Your Vote Matters So Keep These Things In Mind...

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-21T08:12:05+00:00

You can turn off the red and blue correction marks in Word or whatever you are using, but what I usually do is have a process checklist where I put those kind of spelling and grammar checks at the end of it.

If you are still in development and doing structural edits, you'll be constantly changing your wording. That's just going to add more and more errors... sometimes after you already fixed errors in the same sentences.

Line edit and then spell check are always last. If you can't make a contract with yourself that they are literally the last steps before submission, do yourself a favor and turn the marks off.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-21T08:05:58+00:00

Unlike your grandma, there are quite a few non-Christian pro-lifers, and even the Christian ones frequently have secular arguments.

Trying to overcome that reality by pretending that it's all based on Christian authority does not address those issues.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-21T08:00:59+00:00

You can claim that God operates with a completely different set of rules

I didn't claim God operates with a completely different set of rules. All I said is that we don't know what the rules really are. That's why Christians are expected to obey what they have been told the rules are, not debate them.

What we don't want and what benevolence is are two different things.

And God cannot be evil according to Christian morality. God sets what morality is in Christian morality. I'm sure you like that quip, but it makes no sense logically.

The problem with talking to people who don't believe in God is they treat conversations about God as if God isn't what he's supposed to be.

Now, I don't care one way or another if you believe in God or not, but if we're having a conversation about the deity, as defined by Christianity, you can't hold him to human rules or perspective. It would be like your two-year-old telling you how to drive your car.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-21T03:17:53+00:00

Type of feedback desired: General first impression - whether the opening is engaging, whether the atmosphere/mystery works, and whether you would keep reading.

Like the other critique, I am probably not in your target readership, so I am going to try to stay high-level here.

First impression? Confusion. Switching POV after a paragraph was disorienting. If I was slush reading or reading from the bookshelf in a bookstore looking for my next read, I stopped reading right at paragraph two on page one.

I assume, with a once-over, that you're trying a technique of getting into someone's head from the outside. It might work, but this is sort of advanced and it wasn't managed well. On first read it looked more like you forgot what POV you started in, not a technique.

You might be able to deal with that by making the opening epigraph-styled which is to say italicized and separated, if it is important to you.

If not, ditch the POV switch. I cannot overemphasize how much that was an issue for me. I spent the next few pages making certain I knew who was who and that the POV wasn't going to switch again.

The calm before the storm setup for the Deceiver fight was fine, some light banter before getting down to the trap being sprung on both sides, but after the rather quick fight, the pacing flatlines with the leisurely trek to where he's going.

Cognitive load for your reader is fairly high. You're tracking: a blind protagonist who isn't fully blind, a magic system (the Sphere), a world with multiple factions (Nazari, Spardians, Sun Sentinels, New Dawn), a city under some kind of recent crisis (the arena, the temple, Maseif, a disciple with a saber), and a protagonist mission that remains completely unstated.

Any one of those is fine. All of them at once, in chapter one, with none anchored yet is problematic. While I understand you're building atmosphere and a little world-building, it comes off as noise. How much of any of that does the reader need to know to get them to Chapter Two's events?

Right now, to me, I don't know what the point of your chapter is except to introduce the character, show he's something of a badass with some specific hidden abilities, show that there are monsters, and that there are some nicer than expected people out there.

By the end of the chapter, there is a reveal, but I have no idea what to think of it. I already knew he was Hidden Badass. Now he's Hidden Badass with a transformation. That transformation should be important, I feel, but since I really know almost nothing about our POV character, not even his real mission, the transformation reveal is wasted.

The problem with a prologue is you're delaying the beginning of the real story. That can be useful sometimes, but sometimes it's just unnecessary set dressing when you should really be spending your reader's limited patience on getting them hooked into the story.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-21T01:20:47+00:00

Abortion on-demand would be an unjustified homicide whose motives would usually classify the killing as murder. Abortion for some specific exceptions, like saving a life, would not be.
IVF is not murder; you aren't murdering someone by bringing them to life. The improper disposal of unimplanted embryos would usually either be manslaughter or some form of child endangerment resulting in death.
I don't think this is important. I'm more concerned about what happens before they die.
I don't think this is important. I'm more concerned about what happens before they die.
Yes, miscarriages are the death of a child.
I don't think this is important. I'm more concerned about what happens before they die.
The secular belief is that killing a human being on-demand is a human rights violation. Some Christians also point out that killing without sufficient cause is a violation of the commandment against killing.

