I'm off ill today, and therefore should have copious time to review the last two. I'll get them up later.
Gah! Illness throws any sort of schedule out of the window, it would seem.
I'm beginning my final two now.
And thanks Renss - being able to spend the day writing and listening to David Bowie's back catalogue does help somewhat
Author #3
A unique premise, to be sure. The idea of a transcript was original – within this GtA period, at least – and really lent itself well to the story, though I couldn't help but feel that sometimes it was almost a, well – I want to say cop-out, but I think that would be too harsh.
In any case, I'll get onto it eventually.
Straight away, I'd want to rewrite the first sentence.
Some say it all began with the tub of lard, the squeaky door, and the vicar, may God have mercy on his rotten soul. And the trampoline, lest it be forgotten.
I feel this could be better punctuated, perhaps thusly:
Some say it all began with the tub of lard, the squeaky door and the vicar – may God have mercy on his rotten soul. And the trampoline, lest it be forgotten.
I've taken out the Oxford Comma (or, as the only people who really use them seem to be American, Harvard Comma) as I feel it makes the sentence flow better. I actually had to debate whether I wanted to alter it so that all four ideas were in one list, though I think the rule of three works. I think I'd alter the final sentence there. I read it almost as an afterthought, and having it so close to the rest of the sentence makes it seem almost as if it comes too quickly. I think I may have actually had it in its own paragraph – probably changing
lest it be forgotten, as well. This would have been how I would written it:
Some say it all began with the tub of lard, the squeaky door and the vicar – may God have mercy on his rotten soul.
And the trampoline. One mustn't forget the trampoline.
The next few paragraphs run smoothly, though there are a few aspects that would need tidying up – as with any GtA piece. For example, the lowercase
king and
sir would need to be rectified by being capitalised.
I'd also mention this:
No slight was too little, no diplomatic snub too outrageous, no accident too unlikely. As the naked cabaret incident stands silent witness to.
Again, the
to at the end of the sentence stops the flow. Strictly speaking, the sentence is correct, but I still think it could be rewritten. This is what I'd do:
No slight was too little, no diplomatic snub too outrageous and no accident too unlikely - to which the naked cabaret incident stands silent witness.
Id also quickly point out the inconsistency in using
"the Noble" while also using
the Bold. Later on we also see
the "Magnanimous. I imagine that the use of inverted commas is to do with insincerity, but we see differentiation even between these instances, which would probably want to be standardised.
This is the next thing I would point out:
[...]I was one of the king's companions, and as merry a bunch of hell-raisers as ever were seen seen were we.
To me, this is a very clumsy sentence. Not in that it's incorrect – aside from the repeated
seen – but in that it seems not to really flow. For example, the use of
were we at the end makes me think of a sort of doggerel pirate drinking song. I imagine that this is probably the intention considering the subject matter, but I'm still not sure about it. Perhaps this would flow more easily:
[...]I was one of the king's companions. We were as merry a bunch of hell-raisers as ever were sen.
As others have said, the fact that the Danish performed mere jests, while the Poles/Swedes sent grievous insults was very humorous. Well done – I enjoyed that a lot. That said, I would have enjoyed hearing about the War of the Golden Pisspot
Going straight into the description of the Lady Marianne was a good idea – keeping the piece fast paced – though
were she just sounds like an erroneous usage of the subjunctive past. Again, this is probably an intended bit of psuedo-archaism, but I think it disrupts what is a piece of relatively more serious description. That said using
was she would work perfectly well.
One question – why were the 'organs' flaccid?
I think I'd have rewritten this, however:
All of Europe laughed at the scandal of the king Demid, the goat, the vicar, and the maid.
A better effect could be derived from a list of three. And the
the before King Demid is supererogatory. Either use
the king or
King Demid. I would personally write it thus:
All of Europe laughed at the scandal of the king, the goat and the vicar.
I felt
the maid was the least important aspect there, so took it out.
And here we come to why I felt that the transcription angle was a bit of a cop-out. The bits after
<ILLEGIBLE> had the potential – I feel – of being some of the funniest, yet they are abandoned. Though the hints at what may have been going on could else the reader to think of their own potentially humourous explanations, I feel that they could have been fleshed out a bit.
I do, however, appreciate that these things can drag on for too long, and therefore give you the benefit of the doubt. Overall, I feel this could be a fantastic piece with the usual polishing and such that one is often obliged to leave out when doing a GtA entry. Judging by the Oxford Commas, the use of "" for insincerity and the use of 'tantalizing,' I can only go as far as guessing that this author is American. Apart from that, I've got bugger all.
Going in the basis that this took me two hours (on and off,) it's probable that I won't get he fourth review done straight away. If I haven't done anything and you want to post, coz, please go ahead.