(Rules for submitting stories for review at the end of the list.)
Well, I got some offers of stories, and here's what I was able to
read through and analyze:
THE INFINITE FUTURE Ch. 1-2 (14/30)
KONATSU MASQUERADE SOLILOQUY: Ranma, Ukyou (14/30)
ARIGHT V. 1.1 (8/30)
TIMELORDS, Ch. 1-2 (6/30)
FRAGILE CLAY v. 1 (12/30)
***
TITLE: THE INFINITE FUTURE: An Alternate History of The Together
Again Universe, Ch. 1-2
AUTHOR: CHRIS DAVIES
SERIES: Sailor Moon-Magic Knight Rayearth crossover (maybe more)
In an alternate universe, the Sailor Senshi, while fighting Nemesis,
must also investigate the mysterious events which follow three teenage girls...
how is the universe 'alternate?' That would spoil the story!
(a) Technical: 3
Descriptive passages and use of sentences to add description to the
story is nearly nonexistent. Basic grammar and spelling is good, but could
use some improvement.
(b) Continuity: 1
(1) All characters presented are presumed to be already known to the
readership. (2) The story is an alternate universe -of- an alternate
universe. (3) Generally a little too serious for all but the season-ending
parts of either Sailor Moon or Rayearth. (4) Uses Davies' most-often-used
OOCism, the 'Usagi and Rei are secret lesbian lovers' one. (5) Internal
continuity is difficult to tell in only two short episodes.
(c) Storytelling: 5
Davies, who frequently writes in script format (as witness the
original TOGETHER AGAIN and its prequel), doesn't seem used to using the
advantages of prose to their fullest. The main casualty is in
characterization- he uses more or less the same tools one would use in a
script, character interaction and reaction, but seldom goes into
introspection and worldview, two tools in prose which can -really- make a
character live for the reader. Add to this the presumption of prior
knowledge, and the characters tend to be flat most of the time.
Another problem which probably stems from writing in script most of
the time is that of awkward phrases to describe reactions. In a script, you
simply describe facial and verbal expressions; in prose, you have the
opportunity to play off cues a camera or a microphone can never pick up.
Davies tries to use these occasionally, but without practice or experience
in doing so he ends up with some empty or confusing sentences.
The story gives the reader some very interesting setups to follow,
but it fails to drop the reader into the universe of the story. Visual cues
are few, and most other senses are nonexistent, throughout the two chapters
I've read so far.
Finally, this story has been set up well, but it's far, far, far too
early to see much in the way of building action. Without being able to see
the work as a whole, I can't give it full marks.
(d) Presentation: 4
I read Chapter Two in plain-text email, and Chapter One in a big,
bold, HUGE typeset on his website. No need to break out the big text for all
of us, Chris. }:-{D
(e) Bonus Points: 1
I can't tell you why I gave this point. Read the story and guess for
yourself. }:-{D
Total: 14 out of a possible 30.
***
TITLE: KONATSU MASQUERADE SOLILOQUY: Ranma, Ukyou
AUTHOR: UKYOUKWNJI@AOL.COM
SERIES: Ranma 1/2
(a) Technical: 4
Only minor flaws, here, and not many of them.
(b) Continuity: 0
I just don't see anything of Ranma 1/2 in these shorts at all. Both
are fairly dark or sad, with absolutely none of the original style of the
stories, and neither Ukyou nor Konatsu seems even close to being IC. Konatsu
in particular is a glaring flaw- as the narrator, his character should be
the most developed of all, and nothing is done with him besides
demonstrating the stereotype version of him. Very dissapointing, all told.
(c) Storytelling: 6
Both of these shorts do manage some form of building action,
conflict, climax and denouement... but no surprises, no suspense, nothing to
really draw in the reader and hold them. The first-person format gives the
author an excellent means to involve the reader, but the execution here,
though technically well done, does nothing to involve the reader in the
character.
Finally, not only are the characters presumed to be known by the
reader, they're presumed to be known -as the writer knows them.- The Ranma
novice or noninitiate will be totally baffled by the motivations of the
characters; I'm not a novice at all and I was a bit confused anyway.