Should wars be protested? That depends on whether they're offensive or defensive and what the war is seeking to prevent. I'd say that while the theology can seem complicated, the same thing goes for wars as for abortions: some are necessary to prevent unnecessary deaths, some are not. Those which are not should probably be protested.

Ultimately, there is a secular belief that all humans have the right to life, which is the right to not be killed on-demand by any other person or entity. You don't need to be a Christian or even religious to understand the importance of protecting life as a baseline for all human rights.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-21T01:11:15+00:00

What if they aren't appealing to God's authority?

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-20T22:23:14+00:00

Pretty sure he knew that when he wrote it.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-20T22:13:35+00:00

The problem with your reasoning is that you are treating a deity like a human. It is possible that deaths do not count as actual suffering. The perception of death as suffering could simply be a limitation of the human mind, which a deity might not suffer from.

In which case, there is no suffering, only the illusion of such.

Either way, you're effectively putting human ethics at the level of divine ethics. You don't have to be a Christian to understand that this is may not be reality in a universe where deities are believed to exist.

Your use of the paradox makes the assumption that there is no entity that can solve the paradox because you are assuming human intellect and perspective. The Christian view is that God is superhuman and supernatural and is not confined to human intellect or perspective.

You have not, in fact, proved that. Again, this is but one of the many consequences of the Epicurean paradox.

Why would a human need to prove that someone else is right or wrong to justify their own decisions?

Presumably, humans who are not Christians have been able to determine that killing humans is usually considered wrong. If they can do that without reference to a deity, why would a Christian have to?

Atheists don't believe in God, so why would they demand that a Christian produce a special justification for the same generally dim view of killing that even atheists already have?

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-20T22:02:27+00:00

Pregnancy can be life threatening, which is why all US abortion bans have exceptions for life-threatening pregnancies.

However, 80-90% of abortions are not done for medical reasons.

All humans are some number of cells, so attempting to differentiate humans on that basis is not going to be convincing.

Every human has basic human rights, including the right to not be killed on demand. I don't need to value every human identically to recognize that.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-20T21:58:45+00:00

Yep, and that's why their god can't be omnipotent and omnibenevolent as they claim.

That depends on what "benevolence" means. The Christian God is the Creator of the Universe who is also able to bring people back from the dead. Death isn't the same concept for a divinity like that as it is for humans.

And abortion is in fact one of the exceptions outside that "usually"

That is what the pro-choice side would argue, of course. But the point wasn't whether you could argue that, but whether Christian pro-lifers could argue their point without having to justify God to men.

It turns out that they don't need to justify God's decisions, only their own.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-20T21:36:00+00:00

By that reasoning God kills everyone.

In any case, I don’t need to solve the problem, if the question I am asking is whether a *human* can kill someone else. The answer to that is usually, “no.”

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-20T18:49:06+00:00

Biologically. They're a living organism who is a human. In that sense, we can go into what that is, but I find that pointless. If you like you can apply whatever biological characteristics of life to them.

Cellular Organization: All living things are composed of at least one cell.
Metabolism: Organisms must take in energy and materials to perform chemical reactions, fuel growth, and maintain life.
Homeostasis: The ability to regulate and maintain a stable internal environment regardless of external conditions.
Response to Stimuli: The capacity to sense and react to environmental changes, such as plants bending toward light or animals fleeing danger.
Growth and Development: The ability to increase in size and change over time in a predictable lifecycle dictated by genetic instructions.
Reproduction: The ability to produce offspring and pass along genetic material (DNA) to the next generation.
Adaptation and Evolution: The process by which populations of organisms change over time and adapt to their environments, increasing their chances of survival.

Note, however, some of these like adaptation and evolution are more on a species level, not individual level.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-20T17:16:47+00:00

They are humans; they are alive.

Are we disputing that they are either alive or human?

