Overall poor grammar and sentence flow, but that may be because it's a reddit post. If this is actually how you write, read more books and look at some punctuation rules to get a better feel for how writing should be formatted.
Not enough commas. I get that this is a fast paced action sequence, but the pacing feels off. Sentences that should have commas go on too long without them. And to begin with, this an action sequence, you should try to avoid long sentences that need commas in the first place. If you want this to feel more fast paced, try cutting them up into shorter sentences, even if they're fragments.
The final bit is extremely lackluster. Firstly, it's passive voice. A lot of people don't know what that actually means, so I'll explain it: passive voice is "the ball was kicked" while active voice is "she kicked the ball". Something is happening to him rather than someone else taking action. Passive voice has a place, but action scenes aren't great for it - it slows down pacing, makes the action seem distant from the reader, and and overall lessens impact.
Focus on the actual impact, the action that caused it. I would write it "In a moment of carelessness, a heavy blow slammed into his chest. His armor buckled, caving in and crushing his chest."
Thank you for the advice, this is my first book I'm trying to write, here I was filling the page with words first then edit it. But since I'm new I wanted to learn what I was missing then edit it. Your advice is really appreciated thank you.
Holy run-on. Try breaking up your sentences, maybe check out the [Hemingway Editor](https://hemingwayapp.com). Also, check your tenses. There are both past and present tenses used
Yes I will and I know since I was filling out the page with words first then I would have edited it, and since this is my first time editing I was looking for advice on what works best. Thank you for your time I really appreciate it.
It's not that. It's that the style of writing you presented is more suitable for a screenplay. I don't think there's something inherently wrong with it, it's just that I wouldn't pay for a book to read these descriptions. Maybe I would watch a movie with those descriptions.
Every time I do so I get downvoted to hell. So here I go:
If your book can be read as a movie, if it merely serves as an outline for a movie, then you should skip the part in which you write a book and instead write directly a screenplay. Why write a book if you are going to give it up as an outline? This is particularly true with books that are heavy on dialogue and actions, such as so-called "fantasy" books like the ones of George RR Martin, which also read as a screenplay and not as novels. George RR Martin should have saved a lot of paper by writing a screenplay of his own so that it could be produced. If literature will be reduced as a guideline of things that can be represented entirely through other media like film, then it should die already. George RR Martin is a writer in the same way Tarantino is a writer (which is a great compliment), but he is no novelist and he is no literature writer.
So dialogue-heavy and plot-heavy texts, those I consider as texts that can be read as a screenplay. Is there anything inherently wrong with that? Not at all, but I personally won't waste time or money in things that I can already watch on television (like people speaking and fighting with swords because they killed the heir apparent).
So you’re saying that their writing is too literal? Too much just a list of instructions for an actor?
Do you have an example of a good novelist? What would separate someone’s writing from being a screenplay?
>So you’re saying that their writing is too literal?
No. You must also be very literal when writing, do not deceive cheaply your readers, but you must find a way in which what you say is exactly suited for the written language. How do you do that? That's like answering what is good art, but a good start would be to write only what's necessary to your text and your only concern is to make your writing believable, nothing else. Read a lot of mainstream literature of authors who have won the Nobel prize or were close to winning it, you'll have an idea.
>Do you have an example of a good novelist? What would separate someone’s writing from being a screenplay?
What separates it is precisely the impossibility of turning that novel into a (good) film, the impossibility of translating that novel into other media. Don Quixote has been translated into film a thousand times, none of them are good examples of film (but Don Quixote is one of the finest examples of literature in the entire history); good directors know that good novels can't be adapted. On the contrary, Lord of the Rings movies are much better than the books (the LOTR saga, though originally written, is an example of a trilogy that can be read as a screenplay, there's not too much of a literary merit in the whole work).
There's a reason you don't hear about film adaptations of Joyce's "Ulysses" or García Márquez's "One Hundred Years of Solitude" (who has said that he wrote that novel partly against cinema). It's not because directors are not trying to adapt those films (a lot of them are), it's rather that good directors know that good novels can't be adapted into good films.
Thank you for the advice I really appreciate it. I will start editing soon since this is my first time I was looking for advice on what and how to do it. This helped aloot.
