Board Thread:Writer's Workshop/@comment-24982950-20160701101420/@comment-28266772-20160701143207

Obtuse wording & punctuation:

Basics first: you need a chessboard, obviously, but less obvious is what specifications [this is, again, awkward. Couldn’t you just ‘but less obvious are the specifications’?] said [is ‘said’ really necessary here? I get that it’s a stylistic flourish but your writing is filled with them as it is] chessboard and chess-pieces should live up to; [there’s no need for all of this to be one sentence via a semicolon and chess pieces don’t really ‘live up to’ anything either.] it is best if it is in the classic style (rooks represented by castles, knights by horses etc.) and made of an organic material: for example wood or ivory [again your punctuation here borders on obtuse, what’s wrong with ‘organic material, such as wood or ivory’?]. -> this sentence is unnecessarily convoluted. It’s longer than it needs to be and is stitched together with two colons and one semicolon in an unholy union of clauses.

I think overall you’re a competent writer, so I don’t really want to go through this story piece by piece to highlight the awkward wording, but as another example, I’ll take the first paragraph and strip it of unnecessary flourishes

Chess is a [very] old game. So old [in fact] that[, like many old traditions,] it has become draped in spiritual potential. All [of] chess[’] pieces are spiritual in nature[; surprisingly pawns] [insert:even] hold the same potency as [the] bishops. At least, that’s how I’ve come to understand it [through this enclosed ritual.] You may be wondering [as to] why I am writing this, but allow me to [propose: replace with ‘ask’] a counter question: do you desire the downfall of another? To watch someone’s world burn[, be it an ex, superior or complete stranger?] Then this following text should help you to do just that.

Rewritten without the bulk of flourishes it reads:

Chess is an old game. So old that it has become draped in spiritual potential. All chess pieces are spiritual in nature; even pawns hold the same potency as bishops. At least, that’s how I’ve come to understand it. You may be wondering why I am writing this, but allow me to ask a counter question: do you desire the downfall of another? To watch someone’s world burn? Then this following text should help you to do just that.

That paragraph has no real difference in tone or voice. It still comes off as pompous and arrogant with the use of words like desire/downfall/following/spiritual potential/potency maintaining the style you have aimed for, but it’s about 30% shorter and flows much better.

Wording issues continued:

The ritual is rather simple in itself: you must play a game of chess with your Opponent, using the kings you linked, until it ends in win, lose or draw. ->

In this example “ends in win, lose, or draw” should read “ends in a checkmate, a stalemate, or a loss” or, at the very least, “a win, a loss, or a draw” or “a victory, loss, or draw”. But the words as you use them here don’t really work.

Similarly, “the same potency as the bishops” -> the plural of bishops has absolutely no need to be paired with the definite article ‘the’. That implies a specific set of bishops, not just all bishops in general. Also, the narrator capitalizes Opponent and King and Queen which is improper. A proper noun refers to a specific object in existence. It cannot refer to something undefined such as an opponent, or a piece on a chessboard, unless you have defined and distinguished a particular unique instance of those particular things as being referred to by the proper noun. But you don’t do this – you specifically highlight that the opponent, and chess pieces are variable.

So basically – tone down the stylistic flourishes and keep language simple. Kurt Vonnegut has a great set of rules for writing which basically emphasise economical writing where you don’t waste your readers time, and you make sure that language is used effectively. This is not the same as saying you can’t have stylistic flourishes, and it is not the same as saying that you must write in a simplistic style. Instead it is simply saying that you must make sure you are not frivolous and over-indulgent in your use of language unless you have a specific reason to. In your case you can establish your style very quickly and easily, and still lay off on about half of your flourishes. In some cases, your writing becomes downright obtuse and hard to read. Also, unless your HP Lovecraft or Gabriel Garcia Marquez, keep to one semicolon a sentence, and at most two per paragraph.

Story issues:

This is important to keep in mind as the game progresses, for in chess, it is possible to lose the majority of your pieces regardless of the overall outcome. -> When I read this I thought “no buddy, it’s something you need to keep in mind from the start because obviously you’re gonna lose pieces in a game”.

The best material to use is human bone. -> you don’t establish why this is best. Is it unlikely that the ritual will work and this increases the chances?

The effects will not happen otherwise. -> Chess can pretty much only end in a tie, loss or victory with the exception of someone throwing a tantrum (a common occurrence in my house) and flipping the board across the room. You might want to specify that the game just needs to be played to a conclusion, and that walking away from it at any time will stop the ritual.

<p class="MsoNormal">Overall I actually like the idea of this ritual and the story. I think it’s clever and unique. But the inherent premise is a bit problematic. Losing chess pieces is an inevitability of any game, so why would anyone volunteer for this insanity? You’re destined to lose a shitload of important people in your life. Can I recommend that instead the losses only take place once the game is concluded, and that said losses are inflicted only on the losing party. This means that the winner loses nothing, and gets to watch their genius chess strategy occur in real life as their opponent’s life implodes. It would also ratchet up the tension of the match, and it would mean that someone who wins doesn’t have to willingly sacrifice massive parts of their life, but it still keeps the ritual risky and dangerous (because you can still lose and suffer shitty misfortune). Similarly, if you clarify that you can just walk away at any time, it drives home the idea that the only reason someone would play this ritual to conclusion would be pure, raw, spite and malice.

<p class="MsoNormal">I actually think this is too good an idea to put into a ritual. I think you could flesh this out into a full blown story where a pompous tool tricks a close friend into playing a game of chess hoping to ruin them, only to lose at the last minute and realize they’ve doomed themselves to pain and misery.

<p class="MsoNormal">So in conclusion – the wording is awkward, tone down the stylistic flourishes to keep things readable. That’s a must. But, as a recommendation, I’d suggest maybe taking the time out and fleshing this out into a full blown narrative. After all, you don’t need more than a couple of sentences to describe the premise and setup, i.e. “it’s a game of chess where every piece lost will result in you losing something in your life for real, with higher tier pieces corresponding to more important facets of your life."