Hello! I clicked on this because, hey, supervillains, who doesn't love those?
Firstly, what did I like?
I like the concept here, of expounding a supervillain's backstory.
I like the worldbuilding that sneaks in, with the hints at the evolved and bullets not hurting them. Also, superpowers. I especially like that none of it is stated outright, but rather shown. We're never told that the narrator has fire powers, but based on what he does, we can figure it out.
I like that the Latina is described as beautiful, but the only physical description that we get is 'green, spotty fists' and the needle teeth, as opposed to her being some lovingly detailed classically attractive woman, as one'd expect.
I like that the villain has a villain and that the villain's villain seems despicable as well. (However, I get the sense that the narrator isn't telling the whole story, but why would he? It's his story.)
I like that you can follow the villain's story that is being told here, despite everything that's left out. There should be pieces left out, when the narrator is as unbalanced as he seems to be, after all.
The prose here, overall, feels and looks unedited.
As a grammar thing, though I'm sure you'll get feedback on that soon (if you haven't already!), there are some reoccuring problems that should be easy enough to address.
I'm seeing some overuse of ellipsis - could be chalked up to state of mind - and plenty of spaces before any punctuation marks.
Exclamation points in non-dialogue are generally considered, while not incorrect, a faux-pas in descriptive writing. Ideally, the words themselves should carry the weight, not the punctuation. This isn't to say it can't be used - of course it can, there are no rules in writing! - but rather that it should be used sparingly. I count four here.
All caps dialogue, like exclamation points, is a general faux-pas acceptable in moderation or works aimed at a younger audience. As before, try not to use it if there's a way around it.
There are so many fragment sentences here. Most of them just occur because there's no personal pronoun before the sentence.
If this happened consistently, I might chalk it up to the narrator's fractured state of mind. The implications of this piece involve a narrator who isn't stable to begin with, and so disjointed thoughts would fall right in step with the rest. However, this fades in and out of using fragment sentences to the point where it feels more like it doesn't know whether or not it's on purpose.
For example, in the first paragraph, the first line is a full sentence beginning with 'I'. The third, fourth, and fifth lines seem to have forgotten that. Six and seven are just fragments.
Maybe this is what you were going for. Maybe not.
Oh, and on that second sentence, which I skipped over intentionally: t'was? It's not wrong, per se, but out of place. Why?
The other one-word issue which shouldn't be hard to fix - 'in fantasy'. Perhaps 'in fascination' would fit better?
For content critique, the main things that raise questions seem to be the ones that 'are' because of what this is the backstory for, i.e. a supervillain backstory vs. the teenager.
I must wonder: why make his enemy stronger? Wouldn't that just make him harder to hurt? Why torment him with only corpses? Why does our villain even think that would work? The implication is that the villain has spent his life fixated on this boy, yet doesn't seem to have done much, except to other strangers. I don't know. Maybe this is addressed elsewhere, later, or never even relevant.
Overall, engaging concept that needs some punctuation and grammar edits.
Good luck in the future!
Points: 10071
Reviews: 86
Donate