(d) Presentation: 4
The format is very legible and easy to read; however, no disclaimer
'I do not own, etc.' was given.
(e) Bonus Points: 0
Total: 14 out of a possible 30.
***
TITLE: ARIGHT V. 1.1
AUTHOR: Mien Diem
SERIES: Neon Genesis Evangelion
(a) Technical: 2
Basic grammar is covered, mostly; everything else is left behind.
The author needs to spray for 'was' in his work. Sentence structure is
highly repetitive. Description is nonexistent, except for a few Tom
Swifties. Paragraphs are used only to group sentences together- no topic
set. The story, as a whole, stops just shy of being totally incoherent.
(b) Continuity: 2
The mood swings and decisions made by the characters in the story
are not adequately explained in the story. The characters move like puppets,
not like independent beings, and by the end the reader has little or nothing
to be interested in. Under these circumstances, I can't possibly consider
the characters, or the situation, as IC, although the general mood is
equivalent to an EVA story.
(c) Storytelling: 1
Everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING, is taken as read: Tokyo-3,
Central Dogma, NERV Control, absolutely everything. No description, no
visual cues, barely any pacing, lots of 'tell-me' giveaway lines... this
story just flounders around in search of an ending.
(d) Presentation: 3
The two author's notes at the beginning and the end were just plain
annoying; what was in between was, at least, legible and not -quite- so
rambling.
(e) Bonus Points: 0
Total: 8 out of a possible 30.
***
TITLE: TIMELORDS, Ch. 1-2
AUTHOR: BASTION
SERIES: Original Work
Tracer, a cyborg Timelord working for a far-future Community, seeks to
thwart the Society's mysterious plot to overthrow the Community...
(a) Technical: 0
The author probably slept through English class and hasn't given much
thought in the meantime to learning the basic rules of grammar. He really,
REALLY needs to.
(b) Continuity:2
I didn't think I'd be able to find a continuity flaw in an original
work, but when a character established as a near-fanatic supporter of the
status quo officially ignores a statement of intent to break the law of that
status quo, I found a biggie.
(c) Storytelling: 1
Okay, let's see.
Idealistic time traveler defending Utopia- been done.
Hard-boiled time traveler defending Utopia- been done.
The author has yet to decide which =he's= doing.
Ending of the story practically given away in the middle of Chapter Two.
A long and VERY boring section of 'As You Know Bob' exposition.
A confusing and apparently pointless fight for the -entirety- of
Chapter One.
Not only no character development, contradictory character
-establishment.-
Selection ends on a long, low point, no cliffhanger or mini-climax
near the end to provide any sense of closure or progression.
And above all, the VERY bad grammar.
(d) Presentation: 3
Formatting okay, but grammar sucks so bad it is literally painful to
read.
(e) Bonus Points: 0
Total: 6 out of a possible 30.
***
TITLE: Fragile Clay v. 1
AUTHOR: Story-Weaver
SERIES: Ranma 1/2
In a continuation of the manga, Akane calls off the engagement-
again. Ranma's day goes from bad to worse, but don't worry- his good buds
Hiroshi and Daisuke will help him through...
(a) Technical: 3
Not bad, but there are some spelling and capitalization flaws the
author needs to go back and fix. Spell checkers are no substitute for a
manual proofreading.
(b) Continuity: 0
There are so many continuity flaws and character stereotypes in this
story that one has to wonder if the writer has actually paid attention to
all the manga volumes, especially after stating, specifically, that the only
thing he changed from the manga storyline was ignoring the section where
Nodoka finds out about Ranma's curse.
Furthermore, as the manga continuation this purports to be, the
story starts out with a promising flavor but then bogs down into levels of
introspection and philosophy you wouldn't find in Miyazaki films. Flavor
destroyed, flaws everywhere... continuity destroyed.
(c) Storytelling: 4
This story wanders more than Ryouga.
The buildup from establishment of conflict through climax is next to
nonexistent- in fact, the main conflict is never really established at all.