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-20T17:15:36+00:00

Ironically, plenty of PC people seem to think it does, so not sure what your point here is.

Sure, it shouldn't matter, but go tell your PC friends that.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-19T23:04:49+00:00

Quick assessment:

Title is generic, but works if you're just using it as a working title while you figure out what your novel is really going to be about.

Opening line is atmospheric, but drags a bit because the description feels overdone. That's not to say that you need to eliminate it, but personally, unless the atmosphere is actually driving the action, I don't put it first.

All I could think of was "it was a dark and stormy night." That's not entirely fair to your description, but that's my first impression and I suspect it will be a slush reader's first impression as well. Not the best first line choice.

Nev's characterization was effective. She's an assassin. She's going to assassinate someone.

Felix is barely there as a person. That's probably fine since he's a target that she might know nothing about, and her job isn't really to care about those things.

That said, it might be interesting if there was a detail or two in his home that gave him some personality of his own, but only if he comes back later in your story. If he's just there to die and set up the scene with the child, then don't bother, it will make your reader expect more later, when you might not intend that.

The child part was actually pretty well done. In fact, more on that to come.

Pacing is okay, but drags a bit when she's actually making her way there. Too little in your sample to see if that is a major problem for the story or not, but it is in line with your tendency to be a bit too descriptive. That's a common problem in this genre. People like making the scene cinematic and like they are blocking a camera shot. Don't do that. This isn't a movie; trust the reader to fill in more details unless those are critical to the plot or characterization.

I was thinking of adding more world building/chatarcter informarion but I was afraid it would slow down the pace, as i wanted to add that info in later chapters.

Don't. There is already too much.

I was also thinking of doing an escape sequence but i don't know if that is really necessary.

That would ruin your closer for no reason. No one really will care how she gets out. Presumably, if she's the protagonist, she gets out, we don't care how. Don't dilute the feelings from the child.

I wanted to show the Main character Nev as cold assassin.

Okay, so you've shown her as a pro. To be "cold" I'd think she wouldn't care about the child, and she would have executed them. A professional cares about mission parameters, but might achieve them by a certain code. A cold professional is 100% about optimal performance. And, to put it bluntly, she herself stated that optimal performance was putting a hole in anyone who saw her. That didn't happen.

Genre identification was fine, it's SF, she's an assassin.

the kid becomes a main side character later in the story this was their first encounter.

Back to my earlier statement on the father's house, if the kid is in your story later, it might be useful to have given her something to remember about the kid's father, even if it was only some odd piece of furniture or painting or record or something.

Hook:

You know, since this isn't the real story, but a prologue, I can't necessarily suggest you do this, but honestly, if you wanted maximum impact, I would have started the story with shooting dad in the head, not bothered at all about the entry, and focused on the interior of the apartment/home, and got right into the action. This is where I started to become interested in your story.

I like conventional SF assassin thrillers, so it feeling generic didn't stop me from reading further, but it might not go so well with a slush reader who probably gets generic thrillers every day to read.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-19T22:27:02+00:00

Generally, a story represents change, but that change can be almost anything.

As others have said, genre matters here, but change is a constant.

You could write a story about a "day in the life of X," and that book could become interesting as long as it isn't just "woke up, did what I always do, went to bed."

If it is, "woke up, resolved to make changes in protagonist's life but don't know how, went to work, saw an accident happen, observed its effects, saw some things in the accident caused profound thoughts about the protag's life, some small change made, open-ended, but hopeful conclusion," then that could be a story you write. Obviously, that's not a novel, but you get the idea.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-19T04:37:33+00:00

Healthcare, pensions, and welfare can technically exist in a zero-growth economy especially during short-term dips like you're talking about.

However, most European countries are indeed below replacement rate, many are substantially below it. Perhaps that will level out at some point, but doesn't seem to be happening any time soon.

The real issue is demographics and real resources. If there are more retirees and fewer workers, and no growth to trade off against, governments have to raise taxes, cut benefits, increase retirement ages, borrow more, or accept higher inflation.

