>>131068On the comm traffic formatting:
I personally don't like it, and I've seen it done effectively elsewhere without the need to resort to something like this, but it's certainly not unheard of, and it does create the effect you want it to. I'm not sure if you could get a book published looking like this, for example, but it's not a point I'm prepared to hold up your story over.
"To be" verbs:
There are times that using them is unavoidable. If you at least consider the alternatives and use them when you can, then it's a problem that usually solves itself. Auxiliary verbs do count toward this, and they're also unavoidable at times, but this is one usage that's often unnecessary. Given that most fiction is told in past tense, there's a very fine line between the meanings of "He did this action" and "He was doing this action." Most times that writers use the latter phrasing, they could have used the former without changing the meaning at all, and it's a more active construct to boot. There are times that the latter does imply something different, and then it's fine to use it, which is generally instances where it's important for some reason to make sure the reader knows that the action kept going on after the narrator's attention diverts elsewhere.
LUS:
There are certain things that can easily be repeated without drawing near as much attention. Things like "a," "the," "said," pronouns, and names go by largely unnoticed. So I wouldn't worry too much about overusing names, but there are times where LUS is justified. You do have some of those in your story, so I wasn't necessarily referring to every usage in the story. Where it makes sense is instances where a lot of characters are present, so that names do get overused and pronouns get ambiguous. If you find yourself having to repeat a name nearly every sentence to avoid being unclear, then LUS may be necessary. Another time is where the descriptor actually adds some new information we didn't already know about the character.
In your case, I could tell in places that you were trying to create a feel of the focus character's unfamiliarity with another character, but style helps a lot there, particularly since you use a more subjective narration. You could use the narration to your advantage to make the LUS feel natural, say:
Lyra watched the pink pony run outside.
versus:
Lyra watched-what was her name?-the pink pony run outside.
One's simply a narrative phrasing while the other creates an effect with it to make it sound natural and in the character's voice.
Talking heads:
There's not a lot in the way of advice to be had here. It mostly takes going back over your own work and thinking about it. Is there much in the way of narration beyond "he said"? Do you see huge patches of the screen contained in quotation marks without much in between? Based only on what's presented in the writing, can you visualize what the characters look like as they talk, in terms of both physical appearance and what they're doing?
Like any rule, there are exceptions. It's possible for a conversation to be so engaging that the reader won't notice the talking heads, particularly if they're very intense and the characters (often in a limited narration) are so focused on the situation that they don't really notice what else is going on. This almost requires that nothing else interesting be going on, though. It's one thing to neglect a character's posture while he's having hostile questions shouted at him in an interrogation room, because that's not where his attention will be. It's quite another if he's in the middle of a battle, but he somehow loses cognizance of everything but the words being spoken. Another case would be where the characters can't see each other, because they're separated by a barrier, in a dark room, on the phone, etc. Then you might only get the nonverbal parts from one side or neither.
Dashes:
You do need to be consistent about the spacing. You normally see em dashes without spaces (used pretty universally by Americans and often for interruptions only by Brits) or en dashes with spaces (used mostly by Brits either universally or for asides only). A dash does provide a little different cadence than a period or a semicolon, and while in spirit, it's more meant to have a partial sentence on one side or another, I'll place one between complete sentences at times to get that cadence. In those specific cases, it's not wrong to capitalize after them, but I usually don't, just for the uniformity of it and because the reader isn't going to notice the difference and interpret it that way anyway, unless he's a particularly fastidious grammarian.
>CanterlonianI've just always seen it as Canterlotian, though I don't know if canon has ever used a term for it.
>The two unicorns looked at one another before back to Carrot TopIt really feels like there's a missing verb in there. The "before back" combo has an awkward flow to it.
Bang and whistle:
By having the whistle sound, I didn't mean to put a "TWEET!" in there. It'd still need a description of the sound, just like the comment I left for the "BANG." My issue here is that the conversation gets interrupted by the whistle. So don't have the narrator tell me it gets interrupted. Just get straight to the whistle. This is for two reasons: The conversation gets interrupted anyway, so it's redundant for the narrator to tell me that. And by giving the narrator time between the actual interruption and telling me what caused it, you undercut the feeling of suddenness. When something gets interrupted, the very next word needs to be the interruption, or you lose the authenticity of it.
