20140203 - Without Honour - Chapter 3 (-)‏

[Robinski]

Hi all,

Here is Chapter 3 of Without Honour. If you've been reading so far you'll know that only getting two viewpoints in a chapter is quite a departure! Okay there's a tiny bit of a third, but look on the bright side, only one of the main ones is new.

Still in the introductory phase, but hopefully things are entertaining enough to hold your interest. Bit more action coming in Chapter 4, honest!

All comments welcomed, as ever.

Best, Robinski

 

[Mandamon]

pg 3:  "Karus however made his way to his office to send messages to the eight Knights of Brekia."

-A bit of loose POV here.  The last sentence sounds like it's from Karus' POV rather than Vekalik.  Should it be on the other side of the break?

 

Pg 3: Not sure if Karus' POV was even necessary.  It's pretty short and covers him doing things we would expect a major-domo to do, so I'm not sure it adds anything.

 

pg 8:  I'm not sure about each of the council having their own introductory paragraph.  At first, I was wincing to see a page of this, as it's sort of heavy-handed, but by the end I kind of liked it.  So take it as you will.  I'm wondering if this might end cut out in an eventual edit with the introductions done as the members speak.

 

Also do they share the name of their county/city?  Or is it named after them? Or vice versa?

 

pg 10: sort of an infodump about Husa, and how it's unlikely they would attack.  Again, could be handled within the conversation.

 

You reveal much better reasons here for Gjurd leaving Saffen.  I wonder if this would be better combined with the previous section so it doesn't feel so sudden?

 

I'm still enjoying this, although this section was a little slower.  I liked Saffen's POV better than King Vekalik, as his section was sort of rambling compared with the previous ones.  Most of it was infodump-ish about the war efforts, although there was some good character building for the king--especially the violin-playing section.  There were lots of place-names thrown around, and I don't have the map in front of me, so I was a little lost.  I trust it's all building up to something, though.

Looking forward to all the action in Chapter 4!

[Robinski]

Thank you, Mandamon, finger on the pulse as usual! These are good comments and I wouldn't argue with any of them.

 

Will give serious consideration to bringing the two Saffen sections together, and I agree the Vekalik section is info-heavy. You're right about Karus section, I thought it was going somewhere, but on reflection it's surplus to requirements.

 

Maybe I can make the intros a bit punchier. It's a lot to retain for later anyway. The knights are referred to and addressed using the name of their city, as a convention to maintain continuity, and use their given name if they become king. Possibly some refinement needed there.

 

Concerned now that I've biult the action up too much!

 

Thanks again.

[jParker]

So, I know I've been out for a while and that some of my comments may have already been addressed, but here we go.

 

Logistics

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the world is roughly comparable with ours circa AD 1000--tech level, population, etc. Provided that's the case, the numbers need some serious reworking.

 

I noticed this in my brief foray into Chapter One and again here, the massive size of Brekia's armies. Forty thousand foot with a hundred thousand in reserve is unbelievably large. William the Bastard fielded 10,000 at Hastings and Harald Sigurddson fielded 15,000 at Tynemouth. The logistics behind maintaining that many citizen soldiers is absolutely absurd, not to mention the entire population not of fighting ability--a war would have to be won in less than a month before starvation set it.

 

Similarly, I can understand the Council's tradition of owing fealty to no one, but that kind of (read: very much) conflicts with the notion of a king. While Vekalik seems more like a feudal liege lord than a true king, if the throne has been around for any amount of time, *someone* should have been enacting measure to reign in the Council.

 

That being said, the politics certainly can exist, especially if you're working up to a War of the Roses-style conflict. I just want to encourage critical world-building.

 

Safren

 

Now, this one gets a little close to home, having firsthand experience with a man leaving his wife for war. While Safren is definitely feeling the right things, she's doing awfully well at staving off rumination. On the other hand, the rule of thumb for active storytelling (action vs. description) necessarily loathes the kind of depression that should be setting in, some authors manage it rather well (e.g. Sanderson). Along a similar line, her viewpoint and recollection seems a bit detached--is this more a cognitive dissociation on her part or a widening of narrative perspective?

 

Honor

 

Finally--and this could just be me--but it is way too early to be bringing up honor so many times in a chapter. I get it. The title is Without Honor; it's going to be a major theme through the book. But goddamn son, just because we read fantasy does not mean we're special needs. You can address the issue of honor in a feudal society with tools other than a hammer.

 

It should be said that I do like that you are using a woman's perspective in a patriarchal society and how that affects things. That's pretty cool and should be lauded. Also, I hope there is lots of Vikings bashing skulls in (preferably with Tarantino-level gore), but that's not a necessity.

[Robinski]

Phew, thank you for those no-holds-barred comments, very valuable.

I plead guilty on the numbers in the field, those are no the first set, but I bow to superior knowledge. I didn't research in great detail, dangers of utting up a first draft. I'm thinking of tech level a bit further on from 1000AD, maybe 1200s, but I take all your points and will fix those number in the edit.

On Saffen, I hope it's clear that there are other things wrong with the relationship, and it's not about him going to far, although she uses that as a lever in the argument.

On the honour thing, sorry, guilty again. I will tone that down. It's very much not a comment on my perception of the reader, but a sometime lack of confidence in my ability to be subtle.