A Galaxy Burning: A Starmade Fiction (Chapter #12)

[MrNature72]

You also can\'t set fire to the rain.



But that sold pretty well so hey.

 

[FlyingDebris]

My reaction upon reading your post- \"...........................................................................................................................................................wat.\"

 

[ObiShawnKenobi]

Oh, come on! Let Maria die already! Or something! I wanna see people cry over one of the main characters dying! Or something!!!

 

[MrNature72]

Kill the girl in the first heavy arc? If I was that kind of writer I wouldn\'t be any good.

 

[ObiShawnKenobi]

Well something that will make people cry! Sadness is my power!!!

 

[Super Templar]

Nooooo!!!!! Let... Errrr... Jackson die, if anyone, still be sad, just not as sad..



EDIT: I hate you obi! Hate!!! How dare you say such thing! (Not really, being very sarcastic, if you couldn\'t tell)

 

[theB33R]

As much as I hate to be that guy, I\'d like to point out some general things that just aren\'t so good, from a story standpoint and a personal standpoint.

I know everyone is busy praising this, and I understand it is simply a \"for fun\" story for the writer, but I strongly believe a balance between praise and constructive criticism is a good thing, coming from someone who is also involved in the arts.

Besides some cringe-inducing grammar mistakes, which you have already attributed to your lack of editing (which is completely understandable), I have an issue with the characters.

The five \"main\" characters, Andrew, Maria, Jackson, Jeremiah, and the Auditor, all seem somewhat cliche.

Andrew is the \"standard\" revenge-seeking, got-nothing-to-lose character type. He has witnessed a terrible disaster that leaves him homeless and with a thirst for retribution. He\'s basically the go-to character for a sci fi story.

Maria is the good old sexy female who serves as emotional support, which is another \"standard\" character type.

Jackson is the all too frequently used \"bad-ass\" who doesn\'t give a sh*t about anything and is a mindless killing machine.

Jeremiah is the cliche, extremely intelligent side-kick to the main character.

The Auditor is practically every other semi-evil evil guy. He\'s a manipulative know-it-all who has hidden motives, and he will almost inevitably betray the main character after trust is built.



I don\'t mean to sound too harsh, it\'s just something I\'ve noticed in your story. A lot of authors seem to fall into this trap of sticking to a group of relatively cliche characters that have only minor differences from other storylines. Besides my gripes with the characters, I think the overall storyline is pretty interesting. I didn\'t get into it that much the first five or so chapters, but the latest few have really been a step up from previous ones. I thank you for the entertainment and hope you keep it up.

 

[Zodapop]

Well, you beat me to the critique by about an hour, so if you could give me a copy of your family tree, B33R, I\'ll get to placing the hexes as soon as possible.

But basically, what he said. Or, in my words, \"The characters fit a bit too firmly in their respective archetypes.\"



Editation Extraordinarium: Also, the misuse of various homophones. But it\'s not intended to be proffesional writing, so that\'s essentially fine.

It is good though, the plot is interesting & the setting does appear to please the audience, though I personally don\'t get any of the references.



Editorial Editomancy: Basically, just look at B33R\'s comment.

 

[FlyingDebris]

Besides, the contrast between the characters is quite interesting.

 

[MrNature72]

But I\'m writing a high-speed, by-the-chapter book that I\'m on a pretty fast-producing basis. For one, I don\'t have full-sized chapters to develop my characters; Books where I have more time and space I emplace much deeper characters. Second, I have to keep everyone entertained, and it\'s great fun to write a lot of action anyway. Finally, there\'s nothing necessarily wrong with archetypes; They weren\'t created to make something \'bad\', they simply are basic definitions of a character.

I agree entirely but considering the circumstances, the design of the characters suits the situation very well.

 

[MrNature72]

One of the concepts was by putting enough conflicting archetypes into play I can create one hell of an orchestrated play of chaos, arguing, and action.



And so far it\'s worked.

 

[Zodapop]

It\'s not about them not being similar, or them not being similar. It\'s about them having cliché personalities. They\'re all representations of a specific archetype. They can be different without feeling recycled. Though, if you do start worrying about not having cliché characters too much, you\'ll end up with incredibly weird ones. So, most characters are going to use elements of certain roles, but this just feels like they\'re the roles incarnate.



Edintimate: If that is a deliberate choice, then, you know. It\'s your writing, I suppose.

 

[jzimmerman4]

I agree with Nature that having them be cliche allows for more action and back story and less character development, since he doesnt have a lot of time to do so anyways.

 

[Legolas170]

I\'d almost prefer chapter that builds upon our characters and some lore, as lore seems to be missing and I am unsure of how you do/don\'t plan to add it in. Once in a while, I\'d like to know a little more background, and I do admit there have been some great moments, like jerimiah and the technokenisis. But just small things, even the colors of ships and uniforms, discription of weapons, maybe if you have the time you could make a list of weapons and ships and such for the people who would like to write stories in this beautiful world of yours. Basically what I\'m trying to say is that we (at least I) don\'t expect nor want action every chapter. Of course, it is your choice what to do, and I\'ll support that, but I thought you may like some input from a fan and a scifi buff... Just saying.

 

[WolfChild]

is that they are clichés for a reason. Everyone loves them, and that\'s why they are used.

But when they get overused, you just think \"He stole Tolkien\'s character!!!\" or whatever, even though it quite possibly wasn\'t Tolkien\'s to start with.