Semicolons:
In the example you cited, a comma would work perfectly fine. A period there would create a sentence fragment, which actually wouldn't be out of place in the narrative style you use, but I agree that it makes too much of a stop in this case. You have a full range of stops available, some with their own grammatical restrictions: period, comma, semicolon, dash, ellipsis. In cases where one is grammatically incorrect, you can generally find one of the others that will do fine. For the comma in particular, there are times that dialogue or a limited narrator can use them incorrectly in effective ways, though that's more by feel than anything else. The semicolon is such a formal thing, though, that it doesn't work well when used incorrectly. Just having it there in the first place connotes an attention to detail that makes errors look out of place, intentional or not.
Perspective:
I don't remember if I did so in your review, but I'll refer you to the section on head hopping at the top of this thread. It's better to stay with a single character where possible, at least within a scene, but there are times that a shift is needed. The material up top give the overview and the important questions to ask before committing to a perspective shift, so I won't repeat them here.
It's easier to get away with abrupt or frequent shifts in an action scene specifically, but in general, they work better when the work is of sufficient length (think novel) that the reader will very quickly recognize any given character by their unique voicing, such that they can easily follow your wandering focus. This is after the reader is acquainted with them enough that they already identify with them. In a shorter work, it just prevents the reader from ever getting to know any of them that well, so he's less engaged and sympathetic with them.
sifting:
In both cases, I wondered whether you'd meant "shifting," which would be kind of a bland word choice anyway. The only definitions for "sift" I've ever seen refer to filtering through something to get particular bits out. That's not what's going on here, since you appear to be trying to relate some sort of movement. There are a lot you could use, depending on how you want to characterize that movement. Just check a thesaurus. A couple that immediately come to mind are slither, skulk, waft… there are many possibilities.
Command structure:
I'm sure that at some point, you defined each character's role, but it just didn't stick with me, and that's probably for two reasons.
For one, that information was scattered through different parts of the story. If it were all in the same place, I'd have gotten it straight all at once, but when one relationship's defined in chapter 1, and another doesn't come along until halfway through chapter 2, now I have to go back and remember what exactly the first one was before I can put the second in context. And like me, most readers aren't going to care about that point enough to read back through and clear things up.
Second, that may not even be necessary if the characters behave in consistent ways toward each other, but here, characters who are subordinate to others seem to take command at times, and the superior officers defer to them. At one time, character A will yell at character B and make her back down, and at another, character B will be yelling, "That's an order!" and I find myself thinking, "Wait, I thought A was in command."
I was caught off guard multiple times by Lyra, Bon Bon, and Derpy all acting in ways inconsistent with where I thought they fell in the pecking order, so either they were, or my perception of the pecking order was wrong. Both are problems.
Bon Bon and Carrot Top:
I made the notes as I read, so if new information came up later, the comment wouldn't reflect that, unless I specifically said so. In that case, I would have gone back to edit the comment or delete it. You did go into their feelings toward each other to a degree, and I get that one is upset about the doctor's brother, but I'm unclear on her motivation. I don't know why she feels compelled to take up his cause, especially when she's quick to acknowledge that a tough decision had to be made at the time.
Taking a quicker path through the forest than Twilight:
It wouldn't be hard to explain this. First, it'd be a concern of theirs anyway, since Twilight had a head start. They'd need to make up the time somehow. Since they should know their mark well anyway, perhaps they knew Twilight would stick to the established paths and roads through the forest, but by cutting directly through the trees, they could take a more direct route.
Doctor Hooves:
He comes across as pretty bland about nearly everything. It's not like he seems happy at the distraction of nearly dying. It's more like he shrugs it off entirely. He'd at least be scared, even if the thrill brings him out of his blue funk. But he never even appears to be in a funk. He pretty much doesn't react to anything at all. It's like he's oblivious to everything, which would occur if he was preoccupied with something, but we never get a clue as to what that is. I can surmise it's his brother, but he never acts like it bothers him when the brother is brought up.
