industrialistDragon

Hello and welcome! I love flash fiction. It does so much with so little. In general I agree with what the others have said: while I enjoyed the action and the over all story, I had many problems figuring out where each person was situated, and what the setting was about. I couldn't figure out much of the personality of the characters, and was confused by most of the action sequences. Even though it is so short, flash fiction absolutely has the ability to convey character, personality, and action, as well as plot, so I don't believe it is wholly due to the limitations of the format. I believe many of the problems I experienced stem from the lack of specificity in the choice of words used to describe the events in the piece. Flash is so small, so constricted, that every word carries greater weight and I feel like should be chosen with care. General terms like "weapon," "man," and "people" don't convey very much concrete information, especially where there simply isn't room to wait for a second chance to describe something. What kind of man? What kind of people? Do they have names? Jobs? Titles? Can the words used to describe them do double-duty and be used to convey something about themselves or the POV character? In action sequences especially it's important that readers can tell the combatants apart on a textual level, even if they are identical in the story. For example, had I known the protagonist carried a gun from the first, I would not have been confused when she shot someone. If I had something other than "the man" to call the person who jumps in front of the king, I would not have been as confused by their interaction. The same with the guards and the bystanders. Similarly, if I don't know where all of the action is taking place, I don't know how to interpret the action. "The room," "the door" don't tell me much beside the fact that they are indoors. Is it a house, a castle? Office, school, ship? A jail? A theater? Any one of these would fit the description in the story, since they all contain people, rooms, and doors. I also agree with @shatteredsmooth that having her kill someone because she heard voices is playing into a not-great stereotype that does real harm to real people. Since it seems to me like the voices don't have a significant role in the rest of the story, I feel like they could probably be cut out without much loss. It seemed to me like there was more going on with the protagonist than doing something just because she was told to. I want to reiterate that I think the story has a lot of promise and I am interested enough to want to read more. Things are confusing me right now, but I look forward to reading this again when they get straightened out.

I mean, I haven't read the book so, it's probably me just missing the context. But, omg, I would love to see, like, O remarking on/staging a low-key intervention for R after he notices she's being self-destructive after whatever happened in book 1, instead of all this V-stuff. Like, R's in a downward spiral, S has gone all hikikomori again, and even his longstanding governmental rival The Man is in shambles... must be tough for O to be the only adult in the room right now. XD

Sorry, I don't have a whole lot to comment on this time. I think this is an improvement over the previous version. A is much more active in their own destiny now, and makes decisions to take actions instead of reacting and running. I felt like there was a lot of extraneous details in this section, however, and it could use some streamlining to pare things down to only what's most needed. I enjoyed the practice scene a lot. I felt like there was a little bit of confusion still around the rescue, not necessarily in what happens, but in what A is feeling and doing leading up to it. This would be very helpful, I agree, and might take some of the pressure off of finding him a good name. For nonobvious nicknames, I think these might work: Henry can be Hank or Hal; Alexander can be Sasha or Sandy; Conrad becomes Connie or Curt. There's also Bill for William, Bob for Robert, Dick for Richard and Jim for James, but I feel like are pretty well known, if you're looking for something a bit more obscure. For nicknames that could be more than one name: Ward for Howard or Leonard or Edward, etc; Butch for someone who is a Jr; Fred for Frederick or Alfred; Ted for Theodore or Edward. There's also the option, if you want to obscure the name, of having him go by his middle name. There are a lot of formations like J. Michael out there.

Overall: I found this section confusing, mostly from a "who's that talking to who else now?" standpoint. The gate attempt was nice and tension-filled, but I didn't understand why R felt she had to do it right then. As I go: I know this is partially WRS and partially that I haven't read the first one, but I'm having a hard time remembering who's who in this meeting scene. There's a lot of names going on here. I'm also having trouble figuring out how they're all seated/ who's looking where, and that's messing up my mind's eye "camera" during all this dialogue. I'm beginning to think R has a hand/finger fetish, the way she focuses on O's hands and then gets all hot'n'bothered just looking at him/them. It feels like an awfully specific reaction otherwise... "a month of research" so that's what they're calling torture now, is it? This feels really ... mmm... hypocritical? disingenuous? off? when paired with the prison scene last chapter. Like, no, honey, call it what it is, if only to your self. Own up to your bad actions, don't pretend repeatedly beating a restrained prisoner after he had given you all his useful intel was something as antiseptic and objective as "research." Unless, I mean, it also makes her look to me a bit like a sociopath, if she can call a month of beatings mere "research," so if that kind of thing is what's intended, then run with it I guess. ". to…er…tease it out of my source" yeah, definitely not liking all of this affected coyness over V. It would be odd without the scene, but with it, I'm just cringing. I guess I'm missing a lot of her characterization from the first novel that would provide more context for her actions, but I feel like R is all over the place here. Sociopath, oddly aroused, dangerously reckless, cool administrator trying to control the group, all in this section. Plus, it feels weird that someone who'd spent years on the admin of a very rules-and-law-heavy institution would just so flippantly disregard all the rules and safeguards that seem to be place regarding the portal she's trying to open without preparation...

