Hey FalconerGirl9086!
As one of my requirements for Better Review Bereau I have to rescue an old work from the Green Room. Your work is that work!
First off, I have to say that I really like how you wrote the action area of this novel. It is easy to see what he's doing and how he's moving around in the space. You have a good development of the world as well. I can see how the world has developed, and what sort of technology is around just from this brief passage from the novel. There is very little ambiguity about what sort of advancement and modernization this world has.
That being said, I feel like your style is a lot different from what I like to read usually. I don't usually go for books that are hyphen or dash heavy. To me, the dash or hyphen should be used only when trying to break up a story or somewhere that there is a pause in speech. Here's an article by Snoink that I think is relevant. Dashes, Semicolons, and Ellipses
Basically, how I understand hyphens and dashes is that they're used in place of a period when the sentence ends abruptly. There are some victorian-english ways to use them too such as when you want to add in an aside rather than commas around it, but that habit died out around the time of Mark Twain--a while ago--and it was often done attached to whatever was around it. You can read Charles Dickens and other victorian writers to see it in their books.
What you seem to be doing is creating run-ons with your hyphens. Sometimes it's an innocent thing where you could replace them with commas, but other times you change topics right after using a hyphen as if it was a period. Here is an example from your work:
Of course, this opinion wasn’t generally shared by the public — but, then again, they didn’t know what went on underneath the first floor.
Here, we could say "Of course, this opinion wasn't generally shared by the public. But, then again, they didn't know what went on underneath the first floor." That second sentence could have "but" removed and be a complete sentence. "Then again, they didn't know what went on underneath the first floor." The first sentence is talking about the general opinion that the buildings were intimidating not being shared with others. The second talks about a new mystery, the goings on underground. If we take these things separately they are both interesting and unique ideas, so there's no reason to shove them both into one sentence when they split so cleanly. They also make more sense alone as it means that what happens down below is not dependant on the opinion of other people. You have a nice juxtaposition of saying that the opinion would be different if they knew, but ultimately because the actual opinion is not shared within the sentence, I had to re-read it a few times to figure out what was going on.
As a general rule, you'll want to avoid putting prepositions at the end of sentences such as "to" or "of" as it can be jarring for some readers who don't like split infinitives and dangling prepositions. Let's take a look at one of these sentences.
The top eleven stories consisted of a variety of businesses that paid and kept the Guild Hall up and running for individuals like himself who did illegal things for a living and sometimes needed somewhere safe to return to.
So, aside from this sentence being incredibly long and winding, and I have to admit I read it a few times as well, the 'to' on the end is just unnecessary. "Somewhere safe to return" is a perfectly fine way to end this sentence. Personally I think you need to break up the ideas here. "The top eleven stories consisted of legitimate businesses that paid and kept the Guild Hall up and running. Without their knowledge, they provided a place for individuals like Kratzer to return when they needed somewhere safe." Usually when you have a dangling word like that, it's because of passive voice and that's one of the major reasons for getting rid of it. If you split the sentences, you can add a little more detail about the relationship so we can tell that the businesses up top don't know about what they support too.
Kratzer had only seen one man ever been made an example of
This is the other one I saw. Now this is a typical turn of phrase, but I think you could say it better. For instance you could say "One man who was made an example haunted Kratzer's memory" or "Kratzer only saw one man who was an example." You see how putting the example part makes it passive? You have to use had, and other qualifiers? It's much easier and cleaner to put it at the beginning.
Speaking of rules though, I saw an inconsistency. You say three golden rules, but I only counted two rules
- no tellie and - no killie
Alright, the last thing I want to talk about is your general writing style being rather passive. The majority of this so far feels like exposition and it's not in an interesting frame. Usually when I'm reading chunks of exposition, I look for insight into the main character, or the culture, through little hints that the writer drops as they explain situations and memories to reveal the exposition, but this just info-dumps. We get info about the building without a description of the people, or Kratzer's thoughts, or fears, or feelings, or ideas. I mean, maybe this is supposed to be highly limited, but you have beautiful thought when you actually get into the story.
Kratzer glared at her, jaw clenching. He’d rather have this fall from grace than still be working for his former masters — but he wouldn’t say that. Here, a conscience, of any kind, was a weakness, so instead of telling her the truth he answered with a flippant retort.
I want to see that all the way through this if you're going to tease me with it once there's actually something going on, either that or cut out the world building. If he's not going to interact with someone on an upper floor, we really don't need to know what is on the upper floors. If no one is going to accidentally hit those specific numbers at random because they're being a doofus on the elevator, then we don't need to know how he gets down the elevator. If Diamond is never going to show up in the novel again, or his former employer is never going to be there, we really don't need to know that either. Just add in things that we need to know. If it's not important to his emotional standing for him to feel intimidated in the city, then don't add it.
The general rule of thumb is to only add in story-building things you've done when it influences the story in some way such as an emotional reaction the character is having to seeing tall buildings, and then you do it through exploring that reaction, not describing the buildings. This should never be a descriptive essay, it should always be an active novel.
Yup, okay, so overall I really love where you're writing with more of an active voice and I'm glad to see you've put so much effort into world building, but I don't really want to see the world building unless it is pertinent to the novel. Also, try to avoid so many hyphens, it makes your writing look old. Instead, try commas! And lastly, but not least, watch some of those sentences. They get a bit long and confusing and then you end up with dangling words that you just don't need.
I hope this helps!
Aley
Points: 1883
Reviews: 806
Donate