Phrasing:
It's not that so many readers will see this as an Archer reference and discount it. It's a common enough expression anyway that it'd probably weather well. It's more that it felt out of place in the conversation. They were discussing some serious things, and then Lyra just comes across as an asshole. They weren't joking around, so it completely changes the tone of their talk at that point, and they don't seem to have the type of friendly relationship where Lyra could suddenly take it in an antagonistic direction without Derpy taking offense. You wouldn't say something like that to your boss on the first day of work, for instance, but you might after you've known him after 10 years and gotten together to do things outside work frequently, so there's an established familiarity.
The crystals:
Maybe I missed exactly what Star is trying to do. It sounded to me like there were never any such crystals to contain the elements and the doctor is making that part up because he knows that Twilight is interpreting the elements as physical objects, so he might as well give her a placebo to focus her energy. But that would contradict canon, where Luna had possession of such stones, used them herself against Discord, and had them used against her by Celestia.
So if they were never real, wouldn't she know that? Or were they real at one time but aren't anymore, yet the doctor still wants to create that placebo as if they were still stones for the same effect I already described? If that's the case, there's no explanation to lead me in that direction. This also gets to my question about the tree: if these crystals aren't the real elements, then why does returning them to the tree later in canon work?
If you want to say that this story doesn't necessarily follow canon after season 1 or some other arbitrary point, then go ahead and say it, but many readers see that as lazy. AU can say "the elements never were stones," but that's an oddly specific point upon which to branch a universe, especially since this shouldn't be a tough thing to explain.<a href="
http://www.ponychan.net/chan/fic/res/128883.html#131068" onclick="return highlight('131068', true);" class="ref|fic|128883|131068">>>131068</a><br />On the comm traffic formatting:<br />I personally don't like it, and I've seen it done effectively elsewhere without the need to resort to something like this, but it's certainly not unheard of, and it does create the effect you want it to. I'm not sure if you could get a book published looking like this, for example, but it's not a point I'm prepared to hold up your story over.<br /><br />"To be" verbs:<br />There are times that using them is unavoidable. If you at least consider the alternatives and use them when you can, then it's a problem that usually solves itself. Auxiliary verbs do count toward this, and they're also unavoidable at times, but this is one usage that's often unnecessary. Given that most fiction is told in past tense, there's a very fine line between the meanings of "He did this action" and "He was doing this action." Most times that writers use the latter phrasing, they could have used the former without changing the meaning at all, and it's a more active construct to boot. There are times that the latter does imply something different, and then it's fine to use it, which is generally instances where it's important for some reason to make sure the reader knows that the action kept going on after the narrator's attention diverts elsewhere.<br /><br />LUS:<br />There are certain things that can easily be repeated without drawing near as much attention. Things like "a," "the," "said," pronouns, and names go by largely unnoticed. So I wouldn't worry too much about overusing names, but there are times where LUS is justified. You do have some of those in your story, so I wasn't necessarily referring to every usage in the story. Where it makes sense is instances where a lot of characters are present, so that names do get overused and pronouns get ambiguous. If you find yourself having to repeat a name nearly every sentence to avoid being unclear, then LUS may be necessary. Another time is where the descriptor actually adds some new information we didn't already know about the character.<br /><br />In your case, I could tell in places that you were trying to create a feel of the focus character's unfamiliarity with another character, but style helps a lot there, particularly since you use a more subjective narration. You could use the narration to your advantage to make the LUS feel natural, say:<br /><br />Lyra watched the pink pony run outside.<br /><br />versus:<br /><br />Lyra watched-what was her name?-the pink pony run outside.<br /><br />One's simply a narrative phrasing while the other creates an effect with it to make it sound natural and in the character's voice.<br /><br />Talking heads:<br />There's not a lot in the way of advice to be had here. It mostly takes going back over your own work and thinking about it. Is there much in the way of narration beyond "he said"? Do you see huge patches of the screen contained in quotation marks without much in between? Based only on what's presented in the writing, can you visualize what the characters look like as they talk, in terms of both physical appearance and what they're doing?