I agree with most of what @Mandamon and @kais have said here, especially regarding the tangential nature of this section. I didn't feel like this added much, either for character development or plot, and while it continues to be well-written (early draft spelling and grammar aside), I think this is the weakest of these chapters that I've seen so far. Like Kais, I also thought the revelations of the previous chapter signaled a ramping up of the plot. Up to this point, A has been largely reactive to the things that are happening around them, and it felt to me like A was getting ready to finally start making some decisions themselves when the things happened last time. But this chapter still has A reacting and running. Things just happen to them and then they panic and more things just happen to them and they just keep getting carried along, largely passively. The water rescue is action, but the way it's described makes me feel like it happens to A, A doesn't really choose to do a thing besides calling 911. So, I also agree with Mandamon that A needs to do more "protagging" and if the rescue is significant, I feel like it should be set up more.

Sounds like a prime candidate for inclusion in a short story collection! And I have been tinfoil-hat speculating on how a government like the Nether's ends up with a magic-dampening solitary-confinement cell seriously all last night and today.

I remember parts of this section. It is reading better overall than what I'm recalling. "scars under his sleeves" -- Did S self-harm in the first book? I read this as cutting, but it seems like others read it as suicide? It does feel a little out of place with what I'm recalling and with S from the first section of this book, but again, I haven't read but what you've submitted here, so I can see both leaving it in and taking it out. It seems to me like he's making a reference to some scene from this book we don't have, like we're supposed to have seen him injuring himself in order to feel something and this is a callback. But at the same time, there was no mention of self-harm in the first S section of this book, so ... it is a little odd. "It lost you your seat, didn't you" -- is he implying that sleeping with O got her fired? Like, with the "electric shiver" in the first bit, paired with this, and that's a bit of a low blow, isn't it? I'm a bit confused by the whole prison scene in general, but this section really had me scratching my head. More broadly, though, I still think the part with R in the prison isn't fitting quite right with the rest of the section. It's better than I remember, because I remember thinking R lost control of the situation immediately, and she doesn't here. She remains mostly in control this time, more or less. However, I am unsure about the usefulness of showing R in generally-ineffective prison torture at this point. It's an odd change of tone from the S parts, and kind of I feel like halts the momentum the S parts had going for them. Maybe it's because I haven't read the other books, but I'm also unsure what I'm supposed to be getting out of prison torture other than a minor pointer back to book 1, if V doesn't do much in this book. I feel like, wouldn't there be some kind of guard or interrogator or -- well, i suppose the Nether doesn't have war mages so a psychic interrogator is out, but still -- somebody better trained in actual interrogation or interviewing than an out-of-favor politician? And, like, couldn't any other person at the prison give this info to R once it had been beaten out of V? Surely V has been in contact with others with whom he could be negotiating? I have so many questions about a state-operated prison with a magic-forbidding solitary confinement room in a pacifist society that apparently opposes violence so much that it doesn't even allow research for defense, like wow. Like, you'd think they'd be more on the rehabilitation side of correctional policy than the retributive? Or at least, I would. I don't know, the more I think about it, the weirder the whole thing seems.... Anyway, ignoring "why prison," that R would be present for or participate in an interrogation, I understand, but I keep getting hung up on R being the ONLY interrogator, the ONLY contact. I mean, I feel like, if V is showing up here this early, in this big of a section (and it is a pretty big section), then I should expect him to escape at some point and play a larger part in the plot. I don't know. the whole thing's just still not sitting right with me, sorry. I like all the POV sections here, but there are a lot of them, and I don't quite feel like the POVs are lining up well enough to have the momentum transfer well -- like, a bit keeps getting lost at each switch, and while no one part is putting on the brakes, the net effect is a good bit of slowing. Maybe if the S parts were together, like S-R-R-M or something instead of R-S-R-M like it is now? I do like that end line from M, that's really good and needs to stay there because I was slightly unhappy I didn't have more to read after that. Don't have much to say about the M section specifically. It seems a lot more focused than before, and I'm getting some more emotion out of it, I think. I was a bit confused by the K machine. It's the one that G is sitting on, yes? And I do like that end line.

Sad news about scifi/fantasy author Vonda McIntyre: https://www.caringbridge.org/visit/vondanmcintyre Vonda McIntyre wrote Dreamsnake, which won the 1979 Hugo, the 1978 Nebula, the 1979 Locus awards, and which I cannot recommend highly enough. It's outstanding. Her most recent novel is Moon and Sun, which will apparently be a movie here soon and which also won a Nebula award. It's historical fantasy and also amazing. She also has a space adventure/first-contact series and has done some official Star Trek and Star Wars books. Here's her website: http://www.vondanmcintyre.com

Also fair and entirely valid!

