Young Writers Society

First, I have to apologize for take a while to respond to your question and comments. I feel a bit bad for someone taking time out to comment on someone else's work, then having the author not say anything. Holidays are harsh, lol. Now, Jacquie, for the question.

Out of curiosity, why is this called "Bound for Glory"? It doesn't seem to fit...Samuel Garrison's plight seems to be the opposite...

I've been waiting for someone to ask me this question. The title came about when I was watching a movie called The Patriot, as some of the writers on hear may have watched already. In American history, I assume soldiers from both sides; Britain and the Colonists were fighting for glory over the enemy to win. So in effect the armies were "bound for glory" but only one side could win to end the war. Also, but this isn't part of the question, just thought I'd throw it out, I based some Angus's character, off the actor that played the sadistic British Col. Tavington in The Patriot. That was the fun part, to create a seemingly cruel person, but at the same time, I tried to give Angus Goodfellow some humanity and show the readers that, though he was harsh that Angus still had a spark of love left, even in warfare.

There's a lot of energy in this, I think, and drama (maybe too much sometimes ). Also, much better on the comma placement! Still a few grammar things, but I'll leave that for someone else.

Can you give an example of how I might be using too much drama? I'll take a second look at the grammar, thank you.

Be careful to have your character's speech and inner duologue appropriate for the time period. They wouldn't fall on their 'butt' or say 'come on' or even use the word 'idiot' (I don't think). You can find another way to say the same thing, but more realistic.

Good point. I didn't catch that at all, since at the time in November I was running on little energy, writing in all hours of the night, lol, because of my work schedule. That's a very, very good point. I will definitely go research and re-write the dialog.

I can see there is a vivid difference between Agnus, cruel, physically unattractive, 'evil' 'redcoat', (creepy, with the blood in his hair...ugh!)and Samuel Garrison. It seems a little unrealistic, but it's interesting.

Yeah, that would be my evil brain hard at work, lol. Actually, I watch a lot of warfare movies and documentaries of famous wars from around the globe. But your sentence also put a smile on my face because it was a great compliment. For you to be able to distinguish the differences between the two character's is awesome. To me, that means I've ALMOST done my job as a writer. Must fix little things first, then all is good.

You can always adjust sentences for flow.

That is interesting to me and will re-look over the sentences. Thank you.

Much thanks again Jacquie for proofing it, and thanks to the others for their help also. Now, I'm still anxious to hear what others felt about the ending.

Alright, with inticipating approval I submit a more in depth intallment.

Jacquie did say she didn't think it sounded realistic, soo..that signaled me, prehaps I missed something and needed to fine-tune a few things. And believe me that was not an easy task. Hours and hours on end; researching. But I enjoyed it nontheless.

My only question now is does the reader feel the past? Or are you still stuck in 2005? Also I introduced a new charactor, Garrick. The sequence should finally cemenent Samual's charactor. I believed he was lacking in appeal of what I wanted him to protray as. My only worry is that its difficult to have two flashbacks and not have it disrupt the flow of the story itself. I guess I will find out, now won't I?

Enjoy in what I hope to be the final intallment.
Jess

To be honest, I was disappointed the way the hero was not even seen properly before we know he is dead.
This has got plenty of action. Just a suggestion, but I thought someone would have moved it by now to Action/Adventure.

To be honest, I was disappointed the way the hero was not even seen properly before we know he is dead.

Could you expand on that? I'm a little confused. Apart from that, it wasn't quite the reaction I was expecting, but a compliment nonetheless.

I thought I had written enough so the reader was able to distinguish Samual's charactor and get a feel for his priorities. What exactly is the story lacking itself?

Just a suggestion, but I thought someone would have moved it by now to Action/Adventure.

Heh, well on the very first draft, which was short there really wasn't much action, the charactors were vague; without life. On this draft, yes, there definately is alot more action, alot more discriptions and dialog.