<br /><br />Like any rule, there are exceptions. It's possible for a conversation to be so engaging that the reader won't notice the talking heads, particularly if they're very intense and the characters (often in a limited narration) are so focused on the situation that they don't really notice what else is going on. This almost requires that nothing else interesting be going on, though. It's one thing to neglect a character's posture while he's having hostile questions shouted at him in an interrogation room, because that's not where his attention will be. It's quite another if he's in the middle of a battle, but he somehow loses cognizance of everything but the words being spoken. Another case would be where the characters can't see each other, because they're separated by a barrier, in a dark room, on the phone, etc. Then you might only get the nonverbal parts from one side or neither.<br /><br />Dashes:<br />You do need to be consistent about the spacing. You normally see em dashes without spaces (used pretty universally by Americans and often for interruptions only by Brits) or en dashes with spaces (used mostly by Brits either universally or for asides only). A dash does provide a little different cadence than a period or a semicolon, and while in spirit, it's more meant to have a partial sentence on one side or another, I'll place one between complete sentences at times to get that cadence. In those specific cases, it's not wrong to capitalize after them, but I usually don't, just for the uniformity of it and because the reader isn't going to notice the difference and interpret it that way anyway, unless he's a particularly fastidious grammarian.<br /><br /><span class="unkfunc">>Canterlonian</span><br />I've just always seen it as Canterlotian, though I don't know if canon has ever used a term for it.<br /><br /><span class="unkfunc">>The two unicorns looked at one another before back to Carrot Top</span><br />It really feels like there's a missing verb in there. The "before back" combo has an awkward flow to it.<br /><br />Bang and whistle:<br />By having the whistle sound, I didn't mean to put a "TWEET!" in there. It'd still need a description of the sound, just like the comment I left for the "BANG." My issue here is that the conversation gets interrupted by the whistle. So don't have the narrator tell me it gets interrupted. Just get straight to the whistle. This is for two reasons: The conversation gets interrupted anyway, so it's redundant for the narrator to tell me that. And by giving the narrator time between the actual interruption and telling me what caused it, you undercut the feeling of suddenness. When something gets interrupted, the very next word needs to be the interruption, or you lose the authenticity of it.<br /><br />Semicolons:<br />In the example you cited, a comma would work perfectly fine. A period there would create a sentence fragment, which actually wouldn't be out of place in the narrative style you use, but I agree that it makes too much of a stop in this case. You have a full range of stops available, some with their own grammatical restrictions: period, comma, semicolon, dash, ellipsis. In cases where one is grammatically incorrect, you can generally find one of the others that will do fine. For the comma in particular, there are times that dialogue or a limited narrator can use them incorrectly in effective ways, though that's more by feel than anything else. The semicolon is such a formal thing, though, that it doesn't work well when used incorrectly. Just having it there in the first place connotes an attention to detail that makes errors look out of place, intentional or not.<br /><br />Perspective:<br />I don't remember if I did so in your review, but I'll refer you to the section on head hopping at the top of this thread. It's better to stay with a single character where possible, at least within a scene, but there are times that a shift is needed. The material up top give the overview and the important questions to ask before committing to a perspective shift, so I won't repeat them here.<br /><br />It's easier to get away with abrupt or frequent shifts in an action scene specifically, but in general, they work better when the work is of sufficient length (think novel) that the reader will very quickly recognize any given character by their unique voicing, such that they can easily follow your wandering focus. This is after the reader is acquainted with them enough that they already identify with them. In a shorter work, it just prevents the reader from ever getting to know any of them that well, so he's less engaged and sympathetic with them.<br /><br />sifting:<br />In both cases, I wondered whether you'd meant "shifting," which would be kind of a bland word choice anyway. The only definitions for "sift" I've ever seen refer to filtering through something to get particular bits out. That's not what's going on here, since you appear to be trying to relate some sort of movement. There are a lot you could use, depending on how you want to characterize that movement. Just check a thesaurus. A couple that immediately come to mind are slither, skulk, waft… there are many possibilities.