Ehhh.... kind of? Sort of? Like everything else in tarot, it really depends -- on what deck you're using and what the deckbuilder intended for it, on what theories or history the deck is based on, on the spread you're using, on the card's position in the spread, the card itself, whether it's major or minor arcana, on the rest of the cards in the spread, etc etc. You want something that'll get you more solid answers, that's runes. lol. My friend who was into runes and I would ask runes and cards the same question then compare the answers and it was really funny the way the cards would be all "Well... you know, this isn't really the best course for you," while the runes were like "Yer bein' an idiot. Cut it out ya moron!" But anyway, in general an inverted or reversed card is not necessarily "bad" or "negative" but can represent more unhealthy aspects of what the card embodies, or the aspects of the card taken "too far" (and knowing you have a problem is the first step in finding a solution, after all). For the Fool, for instance, which is (partially) about taking that first step into the unknown, inverted can be about both a fear of the unknown, and/or an unhealthy amount risk-taking. It could also be a person with the qualities of the card who is (again, not necessarily "bad" but) acting against the health or in opposition to the best result for the querent. An inverted card can also be the upright aspects of the card, just unduly delayed or somehow blocked from happening. I'm probably forgetting something else, too. The major arcana tend to have more well defined inverted/reversed/blocked meanings than the minor arcana (and are considered a little "stronger" or "more potent" than the minor arcana in general (when you're using the minor arcana. (It depends. (Argh.)))), but which aspects of a card come into play in any given reading depends on the rest of everything in the reading.