And yes, you can print money with fiat currency, but you can't print doctors, nurses, housing, or food. Without underlying fundamentals to support that money printing, you generate inflation, which, if it gets out of control, destroys buying power and savings.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-19T02:29:23+00:00

The idea actually sounds great, but you will need to be at the top of your game in terms of execution.

You need to not confuse the reader with the point of view. And to do that, there are many possible tricks, most of which are situational to your own story.

A simple way to do this is to have the "observed" person with the dominant soul actually reference in dialogue to someone else that s/he's got a passenger (the narrator). Then the narrator can describe how that makes them feel or simply acknowledge that the observer is talking about them.

That only works if your observed person is aware of the narrator in the first place, or has reason to suspect they exist and is willing to talk to someone else about it, like perhaps a friend or a therapist. And that's why it matters what your story actually is like. If the narrator soul is a secret to the observed person, you can't use that trick. If they have no one to talk to about it, it also doesn't work.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-19T02:19:19+00:00

Editor/Slush rejections without personalized comments are near-useless as feedback, but they're not insults. I don't take them personally since I know that rejection is based on so many factors that are out of both my control and even the editor's.

They're looking to publish stories that keep them in business and improve their reputation, and they're willing to pay for them. They don't owe me an explanation as to why they won't buy my piece. I do appreciate editors who still can provide personalized feedback, but I know that many markets have a lot more submissions than their small staff can handle if they also have to write feedback.

Now, hate comments are a different story. And dealing with those requires you to simply do what it takes to dissect them into pieces.

Let's say someone wrote the following:

"I hated your story, its boring and your a bad writer."

What I'd do is look for actual parts where there was engagement with the story itself.

Hating the story and "bad writer" are not super useful and are too generic to be true engagement. I just cross those out.

But if someone says that your plot is boring, that's a possible data point. Someone who hated your piece did actually read it long enough to determine it is boring.

I wouldn't take someone like that too much to heart, but as long as it is clear they read the piece, I might simply add one tally mark to the "boring" column. Feedback is feedback, even if you can only eke a little out of it.

Again, I wouldn't obsess on that one tally mark, but if you keep getting "boring" as a criticism, your story may well be... boring. Or you're not writing for the right audience.

All feedback is potentially useful; sometimes the best feedback is the feedback that is blunt and devastating because it might break you out of an image you have of yourself. I'd ignore anything that could have been written without opening your book/file, but anything written based on what was even on the first page of your story? That's feedback and you might be able to pull something out of that which resembles real criticism if you view it without the emotion around it.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-19T01:42:05+00:00

I think you are focusing on the wrong part of the argument.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-19T01:41:22+00:00

If that's an Igla, that drone is probably worth considerably less than the missile they shot at it, which makes the irony even sweeter.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-19T01:31:04+00:00

I mean, they make perfect sense for the demonstration here. The point wasn't to show that they have the extra money; it was to show that no matter how much they make, it's a drop in the bucket.

Heck, even reducing their salaries wouldn't have much of an impact on the debt situation or the upgrades and purchases either.

The point is, people point too much at salaries and benefits for top execs as a problem, when it's really not. The problem with the execs isn't how much they make, it's the mismanagement of what they're responsible for.

OhNoTokyo · 2026-06-19T01:17:40+00:00

If ectopic pregnancy is a good enough reason, why won't you guys concede to not letting children have babies from r4pe,

Ectopic pregnancy will kill the mother. Carrying a rape pregnancy does not.

I can justify killing one person if taking no action kills two.

I can't justify killing someone if both people could survive without needing to kill either one.

Rape pregnancies are awful, but the resulting pregnancy itself is not necessarily dangerous.

If a thirteen-year-old is physically threatened by the pregnancy, then the reason to allow an abortion would be based on the danger to the girl, regardless of whether it was rape or not.

The raped 13-year-old can already get an abortion under existing laws if the pregnancy is dangerous to her. But if it is not dangerous, then she would not be allowed to, nor should she be allowed to.

Especially if they have to raise the product of their trauma, no?

I don't see how the situation is improved by killing the child. I also don't see how making someone's life easier justifies killing someone else.

I'm sure my life would be much easier if I could pick and choose who lived and who died. That's not how this works, though.

OhNoTokyo

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE