Tilc stopped walking for a moment and closed his eyes. The sounds of the murmuring pedestrians and the whizzing speeders around him vanished, as did the warmth of the sunlight and the brightness of the morning. Instead, the warmth was replaced by the raw heat of spotlights; the sounds of the many pedestrians replaced by the roaring cheers of an exited crowd; the sound of whizzing speeders replaced by the sounds of blaring music and horns. In his mind, he could practically see the beautiful sight: the inside of the Tarisian World Dueling Arena. Flashing bulbs from cameras caused his subconsciousness to squint his already-closed eyes. The feeling of having stiff, old joints was replaced by a feeling of adrenaline and youth.
For just a moment, in his mind's eye, Tilc “Boss” Shiring was back, standing as he once had, as the Galactic Heavyweight Champion. People chanted his name while announcers praised him as the best duelist of his generation. He swore he could almost feel the weight of his body armor covering his body, and his hands moved to grip in non-existent vibrosword.
Then, his eyes opened. Murmuring pedestrians, whizzing airspeeders, bright sunlight, and cool morning air all returned. He was back to what he really was now: nothing.
Support (0 Archivist/0 users/0 total)
From the Forest of Goodwood
Based off of reading Part 1:
Generally speaking, I found the prose to be minimalistic at best. Particularly in terms of character interactions.
Could you further explain or give examples? --D.W.(talk)(Glorior) 01:58, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
Transitions are in dire need of work. For example, the scene with Natalie and the following scene at the gym are apparently three months apart, but there's no way for the reader to tell until over halfway through.
I can go in and "THREE MONTHS LATER" tags, but other than that, I'm not so sure I know what you mean.--D.W.(talk)(Glorior) 01:58, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
Scenes are a bit disjointed. We're suddenly introduced to Natalie, a spice-addled girl, who's apparently the main character's daughter, with no indication or explanation or even relevancy evident.
In a sense, that seemingly random scene feel was what I wanted. As for Natalie, she's not in just one random scene. She is relevant to the story, so I'd appreciate it if you'd read the whole story before making objections like this one. --D.W.(talk)(Glorior) 01:58, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
Characterization is minimal and desperately needs expanding. Who is Rooster? Why did he get that nickname? How did Boss get his nickname? Why, if he's the head of a prestigious duelists' gym, does he live and walk like someone who can barely afford to stay off the street? And why the ad homenim attacks on his trainees if his institution is supposed to be "the best?" Why does Shawna want to be a duelist so badly, and why is Boss so chauvinistic?
Good point. I'll go in and add some explanations. --D.W.(talk)(Glorior) 01:58, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
If I understand the plot outline correctly, this is supposed to be a Star Wars version of Million Dollar Baby. From where I'm sitting, this isn't just an "homage" or a "based on" — this is a complete ripoff of a feature film, which to me raises serious concerns as to its originality and, ergo, its qualification for Featured Work.
To be honest, I really do not believe this is a valid objection. In your opinion, it's a ripoff. To me, however, and to several others who've read it, it is not a ripoff. There are some points that are similar, yes, but there is more original content than anything from the film. Sure, in both the film and in this story, the main character is an old guy that trains a young fighter/duelist who becomes paralized and is killed out of sympathy. Yeah, that major plot outline is similar, but the dozens upon dozens of other major and minor details are completely original. --D.W.(talk)(Glorior) 01:58, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
As said on IRC, originality is a huge part of how quality is measured, at least from my point of view. Hopefully the other Archivists can help get this one resolved. GoodwoodDebating Society12,018 Edits 04:04, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
This isn't intended to be a discussion or a debate, and is not meant to be offensive to the author in any way. Rather, I would hope that the author sees this as an honest critique and statement of my concerns over the work in general. And again, this is based solely on having read Part 1 (of three parts) of this story. GoodwoodDebating Society12,018 Edits 23:11, December 14, 2010 (UTC)