This continues to be the best thing I've seen from you to date. There was real heat here! However momentous their explorations were to each other, this is not the sort of inciting incident that I feel would support a full novel. There's just not that much there, and this far into a novel, I sort of want to know the main shape of what I'm reading, and I don't feel like this is really there yet. For a novel. It's still going great for something in the novella to short story range, though! And I am definitely interested in reading more. I think the scene was done well, and honestly don't have a whole lot to say about it. Nothing tripped me up overmuch, and the reactions seemed reasonable and logical. I noticed above you said you didn't have much experience with tarot, and I used to do readings for spending money in college so I let myself go a bit (way) into the weeds here. Let me preface this by saying what you have there already written is absolutely fine and works for what it seems to me to be doing in the story and the average person won't notice the parts where it's not lining up quite right (especially for a short. I might expect more out of a novel, but not a short. I just had fun remembering all this stuff. ). I was never super fond of 3-card spreads when I did tarot, since I didn't think they provided enough context like the larger spreads do, but for a snapshot or guidance on a quick decision they're great. A lot of people prefer 3- and 5-card spreads over larger ones because they can be easier to interpret and give more direct answers (especially when the question is more specific or yes/no). What sort of result are you going for in the reading? That will affect which cards are best in which position. I am going to make a bunch of assumptions here, but if you were going for a quick reading to give hope and reassure that all will be well on the current path, then the spread and the card choices are pretty good. The first card in any reading is usually either the querent (the one who's asking the question of the cards), the querent's current situation or mental state, or the current situation in general, or the past events that led to the current situation. Though, with a 3-card spread you can get more variations that do specific things like answer yes/no questions or give direct advice. I am assuming first of all a standard deck that doesn't deviate too much from Rider-Waite (which is the setup you'll find the most information about on the internet. Lots of others exist). I'm assuming next that this spread is a general one for "how things look if I don't change anything right now" and not a specific one for a specific question or something else. I am also assuming that P is only using the major arcana for this draw, just to avoid all the squishiness of having the minor set kicking around in there. It doesn't work that great (in my opinion) for a larger spread, but for a small spread like this, limiting the deck to the major arcana can force the cards to not be so wishy-washy and get more definitive answers. (I'm also assuming that no card is going to represent a person, for simplicity, and because I haven't seen any indication yet that this story has a direct antagonist. Any card in a tarot deck can potentially represent a person, though.) Thus, I'm assuming this first card is representing A and the events leading up to the start of the story. If this is the case, then I would probably replace the Fool with either the Hermit or Tower. A is no innocent just starting their journey, blind to the realities of the world and full of hope. They know the cliff is in front of them. In fact, from what I've seen of their backstory, they've pretty much just watched their entire life cave in. The Tower, with its solid walls and shaky foundation, is more the card of sudden upheavals or sharp changes, such as those that brought A back to this town in the first place. It can also represent a revelation, an idea or thought that crumbles your entire worldview -- like what just happened in this section here. There's no denying A has just had the ground shift under their feet (literally and metaphorically). Have they been living a lie their entire life? Realizing it in one fell swoop is all about the Tower. Sometimes the old needs to fall apart to make way for the new. The Hermit is a card of introspection. It represents withdrawing from those around you and seeking inner guidance. It's not a great fit for A prior to the the beginning of the story, but It's definitely a good fit for A's current state of introspection and connecting with childhood memories. It can be a "taking stock of your life" card, which also fits with A's mood at the beginning of the story. It can also be a card representing a turning away from or dissatisfaction with consumerist or materialist culture, which also would fit A's state at the beginning of the story, I feel like. Honorable mention for the Hierophant, which is a card of conformity and order, of toeing the corporate line and following conventions. Inverted, it can mean stuck in a rut, following blindly without thinking, or being constricted by society's rules and norms and needing to break free. All of these are things which I feel like would describe A shortly before the start of the story. If the Fool is still desired, I'd probably go with it inverted, which, while it can mean undue risk-taking, the inversion can also mean a delay in time or a stymieing of the regular aspects of the card. So, this would be the deck being relentlessly hopeful: A has a fresh new beginning full of possibilities ahead of them, but it's far away in time and/or possibly something within themselves (or without, depending on the rest of the spread) is holding it back. The second card in a 3-card spread is usually the challenges that the querent faces, forces opposed to the desired outcome, the querent's weaknesses that affect the outcome, or the present situation. This is a decent place for some foreshadowing, since this most often represents a person or force opposed to the querent's goals. I don't have an alternative suggestion here, because I'm not sure where the story is going. Any card, even the generally "good" ones, could fit here. I am assuming this card would be representing what's going on with A right now, so any of the cards I recommended for the first position would also work here, where they would most likely be talking about the mental or emotional states holding A back. The Chariot in this position is not an obvious choice, but I believe it can work from what I've seen of the story so far. In this position could mean that determination, courageousness and staying the course in the face of coming adversity is what's required to overcome some of the obstacles in the past, or it could show that A has made up their mind and has started on the path to victory. It's a card of taking action and accomplishing goals. If the Hermit is the card used in the first position, then this is the deck being a little bit admonishing: the time for being quiet and introspective is over, the time for being bold and taking action is now. The third card in a 3-card spread is usually the future, querent's the desired outcome, advice, the solution to the querent's problem, the querent's potential, or the outcome if nothing in the previous two cards is changed (and tarot cards are all about being hopeful and changing your current situation. Runes'll straight-up tell you you're being a dingbat, but tarot will be like "if you keep following this path you might not get everything you want but the power is always within you at every step to change the outcome for the better " probably with the smiley face). The Star is a really good card to include in this position and I agree with the interpretation P provides for it. I would also say, if he wanted to poke A a little bit, that the Star is also about having the spiritual/magical and practical/real world sides of oneself working in harmony, and the way for them to harmonize, according to the Star, is though both halves accepting and relying on/believing in the other. With the Tower in the spread, it would just emphasize the Star's meaning and importance, since the Star directly follows the Tower in the order of the cards. Out of the rubble of the old way of being, a new way emerges, growing from the nourishment of hope and faith (and magic). With the inverted Fool, the Star represents what the Fool promised at the beginning: through action and bravery (the Chariot) along with faith in the future and in their magic (the Star), A can overcome what's holding them back to reach the new (magical) possibilities that are waiting for them.

These are mostly just "as I go" comments. This is much improved over the previous version! I love dramatis personae! I find them to be the most useful appendices in fantasy books and I use them often when they're provided. I think the blurbs here are a bit long, though. S's for instance, ends up describing a lot of concepts that, well, aren't the person. I feel like those concepts are better tackled in the main text, or in a separate glossary or "what happened before" section if necessary, while a dramatis personae is for keeping track of who's who, and who's related to whom. I'm not overly fond of the trailing off into the next person, either. When I use these sections, it's usually for a quick reminder of social or political connections. I sort of end up asking myself "who is this guy again and why doesn't he like that other guy?" when things get complicated in the text. I just need something quick and basic to jog my memory. I don't want to be reading an entire page or more just to figure out a single relationship for a single person, and for me, I feel obligated to keep following the trail of ellipses until I get to the end. The ellipses seem like they're is implying all of the entries are part of one big paragraph that's just split up a bit for readability. This section is so bulky, I'm not sure I'd use it a whole lot. I know a couple of the series on my bookshelf have dramatis personae in them (or at least, person sections of the glossary); I'd be happy to scan them for you if you'd like some comparisons. S is reading a bit older now, so it's not as much of a shock when he remembers In (still a little bit of one for me though. Oh, my! *fans self* ) This is also reading as better integrated with regards to the previous-book-info recap. "his best friend" -- Uh-huh. My dude, my friend, buddy. Let me tell you about this river in Egypt -- it's called DE NILE. I look forward to someone calling him on that. Still a little meandering at the beginning, but by the end of the chapter, it had a good bit of momentum and a nice hook. I got pretty into it so I don't have much more written.