<br /><br />Command structure:<br />I'm sure that at some point, you defined each character's role, but it just didn't stick with me, and that's probably for two reasons.<br /><br />For one, that information was scattered through different parts of the story. If it were all in the same place, I'd have gotten it straight all at once, but when one relationship's defined in chapter 1, and another doesn't come along until halfway through chapter 2, now I have to go back and remember what exactly the first one was before I can put the second in context. And like me, most readers aren't going to care about that point enough to read back through and clear things up.<br /><br />Second, that may not even be necessary if the characters behave in consistent ways toward each other, but here, characters who are subordinate to others seem to take command at times, and the superior officers defer to them. At one time, character A will yell at character B and make her back down, and at another, character B will be yelling, "That's an order!" and I find myself thinking, "Wait, I thought A was in command."<br /><br />I was caught off guard multiple times by Lyra, Bon Bon, and Derpy all acting in ways inconsistent with where I thought they fell in the pecking order, so either they were, or my perception of the pecking order was wrong. Both are problems.<br /><br />Bon Bon and Carrot Top:<br />I made the notes as I read, so if new information came up later, the comment wouldn't reflect that, unless I specifically said so. In that case, I would have gone back to edit the comment or delete it. You did go into their feelings toward each other to a degree, and I get that one is upset about the doctor's brother, but I'm unclear on her motivation. I don't know why she feels compelled to take up his cause, especially when she's quick to acknowledge that a tough decision had to be made at the time.<br /><br />Taking a quicker path through the forest than Twilight:<br />It wouldn't be hard to explain this. First, it'd be a concern of theirs anyway, since Twilight had a head start. They'd need to make up the time somehow. Since they should know their mark well anyway, perhaps they knew Twilight would stick to the established paths and roads through the forest, but by cutting directly through the trees, they could take a more direct route.<br /><br />Doctor Hooves:<br />He comes across as pretty bland about nearly everything. It's not like he seems happy at the distraction of nearly dying. It's more like he shrugs it off entirely. He'd at least be scared, even if the thrill brings him out of his blue funk. But he never even appears to be in a funk. He pretty much doesn't react to anything at all. It's like he's oblivious to everything, which would occur if he was preoccupied with something, but we never get a clue as to what that is. I can surmise it's his brother, but he never acts like it bothers him when the brother is brought up.<br /><br />Phrasing:<br />It's not that so many readers will see this as an Archer reference and discount it. It's a common enough expression anyway that it'd probably weather well. It's more that it felt out of place in the conversation. They were discussing some serious things, and then Lyra just comes across as an asshole. They weren't joking around, so it completely changes the tone of their talk at that point, and they don't seem to have the type of friendly relationship where Lyra could suddenly take it in an antagonistic direction without Derpy taking offense. You wouldn't say something like that to your boss on the first day of work, for instance, but you might after you've known him after 10 years and gotten together to do things outside work frequently, so there's an established familiarity.<br /><br />The crystals:<br />Maybe I missed exactly what Star is trying to do. It sounded to me like there were never any such crystals to contain the elements and the doctor is making that part up because he knows that Twilight is interpreting the elements as physical objects, so he might as well give her a placebo to focus her energy. But that would contradict canon, where Luna had possession of such stones, used them herself against Discord, and had them used against her by Celestia.<br /><br />So if they were never real, wouldn't she know that? Or were they real at one time but aren't anymore, yet the doctor still wants to create that placebo as if they were still stones for the same effect I already described? If that's the case, there's no explanation to lead me in that direction. This also gets to my question about the tree: if these crystals aren't the real elements, then why does returning them to the tree later in canon work?<br /><br />If you want to say that this story doesn't necessarily follow canon after season 1 or some other arbitrary point, then go ahead and say it, but many readers see that as lazy. AU can say "the elements never were stones," but that's an oddly specific point upon which to branch a universe, especially since this shouldn't be a tough thing to explain.<br />