Philosophical preaching from other characters to Ranma drags the story out
and makes the characters doing the preaching look 'perfect.'
Also, the author is using the story for the specific purpose of
advancing a personal agenda- getting Hiroshi and Daisuke established as
rounded major characters. The incredible lengths the story goes through to
do this cripples the real major characters and, by the end, the reader is
tempted to call the story a 'Hiroshi 1/2' fanfic.
The author uses a 'jump-cut' scene change method which does
absolutely nothing to establish in the reader's mind the scene they're
getting dropped into. This flaw in an otherwise decently fleshed-out story
weakens it considerably.
Finally, certain character developments are done, as far as I could
tell, arbitrarily. The author needs to shore up his character motivations
and internal changes considerably before a few of the major developments can
be swallowed by the reader.
(d) Presentation: 3
In general, the format of the web-based story is okay, but the
author's note really needs to be moved to the end, and the poem's layout is
INCREDIBLY annoying.
(e) Bonus Points: 2
Bonus points for a virtually unique premise and conclusion.
Total: 12 out of a possible 30.
***
HOW TO SUBMIT YOUR STORY TO THE REDNECK GAIJIN
(1) I prefer emailed submissions of completed stories. I will review
incomplete or episodic stories, but I need -all- the pre-existing episodes
together for a complete review, and unfinished stories will not be rated as
highly as finished stories (roughly a 2-point deduction).
(2) Submissions or review requests must have [REDNECK] in the
header, and should be sent to me, SEPARATE from the FFML, at redneck@detnet.com.
(3) I will make a good faith effort to review your work; however, if
I cannot read through the entire work, I cannot review it. If I cannot
review your work, I will tell you privately why I couldn't. Please don't
re-submit stories afterwards, no matter what the reasons; I do not have
enough free time to try to review the same story twice.
(4) Any story submitted for review will have any review made from
that story posted in brief to the FFML; a longer, more in-depth review will
be sent privately to the author, along with suggestions on how the work can
be improved.
(5) To save me some time and effort, here are some basics you should
bear in mind while writing:
(a) Just because you've gotten to the end of the story
doesn't mean you're done. Proofread and rewrite. Your first draft should not
be your finished draft.
(b) Learn every rule of grammar you can. Learn them so well
you obey them even without knowing the names of the rules. The better you
learn them, the better you can break them for artistic effect when you need to.
(c) Any form of the verb 'to be', especially 'was,' is
passive. Any use of 'have,' 'has,' or 'had' is also passive. Passive verb
sentences kill a story. Rewrite your sentences to replace them with active
verbs.
(d) '-ly' is not your friend. Adverbs can hurt you as much
as help you. Use them sparingly, and don't be afraid to cut them out during
rewrites.
(e) Never, ever assume your reader knows what things look
like. Describe. Use verbs with visual overtones, like 'sprinted,' 'jogged,'
'scrambled,' or 'raced' instead of 'ran.' Don't be afraid to take extra
space and time to give the reader a setting to work from. *THIS IS DOUBLY
IMPORTANT IF THE READER ISN'T FAMILIAR WITH THE ANIME YOU'RE FANFICCING.*
(f) Vary up sentence structures. If a long string of
sentences read the same way, the reader will get bored and move on to
something else.
(g) Vary up word usages. Don't use the same active verb
twice in the same paragraph, if not the same -page-. The lone exception to
this is 'said,' since efforts to avoid using it in a long string of dialogue
can become even more painful than using 'said' over and over.
(g1) Don't use 'said' if you can help it. So long as you can
indicate who is speaking in that particular paragraph, the 'said' can be
taken as read.
Looking forward to the next batch of stories!
Redneck
Kris Overstreet's email has changed...
http://www.detnet.com/~redneck/ - Redneck Gaijin Online
http://www.wren-spot.com/wlp/ - White Lightning Productions
http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/dvpbem/ - In Nomine: Dark Victory PBEM
http://www.wren-spot.com/wlp/milkmaid.html - The Magnificent Milkmaid
... respond to redneck@detnet.com please