I generally agree with @Mandamon and @kais. It's a solid concept, as far as it goes, and as-is would make a good short story. I'm not sure there's enough there for a whole novel at the moment. I also don't find unlimited power to be particularly compelling, so the fact that the protagonist can do basically whatever he wants is not terribly interesting to me. I usually like gun geekery in stories, but again, here they ended up being completely useless, so I'm left wondering why anyone bothers with them. Powers with limitations, reasons why a gun could work in a superpower situation, those would interest me much more in the world and the characters.

Man, I have had A Week. Basically I agree with @kais and @shatteredsmooth . L reads MUCH less problematically now. He seems like a competent adult or near-adult. I like the extra reasons at the front, I think they really help! Unfortunately I feel like it's also getting a little bit flabby at this point, too. Thank you for having O realize he's not being chased specifically. The hand-beating is still feeling a bit off, though. It feels to me like it's still sort of... unattached (?) to any kind of reason for it. It almost seemed to me like he was doing it because he wanted to stop working on the equation but couldn't because it wasn't finished yet, and was thus experiencing an overflow of conflicting emotion/anxiety that he couldn't express otherwise. Which isn't bad, but it left me confused as to why the pressure vest helped. (As an aside, I think this confusion is partly because I've only ever seen the pressure vest in relation to anxious dogs, so it's a weird mental image for me personally. A little internet research says this is probably just a me-thing.) I think a little more clarity of the type kais was talking about will probably fix it up. It still feels off that K doesn't know how to interact with L. I feel like I'm maybe having problems with the idea that pixies don't interact with males/males are secret clashing with the way K knows exactly where to go to find L, and tells O exactly why L must be saved. If the males are secret, then K must be in on the secret, and I feel like... shouldn't that come with, if not instructions on how to deal with males, then at least more direct interaction with L so she should be ... i don't know.. more familiar? with L's idiosyncrasies? But this might also be something to think about later, since I know you're on a deadline. I think I had other things I meant to write, but I didn't take notes as I was reading and I can't for the life of me remember what they word. Arg.

Technically yes, but if you're talking about wine and spirits, "wine" is specifically made from grapes, and "fruit wine" is the same process using any other kind of fruit (that doesn't have its own special name like perry (pears) and cider (apples). Mead and dandelion wine can sometimes be called a "fruit wine" even though they're made from honey and dandelions, respectively, just to make things even clearer). I understood immediately what it was, but then, I have a bunch of alcohol-trivia-and-history aficionados in my family. Unfortunately, I don't have much to add beyond that. I agree on pretty much all counts with @kais and @Mandamon. It's a bit slow to get going, but I don't mind because I did get invested in it. Though, like Mandamon, I got a bit antsy by the end of the third chapter waiting for something to happen. This is easily the best piece I've read from you, and with P's connection to the stars and astrology, I agree with Kais that it'd be a good fit from what I know of that anthology. I also agree that it'd be great as a novella, but it would need a really meaty inciting incident to make what I've seen so far feel like it could support the length of a novel. Sorry this is mostly a RAEBNC

This is a really good question! English doesn't have a gender neutral formal address word or general honorific that I know of. The equivalent for Mr/Mrs/Ms is Mx, but I can't think of an equivalent to Sir. I think most of the books I've read have made them up. I remember one that just called everyone Sir, and I've seen ones that only used people's titles (like Captain, General, Professor, Doctor etc, which are all gender-neutral by default). One book I distinctly remember used hom or homme. I think another used ser? (though that has Game of Thrones connotations now). Wiki says Ind (for individual) is one. There's always the option of reformulating the sentences to simply not use ANY terms like that. So "Excuse me, sir!" becomes just "Excuse me!" or "Excuse me, please!" English is at least nice in that we don't have to gender anything to be polite if we don't want to. Looking to other languages, several have gender neutral particles, like das for German, that you might be able to use as a starting point. For that matter, the German formal pronoun, Sie, is gender neutral. Japanese has san, which is also used for any gender, if I recall, but is closer to a Mr/Ms/Mx analog I think. @kais? Any ideas from the other languages you're familiar with? @shatteredsmooth? Is there one that I'm missing?

Absolutely!

I was thinking about this a bit, and while the background information on the scifi elements is certainly important for you as the author to think about and know, most of where it pops up in the plot feels pretty superfluous to me. I feel like you could probably just cut the words out of the story without much trouble or need for rewriting.