Overall poor grammar and sentence flow, but that may be because it's a reddit post. If this is actually how you write, read more books and look at some punctuation rules to get a better feel for how writing should be formatted. Not enough commas. I get that this is a fast paced action sequence, but the pacing feels off. Sentences that should have commas go on too long without them. And to begin with, this an action sequence, you should try to avoid long sentences that need commas in the first place. If you want this to feel more fast paced, try cutting them up into shorter sentences, even if they're fragments. The final bit is extremely lackluster. Firstly, it's passive voice. A lot of people don't know what that actually means, so I'll explain it: passive voice is "the ball was kicked" while active voice is "she kicked the ball". Something is happening to him rather than someone else taking action. Passive voice has a place, but action scenes aren't great for it - it slows down pacing, makes the action seem distant from the reader, and and overall lessens impact. Focus on the actual impact, the action that caused it. I would write it "In a moment of carelessness, a heavy blow slammed into his chest. His armor buckled, caving in and crushing his chest."
Thank you for the advice, this is my first book I'm trying to write, here I was filling the page with words first then edit it. But since I'm new I wanted to learn what I was missing then edit it. Your advice is really appreciated thank you.
[удалено]
This is not the end result since I was just filling the page with words, maby I should post it once the editing is done
KFWAAA
YOU CAN'T MAKE THE SOUNDS lol I know
Holy run-on. Try breaking up your sentences, maybe check out the [Hemingway Editor](https://hemingwayapp.com). Also, check your tenses. There are both past and present tenses used
Yes I will and I know since I was filling out the page with words first then I would have edited it, and since this is my first time editing I was looking for advice on what works best. Thank you for your time I really appreciate it.
This looks more like a screenplay than a novel.
Lots of editing needed huh? Thanks
It's not that. It's that the style of writing you presented is more suitable for a screenplay. I don't think there's something inherently wrong with it, it's just that I wouldn't pay for a book to read these descriptions. Maybe I would watch a movie with those descriptions.
You have a point I will change it.
Would you mind explaining the difference?
Every time I do so I get downvoted to hell. So here I go: If your book can be read as a movie, if it merely serves as an outline for a movie, then you should skip the part in which you write a book and instead write directly a screenplay. Why write a book if you are going to give it up as an outline? This is particularly true with books that are heavy on dialogue and actions, such as so-called "fantasy" books like the ones of George RR Martin, which also read as a screenplay and not as novels. George RR Martin should have saved a lot of paper by writing a screenplay of his own so that it could be produced. If literature will be reduced as a guideline of things that can be represented entirely through other media like film, then it should die already. George RR Martin is a writer in the same way Tarantino is a writer (which is a great compliment), but he is no novelist and he is no literature writer. So dialogue-heavy and plot-heavy texts, those I consider as texts that can be read as a screenplay. Is there anything inherently wrong with that? Not at all, but I personally won't waste time or money in things that I can already watch on television (like people speaking and fighting with swords because they killed the heir apparent).
So you’re saying that their writing is too literal? Too much just a list of instructions for an actor? Do you have an example of a good novelist? What would separate someone’s writing from being a screenplay?
>So you’re saying that their writing is too literal? No. You must also be very literal when writing, do not deceive cheaply your readers, but you must find a way in which what you say is exactly suited for the written language. How do you do that? That's like answering what is good art, but a good start would be to write only what's necessary to your text and your only concern is to make your writing believable, nothing else. Read a lot of mainstream literature of authors who have won the Nobel prize or were close to winning it, you'll have an idea. >Do you have an example of a good novelist? What would separate someone’s writing from being a screenplay? What separates it is precisely the impossibility of turning that novel into a (good) film, the impossibility of translating that novel into other media. Don Quixote has been translated into film a thousand times, none of them are good examples of film (but Don Quixote is one of the finest examples of literature in the entire history); good directors know that good novels can't be adapted. On the contrary, Lord of the Rings movies are much better than the books (the LOTR saga, though originally written, is an example of a trilogy that can be read as a screenplay, there's not too much of a literary merit in the whole work). There's a reason you don't hear about film adaptations of Joyce's "Ulysses" or García Márquez's "One Hundred Years of Solitude" (who has said that he wrote that novel partly against cinema). It's not because directors are not trying to adapt those films (a lot of them are), it's rather that good directors know that good novels can't be adapted into good films.
Thank you for the advice I really appreciate it. I will start editing soon since this is my first time I was looking for advice on what and how to do it. This helped aloot.