as fresh and current as possible, especially if you're just writing for workshopping and such on YWS. If you're writing to publish, that's okay, too--you'll just have to update them before you send them out so it's as fresh as you can get. Why? Most people aren't very well-versed in history, and even less in current events. If it's not September 11 and between last week and Vietnam, most people won't know about it. You want to make your questions the little bit of news that people catch passing through gym lobbies--something that they can still relate to, even if they're not the most savvy.

And if you're writing for fun, and posting to hone your skills a little, then you can get crazy with the political humor, too--and that's always a good thing.

SHOW, DON'T TELL--VERSION 2.0

THE PLEA: People are telling me to show, not tell, but I neeeeeeed to tell some stuff!

Excessive use of 'e's aside, explanation is the reader's equivalent of hearing an audio lecture. Most people just don't get it. Which is why--though this scene brought out the characters' voice really well--you might want to, instead of having a chalkboard-lecture, show him in action, in an actual round. Why? It's cool, and you get to show off how cheeky he can be when he's in his element, and not just candidly talking.

Also, it's better off to start with action than an introduction, even in first person. Most narrators don't bother to tell you why they're narrating--they're the best ones to tell the tale. That's tacit stuff. You don't have to go through their credentials, nor do you have to introduce them outright. Moral of the story? Start with action, not with a "My Name Is..." sticker.

___

Yay! ^_^ Forensics stories = amazingness. PM me if you have any questions or have the next bit up.

Okay, so here is the review as requested. My 's' key is sticking so if I am missing some here and there please excuse it.

Grammar: I know you didn't want me to correct your grammar, but I think you should check out this article on punctuation. If you have time, read this article on the proper use of commas.

Intro: Your very first sentence, or rather fragments, drew me in instantly. However, after that I was completely lost as to what exactly you were trying to convey. I really was so confused, I think I read the first segment six times.

Timer beeps three times. Deep breath. Drink of water. Go. (New Paragraph Here)“As I begin... I would just like to say, that, like enduring questions about their possible homosexual relations; there is absolutely no escape for the affirmative from the beating this counterplan is going to lay on them. While the affirmative team argues that, yes we should uphold the resolution we've heard so very, very many times: 'Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a policy substantially increasing the number of persons serving in one or more of the following national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, and/or the Armed Forces.'; we argue not quite. Man, that's a mouthful, and I bet that isn't the first time our two opponents have said that to each other. But all homophobic double entendre aside, as I really don't feel like getting into some sort of debate about language and it's repercussions, I want you to go to the argument on your flow that I'd like to be titled 'Blondes do it better'.”

I'm guessing this is the protagonist speaking, aruging his point about what exactly? At first I didn't get the quip about homosexuality, I thought this whole piece was going to be about equal rights for homosexuals. So that really threw me off. Perhaps you could dumb it down just a tad, so people of lesser IQ don't have to re-read it several times before they grasp the concept.

Info Dumps: In most cases, info dumps are bad. And I felt that you had a lot of info dumps in this piece. I know you are trying to educate the audience on all of the inner workings of speech and debate, but the problem with this is that it makes your piece feel like an essay or lecture. Which is boring for us to read when we're thinking it's a romantic fiction. Do you get what I'm saying? I'd like a lot of more of what you are telling us, shown, or cut out if it isn't important.

The 'capital R' Resolution is both the line of discussion and the rules. Every year you debate on just one resolution. One. Sometimes it's on environmental policy, energy policy, education policy, or foreign relations with another country. Or sometimes it's different than that. But there are some 'capital T' Truths so that everything doesn‘t get 'capital F' Fucked. The resolution always starts like thus: "Resolved: the United States federal government should". After that, it's kinda a toss up.

This info dump is okay, it isn't too lengthy and it would be hard to convey this either through dialouge or some sort of action. Watch your redundancies here. The capital 'R','T','F' got on my nerves rather quickly.

Our strategy is unfolding like the centerfold of a fine pornographic magazine, slowly, but inevitably, it's going to entrap you.

I love this description, it's imagery is strong in my head.

There are two, two-person teams in the debate round. The 'Aff' or affirmative team argues in favor of, or affirms, the resolution and does so by presenting a plan. The 'Neg' or negative team argues against, or ’negates’ the resolution, or in a more recent development, simply against the affirmative plan itself. Our counterplan would be an example of arguing only against the affirmative plan.

This is another info dump that seems necessary, but I think you could cut out some of it, so that it doesn't drone on and on. Sometimes, information like this drags the reader along for a ride that they don't want to go on, so they will just skip thi paragraph entirely.

“You see, dropping down to their first point, they're going to say we aren't going to gain full weight of the women's revolution sparked by the plan. Well," I say emphatically, "the revolution will not be televised. We gain their spillover cards where instituting women into combat positions except on submarines will still trigger societal resistance against patriarchal norms but it aditionally offers several advantages over the plan...”