I have seen the show! I thought the did a good job of making him seem like a whole person and not some kind of alien, but there's been some pushback from the autism community (I think one of the links I had was specifically about the Good Doctor). From what I was reading of the criticism, The Good Doctor is more Hollywood autism, and the doctor basically only exists to explain autism to his neurotypical friends and/or make them feel better about themselves when they treat him with the basic level of respect.

The questions: -Is it enjoyable? Hard no, almost 100% because of L. -Is the magic system and worldbuilding clear? Yes, but I have at least some background in it from reading other pieces. -Are the characters engaging? Again, no because of L. Infuriating, perplexing, took-me-two-and-a-half-days-to-get-through-it, but not particularly enjoyable at the moment. I can see where it would be, if L gets treated differently. To be clear, I don't think he needs to be reworked to be less autistic, I think the text needs to do a much better job of treating him like a fully-sentient, rational character of the same calibre as rest of the cast. -Does the story make sense? More or less. Some fridge logic moments (why can't the mother use the song in the hostage situation?), and one very pedophilia-laced scene with the Mother and L (seriously, yeesh), but otherwise pretty clear. As I go: (I read the updated sections too) The council in the beginning seems more in line with what I know of them from elsewhere. I still think O's being a little logic-missing taking them to task for an intraplantary war, but it doesn't feel as pronounced and the rebuffing makes a lot more sense. O's reasoning inside the pixie battle is more spelled out, and I like that the one he interacts with is at least annoyed by him now. However, I still find it a bit odd that he's basically ignored or treated like a piece of the landscape for 95% of the fight and then is suddenly chased by the attackers when he drops his shield. Right now it feels to me like the warriors are attacking the hive specifically to go after O, and that doesn't seem to jive with the way he was being ignored, or with what you've said about wanting to show him stepping in places where he doesn't belong. "Council said he could and could not do" -- I would like to have heard more about this, at least in passing. it makes more sense for him to rebel or lash out if he's been specifically told he can't do things and has been chafing under the rules for some time. Can the council ground a mage for being annoying to Heads-of-House? ". Finally, recognition" -- again, I would have liked a bit more sense of this early on, as it doesn't seem to be supported by the rest of the text. So far, pretty much everyone from the council guards to the Council itself, to nearly every pixie he's interacted with, have recognized or treated him specially in some way. Desire for accolades is also a pretty good reason to go be a hero in a war, as well, so seeing it earlier would make some sense. I agree that if he's supposed to be affected by it, then the reaction to the first death could be punched up more. The mother singing is cool, but it kind of makes me wonder why she didn't do that with the guard holding her tail hostage....? I feel like the end could be punched up a bit more, but I do like him being chastised for saving the day. L and Hollywood Autism I've pulled this out to it's own section because by far and away, L, his "affliction," and L's treatment by O, K and the text itself was the thing I had the most problems with. So, L. @kais was much nicer about it than I would have been (or am going to be), but L is just a huge collection of unfortunate implications right now. Nearly every single description of him, action performed by him, or interaction with him infantilizes a mature, fully sentient being or treats him like an actual animal incapable of rational thought. The text outright describes him as a pet at one point. He's vulnerable. He growls and mewls. He crawls. He can't be trusted to understand basic things like recognizing pain or danger. Both K and O treat him disparagingly or condescendingly. None of that is great for a character that's supposed to be viewed as fully sentient and rational, but then there's the obvious call-out to autism layered on top of it and it just gets so much worse. L has a textbook case of Hollywood autism, which is problematic in it's own right. But infantilizing people with autism (and people with disabilities in general) is one of those pernicious stereotypes that causes real harm to real people, and even though I know that's not what you intended, that's what's coming across in big neon letters. For K, she treats L with condescension, impatience and a lack of understanding, and says he has "mental differences." But he doesn't, does he? From a Pixie's perspective and from what you've said, isn't L's behavior normal for a male? Plus, this is described as just how the males are, so in theory at least, the Pixie civilization as a whole is one that has evolved with what's basically autism as the baseline normal for an entire gender (and I think that's a really cool idea!). Even if K had never seen a male of her species before this point (which is untrue, since it's clear K has had interactions with L before this), how is it that she is totally unequipped to deal with him? Did the Pixies just never develop any part of their culture or society to handle interactions with the opposite gender? After the scene in L's rooms, K doesn't even acknowledge L's existence until the end where she does the reveal with L's sudden heretofore unknown genius-level field surgery skills, and to me it feels less like she's appreciating a fellow rational person's abilities and more like she's showing off to O what clever pet can do. For O, he mostly just treats L as an infant or a pet, despite the lengthy description of him having a friend with autism as a child. That whole section of getting L out of his rooms just seems weird to me, with K unable or completely unwilling to interact with a valued member of her own species/family to the point that it's only O, the interloper, of a completely different species, that's able to see through the symptoms, reach out to him, and save the day. O is our POV character and so I take most of the textual descriptions as coming from him, and the text never misses an opportunity to reinforce how babyish and animalistic L behaves. It feels really at odds with the way the text portrays O as the one who understands L earlier. I really think the idea of a people for whom the neuroatypical is just normal is really really cool. But as it stands right now, all I'm seeing from the text is a lot of stereotypes and lack of thought.

