CCC: cleverpun's Critique Corner: Description/Title Reviews #2 · 3:26am Nov 29th, 2015
The description and title are some of the most important parts of a story. They provide readers with their first impression, convince them to read it, and characterize your story even after it is finished.
Today, I continue my reviews of descriptions/titles. I took a set of stories, and reviewed them based solely on their descriptions, titles, and other relevant paratext. I took away all my feelings about the genres, tags, and/or authors. I asked myself one question per story: would I read this—if I were interested in the genre—based only on the description?
Still experimenting with format, arrangement, content, and the like. As always, feedback is welcome.
First and second stories found via popular box, third was selected based on user request.
Drawing Conclusions by blue harvest
The title is vague at best and bland at worst. It has some thematic connection to the story (since it opens with Twilight drawing a picture), but that isn't very clear until after the story is read.
This description mostly works. It sets up the plot and conflict, and is concise about it. This story isn't short enough that you couldn't add a bit more, however. The idea is novel enough, but one needs more to differentiate their shipfic from the others, so this description feels too short.
Given the very flowery style of the story, and the very non-standard characterization of Twilight as a dreamy romantic, I think those elements would be good things to highlight in the description, along with the plot.
Verdict: Would read, but could still be better
A Bear in the Hoof is Worth Two Ponies in the Bush by Emperor
The title feels very awkward and bland. Pony puns/transformations of existing phrases should only be used sparingly and carefully. I suppose it is a reference to the Ursa Minor incident, but the wording is quite forced.
The first paragraph is good; it sets up the story, and clearly establishes that the Twilight in this story has a different characterization than in the show. It's a bit tell-y. In the case of alternate characterizations, though, that can be better than alienating readers who were expecting a different version of the character.
The second paragraph, however, feels dull. Phrasing it as two questions clashes with the tone of the first paragraph. It also sounds wishy-washy and bland. This should be a stronger lead-in to the main plot, not a dull rhetorical question.
The third and fourth paragraphs are pointless. The third can be obviously inferred from the rest of the description, and the fourth is what the source box/author's notes are for.
Verdict: Would not read
Training is Magic by Cold Spike
The title is bad. All titles of the "[X] is Magic" variety have been to done to death a hundred times over. They exude laziness. They are generally vague and forgettable, and this one is no exception.
The description starts decently. It sets up the main plot adequately. The second sentence is given an awkward degree of focus; the reasoning for their behavior is placed before the behavior itself.
The rest of the description is aggressively mediocre, though. It uses four questions in rapid succession. I know I've said it before, but asking questions in your description feels wishy-washy, bland, and the answer is always obvious. It such an anemic, passive-aggressive way to describe your plot.
The description is also grammatically awkward. "However" can be used to open a sentence, and it is punctuated correctly with a comma after, but it sounds odd to introduce a list that way. The third and fifth sentences parse strangely, since they have a lot of clauses and adverbs.
Verdict: Would not read
The answer to what of their friendship isn't obvious, well, it doesn't have to be. Descriptions, titles and cover-art is crucial to a fic's selling point, but also insanely difficult to get right. But I noticed you didn't give a working example of what I could have done to fix my issues. I mean you described what was wrong, but didn't show, say, an example sentence that would work better than what I already have up.
3576544 It's hard to do that without knowing the full scope of the story. The story is slow enough that my usual advice of "summarize the first chapter" doesn't really apply either.
If you're asking for my uniformed opinion, though, I would start by eliminating the questions and vagaries, and focusing more on what actually happens in the story. Perhaps something like:
This is just an example, but notice that everything is placed in absolute terms. There are still some mysteries, but they are phrased so that the focus is on the characters facing challenges. There is no question being asked of the audience, but there is still room to extrapolate about the situations the characters will find themselves in.
3576629 Not a bad idea. I think I can re-write what you've got to make it seem just a bit smoother. Thanks.
3576641 I would strongly recommend that you try and think of your own, new description. I just took what you had and rephrased it slightly. Since you have more intimate knowledge of your story, I'm certain you could do better than just rephrasing my sloppy edits.
You have to ask yourself; what is the major elements (setting, plot, themes) of my story? What differentiates it from other, similar stories? How can I convey these things to audience, while still being informative?
If you want feedback on the revised description, you're are of course welcome to post it here
3576661 Well, here's one idea, but it uses your re-written summary: