Don't quit, just revise. You had some pretty basic errors that a lot of writers in our fandom make, but the grammar in general was good and the idea was good, too. Just work on presentation.
This should be fun. Someone's made a fool of themselves, and I can't resist. Just can't.
Hm... I didn't see anything of the kind in those opening remarks. Thin-skinned, eh?
I'm thin skinned because... egotism bothers me? What? Hahaha... xDD Thin-skinned. Me.
Are you from Mars or something? On this forum, you are generally to assume that your audience doesn't know what the hell you're talking about when you state a Pokemon. Why? Because if you were writing a fantasy novel of your own creation and you said "A Purple Floomaflaxion" was standing beside you, nobody would know what the hell you were talking about. Description is necessary, not only because it trains you to write proper fiction, but also because if you don't describe what a creature looks like your audience will leave it completely up to their imaginations. I know it sounds a bit silly, but even on a Pokemon forum you are supposed to write as if your audience has no clue what a Pokemon is. (BTW, this also helps widen the audience, since anyone and not just a member of a set fandom can read your work without problem.)
Have you never taken a remedial writing class or something (EMG I'm so creative)???/slash This whole thing just reeks of ignorance, and is just blatantly wrong and a bad impression to give the author here. One of the basic rules of writing is to know your audience. In this case, your audience is pokemon fans. Who know pokemon. The end.
Edited to better reflect judgment.
I'm not sure what I did to you to provoke the smart-ass attitude, but you're wrong, love. You just are. You need to write with an audience in mind, and quality and quantity are mutually exclusive. Description is *not* the most important aspect of a piece. This SPPf mindset has to be changed.
Erm... wait, are you saying that chunky description is bad or that physical description in general is unnecessary? If the latter, stop right now and wash your mouth out with soap. Clothing and hair color are often major points in literature, actually, since both can symbolize something about the character. Characters with glasses, for example, tend to be nearsighted in their judgment. Characters with red hair are generally characterized as having dynamic personalities. In the case of this fanfic, the introduction of Team ACT (By the way, that name is PMD canon, not made up, so don't go poking fun) as big chunks of text doesn't annoy me all that much. Why? Part of it is the timing. They've only just appeared, and we have them introduced as basically three of the strongest Rescue Team members ever. Putting the 'chunk' description there helps emphasize the drama of their arrival, and allows you to size them up as an impartial observor. The intention should be to make them really impressive looking through word choice and use of description, since at this point a whole lot isn't going on. I mean, all they're doing is talking, so it isn't as if you stopped a train wreck to introduce them. When I read this, I get time to look at ACT and I'm impressed by their physical stature. I mean, I know this sounds silly to you, but when a giant dragon, a rocklike beast, and a freaky psychic foxlike creature come walking past me I tend to stop and take a good look, especially if they're famous and/or important to the plot. As for clothing, I'd like to point out that in this fanfic, all characters go nude. In others, however, it might be a good idea to drop mentions of what the character is wearing (for example, having them dig through their pockets while searching for keys to show that they're wearing blue jeans). Your character's choice of clothing really can say a lot about them personally. (For example, you see a dude wearing all black with a spiked choker and you're going to assume "He's a heavy metal fan".) Clothing also gives the reader a way to envision the character with ease. I'm not saying that we need to turn every paragraph after a character's introduction into nothing but description, but one way or another you should inform your reader of the basic appearance of your characters, no matter what. >.<
Are you a troll? How can you honestly say this and believe it has any truth to it? Physical description is unnecessary unless it serves a purpose. And furthermore, when you include copious and poorly planned amount of it, it cheapens the physical description that *is* necessary.
EDIT: Just as clarification, by 'necessary' I mean either it's a plot point or it generally adds to the story. Listing physical features never 'adds' to the story.
Characters with glasses, for example, tend to be nearsighted in their judgment. Characters with red hair are generally characterized as having dynamic personalities.
Uh, no, not really. That's so cliche it burns.
Why? Part of it is the timing. They've only just appeared, and we have them introduced as basically three of the strongest Rescue Team members ever. Putting the 'chunk' description there helps emphasize the drama of their arrival, and allows you to size them up as an impartial observor.
Did you not read anything I said? There is just about *never* a good time for chunck descrption. It's a basic sign of a new writer. It's what people dow hen they don't have enough experience to work information in any other way. You're a troll. Have to be.
And again: large copious amounts of description embedded with questionable word use are never the answer.
For example, you see a dude wearing all black with a spiked choker and you're going to assume "He's a heavy metal fan"
Or: Hey, there's another emo teenager who needs to get over themselves. *shrug* How about, 'Hey, a walking cliche!'
but one way or another you should inform your reader of the basic appearance of your characters, no matter what.