Clichés. however, aren\'t necessarily a good or bad thing. A cliché written in for a reason, can create something very different and original that we can still relate to.

Do things like:

The Elves don\'t live in the forest *gasp*

The dwarves aren\'t miners, and they are TALL!!!! *larger gasp*

The big badass dude has a cat he carries around all the time!!! Ok, maybe not....



But take those examples, they are clichés, with a twist. Interesting, yet different. A good way to write clichés.

I\'ve just realised that there wasn\'t really any point in typing this, as it neither agrees nor disagrees or even remotely comments on Nature\'s story. But eh, that would be wasted effort. I\'ll post it anyway.

 

[MrNature72]

Technokenisis.

Congrats. I\'m using that. :D



On another note I have been and will continue to advance lore. More detail on factions and their technology, alien races, armor and weapons, ships and other things. I love developing lroe but you have to be careful not to go on huge rants explaining things; Everything has to be properly spaced out.



But I also hate having \'flat\' technology. In case you haven\'t noticed, every faction uses different weapons so far. DFN Marines and Shock Troopers use external power armor, Vaygr troopers use ballistic autorifles and heavy unpowered armor but they have super-heavy Terror Troopers, the crew of the Washington use magnetically accelerated 10mm rifles, and I put in a good bit of effort on Andrew\'s Gyrojet pistol.



Don\'t worry. You\'ll get the development around the board you want. Something for everybody.

 

[MrNature72]

I do develop my characters to prevent them from being flat, but since this is a fast-paced, day-by-day book that is constantly growing, I have to develop on the fly and also write action alongside it.



Also, I have two writing styles: Developing and progressive, as I call them. In developing I will go back and change entire story aspects, characters, and write 3-10 drafts before I\'m done with a book. Progressive, I pick up and go. I don\'t even have an end set in stone; Everyone who reads it is only reading a few steps behind where the story is developed. It makes a fantastic writing excersize, is one of the funnest ways to write (since the story grows and develops wildly fast as you write, and you can take any twist and turn you want), and produces a super fast paced story.



Plus everyone seems to be enjoying it, so I must be doing something write :P



However, this isn\'t to say you are wrong. I just don\'t think the cliches is an issue.

 

[MrNature72]

As I develop each of the factions and subhumans, you will learn more. Especially the Tartarans and the Lazarus. I can\'t wait to delve into the surprising Tartaran homeworld (Incap I\'m looking at you on this one) and look at their tougher sides (which will be fun because everyone is so used to Maria already), and I also can\'t wait to go into the Lazarus, with their insane technology and few but ludricous war machines. It will also be fun to craft their architecture.

 

[MrNature72]

The five \"main\" characters, Andrew, Maria, Jackson, Jeremiah, and the Auditor, all seem somewhat cliche.

Andrew is the \"standard\" revenge-seeking, got-nothing-to-lose character type. He has witnessed a terrible disaster that leaves him homeless and with a thirst for retribution. He\'s basically the go-to character for a sci fi story.

Maria is the good old sexy female who serves as emotional support, which is another \"standard\" character type.

Jackson is the all too frequently used \"bad-ass\" who doesn\'t give a sh*t about anything and is a mindless killing machine.

Jeremiah is the cliche, extremely intelligent side-kick to the main character.

The Auditor is practically every other semi-evil evil guy. He\'s a manipulative know-it-all who has hidden motives, and he will almost inevitably betray the main character after trust is built.








Andrew- Obviously has some violence and alcohol issues, loves his crew and friends but cares too little about his personal safety, and is fairly numbed to violence against people he is angry against, lacking (ironically) as strict of a moral code as you would want. But he\'s friendly, (as stated) caring, and does take care of things with humanity, he is not heartless, and he\'s a character you can root for (most of the time).

Maria- Hasn\'t actually given much moral support. In most cases has berated other crew members for a lack of performance or disagreeing with a moral or ethical issue. Also has a complete lack of sexuality despite her appearance; Something that isn\'t often played (well).

Jackson- I made it clear that he has an intense care for people, and indeed gives a shit about a lot. He is protective of maternal and paternal figures (hence Andrew\'s mom and Andrew himself) which is an issue relating to what happened on his homeworld (go read back a few chapters). Intensely cares for crew members, and even though he\'s heavy handed he will go to any length to sacrifice himself to keep others safe. And it\'s not that he doesn\'t give a shit; He is simply filled with anger.

Jeremiah- Yes, extremely intelligent. Also a complete introvert. But consider that at any time, he could take over nigh every piece of technology aboard the washington using the projected synapses he has with technology; It would tax him greatly, but it could be done. What does that say about his personality? About his code of ethics? He acts on a higher level of ethics than you see up front.

Auditor- Is he evil? Is he good? He\'s neither. He\'s at times lawful evil, or chaotic good, or even true neutral. It\'s not a thirst for raw power; It\'s a thirst for information and influence.





If you really dig into it you can derive the psych of all the characters, but you have to consider all the points and relations. I doubt anyone put together what happened to Jackson and how it is related to how he treats Andrew and his mom. Or the bit about Jeremiah and his respect for machinery. Or even Maria and how she is far more cynical and intelligent on a tactical level than Andrew and the other characters.

 

[WolfChild]

I think this all the stuff you notice subconciously - the things that make the story deeper, but you aren\'t quite sure why. Some of those things you only notice after reading a second time, or even third or fourth.