The only reason why I pointed out these grammatical errors is because it really disrupted the flow and made it hard for me to read.

Unfortunately, there evidence doesn't really go that far. It does say women in a limited overall combat role would increase readiness. It also says in this un-underlined part that there are some jobs which women shouldn't take. I'm going to go ahead and take this to mean positions on submarines. Fair and balanced? Not when it comes to good cards, folks. Additionally, we'll win effective submarines are key to readiness this is from Orwell in 2005...”

Make sure you are using the right words. Spell check won't catch things like "there" when you mean "their" or "are" when you meant to say "our". Also, I think that if you are quoting research in dialouge you need to put it into quotation marks like so:

Additionally, we'll win 'effective submarines are key to readiness' this is from Orwell in 2005

Evidence works a little funky in policy debate. Research and opinions from experts (and sometimes crazy bloggers) are arranged into arguments to support the debaters claims. The portions of the evidence (or 'card' as it's referred to, after the practice of gluing the evidence onto index cards) that the debater's read gets underlined or bolded. For visual learners I'll provide an example. Auditory learners can either have someone read aloud to them or alternatively go to hell. No one learns audibly. Here, check this out:


Popped collars are for douche bags.

Zelsko 2007 ( Andrew, 4-14, high school debater, general badass. The book of truth pg. 1)

People who roll up the collar of their shirts to cover their neck also known as popping the collar on their polo shirts, often of the brand Lacoste or Tommy Hilfiger, probably do it because they think they’re being different or rebellious. In reality, they’re just douche bags.


See the portion of the card that isn’t being read is usually just extraneous crap that wastes speech time, so it gets cut out. The ‘tag’ is the first bolded line, it’s your personal interpretation of what the card says. The citation or ‘cite’ is the bold and parenthesized text beneath it, debaters usually just read the last name of the source and the year it was published and all the other info goes in the parentheses to save time.

This info dump, in my opinion, is unnecessary. While, the douche bags with popped collars is remarkably funny, this does absolutely nothing to strengthen your plot line. I do not feel like telling us how to catolouge research for a debate is something we absolutely need to know. To keep your story from dragging, I'd scratch this whole bit out. But thanks for the laugh.

Theory arguments are made to argue that a position should be rejected, not because of it's merit, but because it's unfair in it's execution to one of the teams. A lot of the time it's like, “I know we're losing this game 55-0, but because you're six feet tall and I'm 5'5 you should lose.' Not every time, but a lot of the time, this is what theory is.

I'm so bombarded by all of this information about debates, and how everything works, that I feel like this should be in the non-fiction section. Please, spare us all of these minute details, and just give us the bare minimum. Gives us what we absolutely need to know, without getting confused, and move on.

I waited a second before answering, “No. Never.” About half the crowd chuckled, the wrinkles between his brow showed his irritation.

I'm not sure you have the proper tense here. I think it should be showing. Sorry just a little nit-pick.

“Nathan, it is highly improbable that we will ever become friends. You think I'm a dick, I hate your choice of bow tie. These things are irreconcilable.” I inform him.

While this banter is humorous, I'm not exactly ure if it should be here. In actual debate, would they allow competitors to say these things? Aren't they required to stay on topic? Or is this a tactic to kind of get under the opposition's skin? I had a hard time with this last bit of dialouge because I wasn't quite sure if it was realistic.

Tick, tock. Tick, tock. The timer continues to run down. My partner is sitting at the table next to us preparing his speech. The format of debate is kinda weird. To use the abbreviations it goes: 1AC-1NC-2AC-2NC-1NR-1AR-2NR-2AR (A=affirmative, N=negative, C=constructive, R=rebuttal, 1=first, 2=second). Yup two negative speeches in a row in the middle. That large thirteen minute 'block' of negative time is referred to as (guess what) 'the block'. I'd just finished with my 2NC meaning my partner would have to give his speech right when this cross-x is over.

Each team also usually gets around 7 to 8 minutes of free time to put together arguments and think up answers. This time, known as 'prep time', is used after speeches or cross-x depending on the speech. Students can use all of it in one go, or spread it out over the four speeches. Because he had all of my speech to prepare answers to 2AC arguments, he probably wasn't going to be using any prep.

This info dump was the motherload of all info dumps. I didn't even get halfway through this before I stopped reading. I don't care to know this information, nor do I think your audience will care to read this. If you want my most brutal opinion, get rid of this.

He set his timer for five minutes, the length of a rebuttal speech. He took a drink of water with no ill effects. He gave the judges his 'roadmap', the order he was going to each argument, with no ill effects. He pressed the start button on his timer with no ill effects. Then he said a few fateful words that would ring throughout speech and debate history, (New Paragraph Here)“Judges, I know no better way to put this, we are fucking them on this topicality flow-” I saw the head of MISDA rise from her seat. Shit. I could guess what was coming.