No, actually, would be my main point. Why? Because when it is not important, or the audience already knows what a character looks like, it becomes rudundant and poor craftmanship to do otherwise.
Three characters. What, you'd rather they just blobs of nothingness with a name attached?
Actually, I'd rather appropriate description flowingly worked in with some good characterization.
Tell me how it was wrongly used and I may believe you, since it's pretty much synonomous with "said" in every book I've every read.
Hahaha, this is a rookie mistake on your part as well. Just because words are synonyms does *not* make then interchangable. This is one of the awesome things about English: it has all these little nuances. It can, however, backfire, like it did there, where the word was in the wrong context for its meaning.
Actually, "were silenced" might have work as well.
Ehh, I don't know. By definitions, something that 'reverberates' can't really just abruptly stop... it sort of has to fade out.
That's funny, I was about to say the same about you.
That would be almost creative if I was using a thesaurus O___o.
As for you, sir, please stick to reviewing in grammar and avoiding snarky jabs against others.
I was going to answer that snarkily, then realized it wasn't directed at me, but some anonyous, 'Sir.'
Oh, something I forgot "The ruins of a facility" refers to the specific ruins of one facility AMONG MANY. It implies that there are more ruins of facilities out there. No subject disagreement there. 0.o
You're right: there isn't any subject disagreement. However, there is some article confusion. I stand by my point, in that the articles should be uniform. ...you know what I mean by that, right?
Because if he had, the dramatic tension would be ruined. Anyway, there is the possibility that the scent was so subtle before that the group didn't notice it.
Another amateur way of thinking. The work can't justify itself. It has to make sense in a larger context, too. I could write, "The sky was green," but you'd call me out for it if I didn't have a reason *in the text,* even if it added 'dramatic tension.'
No, they shouldn't. Hyphens would indicate a dramatic break in an already crazy sentence.
Ehh, not really. Hyphens are generally used when an appositive isn't appropriate to set off information, and this example fits perfectly. Hyphens (or your revision) would both have been appropriate.
We're in a world in which children carry around monsters with destructive powers in their pockets. If Pokemon is plausible, then this story is easily believable. If it becomes unenjoyable or boring, it is unneeded, but according to canon it is never unbelievable.
Again, you can't use a story to justify itself. Our canon is something extraorindary, sure. But there's no reason to believe that it's not possible, somewhere in the universe (or maybe in our future). That's why so many writers have fun with it: trying to figure out the logical explanations behind it, as canon doesn't even endeavor to provide any (a very good move by canon). When something isn't explained, it still could have a logical explanation. When something doesn't make sense, it doesn't make sense.
Ever considered a particularly wordy narrator? I've poked fun at jargon more than a few times in my literary career, but wordy narrators have their purpose. Besides, most words were indeed used correctly, and the flow of the story wasn't hard to decipher at all. The vocabulary of the author had nothing to do with what was wrong with the story. As for consistent errors, well, I'll leave that to one better qualified than myself.
I considered it briefly, and then laughed because purple prose is funny, especially in our fandom where it is so prevalent. I thought the flow was poor, for the reasons I listed. You thought it was fine, for no reason except you seem to have taken this very personally. Neither of us is any more wrong than the other, especially because your arguments consisted of rewording mine in a negative way, which, again: proves nothing on your part.
Hm... I'd say that since ACT get offed by the end of the chapter, we don't have to worry about them needing to be human.
What does this have to do with anything? I don't even think I used the word 'human' once in my entire concrit.
Alright... brain fart. What's syntax, exactly?
I think I rest my case.
Suggested literature, please? You can't have Tolkien or a few other authors in mind, since they use crazy wording too.
*shrug* Whatever suits you, except maybe HP or Eragon or children's stuff like that. As for the random Tolkein attack... that's not really true. Tolkein's prose is generally straightforward, even when the plot gets boring or a little confusing. Not comprehending the prose properly is different than the prose itself being convoluted. I read Tolkein first when I was 14, and understood it very clearly. I've read it again since, and it really only gets easier and better.
Overall... I'm not really sure why, to be frank, you seem to have a stick up your ass regarding this, but it was amusing because most of your 'advice' was beginners mistake's or just flat out wrong. Thanks for the laugh, I guess. I just hope Skunter doesn't take any of what you said too seriously, for his sake.
EDIT: Oh, and if you feel the need to incite a flamewar (I'm game, I really am), please do it via PM so we don't spam up Skunter's thread. Thanks.