Polar Vortex Days are my excuse for the tardiness of this post. Overall: This sections reads a bit rougher than the first part, just from a technical standpoint. I think, like the first part, I'm also missing enough description to really give me a foothold into what's going on.I think the background information here is good, but I feel like it should be the focus of the story, and at the beginning instead of at the end. I like the revelations in this section however I feel like they need to be built up or foreshadowed more and earlier. Like the first section, I felt reading this like the focus was off. I like E and U and their interaction and want to read more of that. I'm not particularly interested in the assassins. The Nine of the title feel like almost an afterthought for me, and I wonder if they should even be named and described at all -- a generic assault by an enemy force or assassin-bots would serve the same purpose and not take up description space that I feel like would be better used to flesh out the three primary characters (E, Eld, and U). As I go: I was also confused by the arm part. I didn't understand who was where when it happened, and how everyone was suddenly elsewhere afterwards. I think E just had a flashback but it was difficult to tell when in time the events were happening, due to the verb tense issues. the single tear is kind of an overused cliche, and I am also a little unclear why E is shedding it. I'm really confused after E goes into the closet. Blocking, again, mostly. What is going on? The room seems to start out empty, and lit, but then becomes dark and filled with people? There's a hidden room? or hallway? It's very confusing to me. Eld twist feels like it comes from nowhere. I'd much rather have more interaction and possible foreshadowing with Eld than the information I got about the Nine, since the Nine weren't even "onscreen" at all.

Over all: Man, I never think I'm going to have much to say, and then I write a book. It definitely has promise, but I'm not really sure the motivations are quite there yet, and the pacing is a little uneven and abrupt. I really am looking forward to reading more about the pixies, that seems really cool! The questions: --Is it enjoyable? More or less. I didn't really get interested until K showed up, though. O right now is not a super enjoyable POV for me at the moment. --Are the characters engaging? I like seeing K again! O is more puzzling/confusing than engaging right now, L has potential but nearly zero screen time in this section and everyone else is just walk-ons, so. ::shrug:: -- Does the story make sense? Yes for values of "sense" that mean "follows a chronological order that is easy to ascertain." I question the logic and reasonableness of just about the entirety of O's decision-making process, and the pixies' bland acceptance of a O randomly appearing out of nowhere seems a bit off. So, if that's the definition of "sense," then it's closer to "not quite" for me. --Would this make you want to read more of this series? Honestly not as yet. The back half might change this, still. However, so far, I've not seen the either the dangling hooks I'd need to really clue-in to the fact that it's part of a series, or the sort of amazing characters that would make me run to google to see if there was any more out there. As I go: Despite the talk of war this feels like a bit of a slow open. Council politics are inherently kind of boring, I think, and without more of a reason to care, it's not really grabbing me. "intimidation display" -- Some odd, distancing word choices coming from someone describing a person of the same species as themselves. I wouldn't say of another human I was interacting with, "he moved closer to me and crossed his arms in an intimidation display," so it feels off. I am somewhat confused as to why O even thought the fighting was something in the maji's jurisdiction, much less that somehow one broadsheet article out of an apparent continuing trend of articles somehow merited breaking into a closed meeting of his superiors. Like, yo where's the fire my dude? I only know what I've read of this world from your subs here, but it seems like the non-violence policies of the one-house maji bureaucracy is well and firmly established (since wasn't the super-secret secret war preparedness mission a big part of the super-secret secret 2-house cabal story? Unknown unknowns and all that?). I feel... sort of like this establishing information could be better delivered in a different way? Like, that's the main point of this council, yes? Get O to the battle while reminding readers of the basic world setup? So like, I keep picturing him as a grad student ranting to his fellow TAs over a huge pile of papers to be graded and endless coffee.. Somebody tries to get him to shut up with some variant of "put your money where your mouth is" and then he actually does... I don't know. That's probably not any better. Hmm... I think I'm just having a hard time with O's thought processes in general. Rather than seeming arrogant, he's coming across to me as rash, and possibly a little deluded. Naive, yes, but to me it feels like the sort of willful naivete of someone who feels entitled to special treatment, which I feel like is at odds with him ranting about how the maji get special treatment and won't help the little guy. ...Yeah, the more I think about it, I think entitled, capricious, and callow would be the words I'd use to describe O here. That's K from the other thing isn't it? I enjoy the interactions with her. (though, I think I missed the tie-in to the other story the first time I read this, partially because every other pixie O's interacted with so far has just been so blase in their reactions) So, at the end, there's a lack of emotion and reaction that I think is endemic to your early drafts just in general, but I think also maybe here there's a lack of ... foundation? I feel like I need to know more about what made O decide to take such a drastic step as to go awol on his job and/or studies, or at least stay in the N longer to build up more frustration with the bureaucracy... but at the same time, I also feel like if that's not the point of the story then I'd care much less about why he decided to go there if the story started when he'd already arrived, if that makes sense?

