Mix politics, religion (especially a blood-based one), a world threatened by a madman, and you have the foundation for an intriguing sci-fi thriller. I mention this, and some of the great writers come to mind...Asimov, Henlein, Bova, Kim Stanley Robinson. Maybe next on the list will be Harris.
It's tough to take a clean sheet of paper or a blank computer screen and build a story that captivates a reader. Build is the keyword.... mehr anzeigen
Mix politics, religion (especially a blood-based one), a world threatened by a madman, and you have the foundation for an intriguing sci-fi thriller. I mention this, and some of the great writers come to mind...Asimov, Henlein, Bova, Kim Stanley Robinson. Maybe next on the list will be Harris.
It's tough to take a clean sheet of paper or a blank computer screen and build a story that captivates a reader. Build is the keyword. You've structured your opening well-enough, I think, introducing various characters in their various settings; begun to build characterization. I like, re: Pandora, such lines as, "...the way her olive skin bunched together as she tried to hide her smile." Page 11. This gives a clear and unique image of one facet of Pandora. You didn't describe her, you showed her in an action describing something about her skin and face. That's good writing.
One or two "weaknesses" I saw that you might want to think about, though:
Telling. We've all heard the word over and over and over, and often enough we scratch our heads when we look inside our writing for instances of this hideous beast. We all lean in the direction of telling versus showing, because we ARE storytellers. But to become writers like Asimov, et. al., we must overcome that desire to give the reader information in such an easy way. In Blade, I'll give you an example.
Page 12... the introduction of Tahkshi. For the most part you, the author, are telling us things that should more effectively be shown. The opening paragraph imparts a lot of information. Think this: Go directly to scene. Tahkshi moving/thinking/acting in a real-time setting. Give exposition in snippets, woven into the narrative. Telling takes the reader right out of the story. Overcoming this tendency takes a LOT of practice! A lot of cut and slash. A lot of outside reading to see how the masters do it.
Certain words and phrases:
"nought" is an example of an archaic word. Page 6. More simply, less "poetically", "without a hiss" actually adds life to the sentence/scene.
Be careful of conjunctions, in particular which and that. Which is a conjunction connecting two independent clauses. That is a conjunction connecting an independent clause to a dependent phrase.
Page 7, last paragraph. Verb agreement. "As he did so, the legs of the chair twisted upwards, latching onto the legs of the occupants and slowly tightened, digging into..."
Nice description, but notice "tightened". It's okay, but not as you've punctuated the sentence. If you wish to keep the verb as is, put a comma after the word "occupants". THAT changes everything. Otherwise, as written (without the comma) "tightened" should correctly be "tightening".
These things MIGHT seem nit-picky, but they are details that separate the journeyman writer from the novice.
Writing is rewriting, again and again until plot, characterization, flow, etc. seamlessly tie everything together. Just remember to think "in-scene". As much as possible, keep the reader engaged with, for lack of a better word, action.
Lastly. If I might make another suggestion, read "Calypso" by stevie.grace here at Bookrix. A fine example of in-scene writing with a minimum of exposition.