Redundancies: Ahh, my biggest pet peeve. I get what you were trying to do with the "no ill effects", but after the first one, the other two just grated on my nerves. And perhaps I am the only person in the Northern Hemisphere that feels this way. Just make sure you don't overuse certain words or phrases. Please.

“You two are disqualified. [s]I'd heard complaints about your language earlier in this tournament and in this round. This last one was quite enough under the Charter of MISDA.[/s] We're aren't just about skill here. We're about respect and decorum. You two have been showing very little of that We'll discuss this more later, with your coach. Arthur, go get the two trophies." Her words were more slashing than any cross-x question I'd been asked all year.

I feel like some of this should not be said in such a public place, but rather saved for that private chat with their coach. However, that is entirely up to you. Also, the lat sentence seemed to lack something. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it felt so weak compared to the rest of your writing.

If pictures paint a thousand words, we're all painting frescoes.

Again, I must compliment you on your description here. I love it!

Where does this arrogance come from? I don't know. Personally, I guess I believe I'm smarter than you. What? I am! Look, I'm not saying everyone else is stupid necessarily, it's just it's my job to understand things that no rational human being needs to know. This combined reservoir of a wide array of general knowledge and rarely useful minutia at least give us the perception of genius. And as anyone who's ever debated a China disadvantage knows perception is reality.

I had friend's in debate and you're so right, you get around them and they make everyone else feel inferior in intelligence. Not on purpose, it's just omething that happens.

I suppose all this has showed you thus far a rather negative view of me and 'my people'. We're good, respectable high school kids, really! We're just a little unique. We get good grades (mostly), we respect our elders (mostly), we stay out of trouble (mostly), and we're all very humble (most- never mind).

Mostly, I don't really like the way you use mostly. However, this is something you can decided whether you want to keep or get rid off.

But don't discount the action. Few groups of kids are as devious or catty as policy debaters. We're arrogant, intelligent, and stubborn. And this leads to mischief making. But debater mischief making is a different breed than high school senior prank mischief making, just as we are a different breed of high schooler. But stories of mischief making are for later.

Oh, the stories of mischief I could tell of me and my friends. And isn't it funny how Speech & Debate kids and Drama kids get into the wackiest kind of mischief? But of course, it all makes logical sense and has a purpose. Sort of.

The average debate round hinges on a delicious cocktail of truth and trickery.

My mouth watered at this, which is weird, because I'm not much of a drinker, but all the same, I think it is an awesome line. I had to say it out loud because my tongue ached to say it. And then I really wanted a Strawberry Daquiri.

At its core policy debate is a game. An expensive, kinda elitist, absurd game, but a game none the less. So it's all in good fun (mostly), and no one makes a huge deal out of it (mostly).

Again, you used the mostly here. I think if you are going to keep the mostly's, I'd keep the previous ones and scratch these.

Characters: I really got a great sense of your protagonist's personality, which was fantastic. I really felt like he was one of my friend's from high school. However, there is no physical description of him, which leaves a void in my mind. I'm imagining him as being tall and lanky, with hair that refuses to do what it is told and an eccentric style in clothes. But if this is not how you want him to look, then you should give me something to work with. As for the supporting characters, I wanted more physical descriptions as well. Nathan sounds like the ultimate nerd, considering the bow tie, but I want more to support this assumption. Seeing as how the partner got your protagonist disqualified, I definitely wanted more about him. I mean, he doesn't even have a name! And the MISDA lady sounds like a real priss, but I want you to show me that in her hairstyle and startched pantsuit, and puckered brow. Obviously this is the first chapter, so you have time to fit these portraits in, but make sure your readers can envision these characters in their minds.

Setting: I felt the setting was the most neglected part of the whole story. You didn't describe it once. Are they in an auditorium? A gym? Do they stand behind podiums? What does it smell like? Are there bright lights on the debators? Does this affect the temperature? Would the temperature affect Nathan as he is losing horribly? What about the audience? Is it fellow students? Teachers? Parents? Other rivals? Or is it just the judges and MISDA lady? Where are the judges sitting? Are they behind a table or are they sitting in the front row of an auditorium, balancing clipboards on their knees? Is the auditorium old or new? See what I mean? There is so much you can explore here, that you could use to transport your readers into this world. Don't overload us, but give us enough so that we feel like we are sitting there listening to the debate.

Overall: I liked the tone of this piece. The arrogance of the teenaged boy was evident throughout, but you did in such a way that didn't totally turn me off to the protagonist. I liked that. I think you really need to watch the pieces that feel too much like a lecture. But your descriptions are vivid and the flow of the piece was well executed.

I think if you tweak the bits I pointed out, this would be an excellent story. Good job!! I hope I was of assistance.