@kais has the TLDR of it -- the voice of the narrative, not just the characters, needs to refute the bad opinions, and I would add that both the characters holding the opinions and the characters to whom the discrimination applies need to be fully fleshed out with depth, and not stereotypes. It's not just what the characters say, either, it's the voice of the author as it comes through the prose as a whole, and unfortunately silence or neutrality will be perceived as acceptance of the problematic views. By saying that E's not supposed to grow out of these beliefs, you're already making the job much more difficult for yourself. Characters growing out of problematic ideas, while it can become a bit gimmicky or mawkish, is one of the more common ways of showing that the problematic views on display aren't being portrayed positively. Likewise, using your narrator to show that these beliefs are not something acceptable to modern audiences is another common way to avoid making the work seem like it is praising problematic ideas. Simply upping the horror is not going to be enough to refute the entire cast's sentiments, and in fact, it would likely go towards proving authorial support of them. Two possible suggestions I have as a way to start addressing this problem would be to introduce characters who don't share the prevailing views of the time, and to make the maid a more fully-realized character instead of a caricature. Even when the prevailing thoughts of an era say horrible things, there are always people who believe otherwise and work towards changing those beliefs. Acknowledging that such alternative points of view exist will help keep the opinions contained to the characters that have them. Secondly, the maid seems to be the underclass character that will have the most contact with E, and so playing the maid (or any other characters marginalized character E comes into regular contact with) sympathetically and with depth instead of for cheap, shallow laughs will go towards showing that E is not stating facts of her world, but merely her own opinions. Lastly, I have some links, essays and other tips that I think will help as you navigate this issue: For general "quick 'n' dirty" tips: the TVTrope's article on How to Avoid Unfortunate Implications is a good place to start. It talks about writing fully-fleshed out characters and avoiding writing for the lowest common denominator (which is sometimes here called going for the "low-hanging fruit") Also this Legit Writing Tip talking about how to write problematic characters in general (you'll see a couple options noted there that have already been mentioned). More specifically for your work, I would suggest these two Writing Excuses episodes. In the season 9 episode, Mary Robinette talks about her experience writing a historically-based fantasy story and how she managed to balance maintaining accuracy in portraying historical biases while also writing something acceptable for modern audiences. In the season 11 one, DongWon Song talks about how to write characters whose opinions you don't agree with. Writing Excuses season 9, episode 3: Character Perception vs. Narrative Perception with Nancy Fulda (transcript is here: https://writingexcuses.com/transcripts/9-3 ) Writing Excuses Season 11, episode 48: Elemental Issue Q&A with DongWon Song (transcript is here: https://writingexcuses.com/transcripts/11-48) Finally, here is a link about modern "problematic opinions:" Writing with Color on writing racist characters -- Writing with Color is a great blog for questions about how to handle racial issues in writing. I know this is not precisely the issue at hand here, but I believe there are tips that would be applicable.

The Baen Fantasy Adventure Contest is back. Deadline is April 30. https://www.baen.com/contest-faa

Overall, I had a hard time getting into this. There are a lot of interesting ideas in this piece, but I feel like they are coming at me too quickly for me to really get a handle on them. I feel like maybe narrowing the focus to be more on E and U rather than having so much of the world info up front around them might help anchor me to the story a bit better. As I go: The invented curse words aren't really landing for me, I'm afraid. The dialogue is feeling a bit stilted here and plot-ful at the beginning here, too I think I agree with the lack of stakes. Nothing really goes wrong for E. They have a plan in place for everything, and I tend to find that kind of perfection to be a bit boring. Honestly, I'm feeling more for U at this point. It seems like she's being kept out of the knowledge that would contextualize why her Big Important Party is being ruined and I can sympathize with that kind of frustration. I've also seen more emotion out of U than I have out of E. I feel like a lot of what E does is summarize, and while the context is nice, I don't know that I need so much of it in a short story. I feel like I want more action and emotions, and maybe a bit tighter focus on the main players, rather than the overview of everything related to the event. I also feel like this might be front-loading some of the information, especially about the assassins and other kingdoms, earlier than it really needs to be included. I would rather hear about what makes the threat so credible than what the assassins are made of before I've even seen them, for instance. I am a little confused as to why the assassins shot up a random village, too. Wanton random destruction seems outside their purview. I like the dynamic between E and U, how they used to be close and aren't any longer, and I think they are really good protagonists.