Help polishing an adventure pitch to Dungeon

[RangerWickett]

I'm planning to submit this query to Dungeon magazine, and I was hoping a few folks here could give it a look and let me know if anything ought to be tweaked before I send it in. Thanks.


...Submission Removed...

Thanks for the suggestions, folks.

 

[Balsamic Dragon]

1) Spell check. chieftains, not chieftans.

2) Grammar check. Comma after "After seeing the new design aesthetic in MM3", and other grammatical mistakes.

3) Put in an introductory paragraph, don't just jump right into the description of your adventure.

4) Your adventure description is kind of all over the place, in terms of chronology. It's a little confusing. I'd put it in order for clarity's sake.

5) Your prose is a little too purple I'd consider toning down sentences such as: "In the cavernous darkness, Vyakti holds the upper hand, for any light draws the ireful gaze of the dead god." You aren't writing a pulp novel, and you don't want to make the DM giggle too much

6) It might be helpful to emphasize the fact that the PCs are working to protect the civilized lands from invasion. They are on a covert mission, but who sent them?

7) It's a bit of a stretch that the bad guy is killing a dragon just to show-off as a prelude to invasion. Perhaps there's another reason he has to kill the dragon? The dragon has a powerful artifact? Or he has to win the loyalty of the divisive dragonborn tribes?

8) I like the three dragon battles as the three "acts" in the adventure. I would emphasize that structure in your description, not just in the title. I would also emphasize how these battles will all be very different.

Good luck!

 

[Scribble]

1) Spell check. chieftains, not chieftans.

Looks great... but who are the Chefs? -Great Gogally Moogally.

(Wish I could be more help, but I've never tried to be or been published in dungeon...)

 

[RangerWickett]

1) Spell check. chieftains, not chieftans.

2) Grammar check. Comma after "After seeing the new design aesthetic in MM3", and other grammatical mistakes.

3) Put in an introductory paragraph, don't just jump right into the description of your adventure.

4) Your adventure description is kind of all over the place, in terms of chronology. It's a little confusing. I'd put it in order for clarity's sake.

5) Your prose is a little too purple I'd consider toning down sentences such as: "In the cavernous darkness, Vyakti holds the upper hand, for any light draws the ireful gaze of the dead god." You aren't writing a pulp novel, and you don't want to make the DM giggle too much

6) It might be helpful to emphasize the fact that the PCs are working to protect the civilized lands from invasion. They are on a covert mission, but who sent them?

7) It's a bit of a stretch that the bad guy is killing a dragon just to show-off as a prelude to invasion. Perhaps there's another reason he has to kill the dragon? The dragon has a powerful artifact? Or he has to win the loyalty of the divisive dragonborn tribes?

8) I like the three dragon battles as the three "acts" in the adventure. I would emphasize that structure in your description, not just in the title. I would also emphasize how these battles will all be very different.

Good luck!

1, 2, 6, and 8, thank you kindly. For the rest, I'm amused because they're the exact opposite of the advice I got when I posted this on a different forum. "Make it pulpier-sounding, and don't bother explaining the backstory, just get to the meat of the plot," they said.

(The villain needs to kill the dragon because his superstitious warriors believe in a prophecy that says the tribes will never unite until one who has slain the lord of the four winds comes to lead them.)

Hm. I could probably fit a tad more in there. I'm just worried about it becoming too long. Thanks for the extra set of eyes.

 

[Morrus]

Are you sure it's a good idea posting this publically before you pitch it? I've no experience of their submission policies, but I wouldn't be surprised if they preferred you not to reveal details.

 

[Balsamic Dragon]

1, 2, 6, and 8, thank you kindly. For the rest, I'm amused because they're the exact opposite of the advice I got when I posted this on a different forum. "Make it pulpier-sounding, and don't bother explaining the backstory, just get to the meat of the plot," they said.

Hah! That's the problem with advice, everyone has a different opinion! Well, you may be right on the pulp factor, I'd take a look at what Dungeon is publishing and see what their style is. I'm a professional editor, but the stuff I edit is considerably more academic

 

[Scribble]

Maybe reach out to people like @Morrus; and others that have been published already to see how theirs were worded?


Umm that's supposed to say Piratecat... why's it say @Morrus?

 

[Dedekind]

Precursor: I know nothing about fiction writing standards.

Balsamic Dragon's advice sounds pretty typical. Professional writers and editors all seem to care a lot about grammar and spelling. Every commentary or publication guide I have seen spends a significant amount of time encouraging proper English. I would go so far as to say many professionals come across as passionate about it. I re-read "Eats, Shoots, and Leaves" a while ago and it sounds like the surest way to irritate an editor is to violate language rules.

Similarly, almost every writing guide spends a long time on style. Ten years ago I would have said that content matters more than style. I have amended that. Style makes or breaks a novel/article/blog/forum post and I have become oversensitive to writing that has poor style. My own writing is functional enough that people know what I am talking about. However, there is nothing about my writing that encourages people to keep reading! Even the official government guidelines don't seem to work for me!

Plain Language Humor: How to Write Good

With all that said, the three general critiques offered by Balsamic Dragon hit the three problems for amateurs like me (and I assume RangerWickett?). Spelling matters, grammar matters, and style matters. If a writer cannot get these three things together, then I imagine it would take a phenomenally original idea to get a submission considered.

Spelling is the easiest (spellchecker!) but so many people let spelling errors slide. I find grammar hard and the more I read style guides, the less confident I become. For example, I hate using 'that' or 'which' and avoid writing sentences that (or is it which?) need them. For style, as Justice Stewart said, "I know it when I see it."* I have referred to Strunk & White quite a few times and still cannot peg style.

These are impressions I've received from reading a lot on writing, but have little real experience in publishing. Anybody with experience have some good anecdotes? What is the worse thing (grammatically/stylistically) that you saw eventually get published?

PS Every post on the internet that gripes about grammar/spelling must have grammar/spelling errors in it. I wonder how many I have?

* There are thousands of obvious exceptions to the spelling, grammar, and style rules. Poetry is the obvious one. But Kesey named his bus Furthur. Some authors wear out semicolons while other authors hate them. Commas are either awesome or awful. Tom Wolfe uses a lot of ellipses in "Bonfire of the Vanities." And then there is British versus American English (notice my periods in the quoted title?).

 

[Marius Delphus]

Speaking as a sometime editor, I would say the surest way to irritate me is to foul things up so badly it becomes clear you're not even trying to write "naturally." Stilted, artificial writing -- especially writing that is so convoluted it's incomprehensible -- is my bane. At least with "purple" prose you tend to know what the author's getting at. (This place is really really dark. Got it.)

I certainly don't know anyone whose writing editing can't improve. The "second pair of eyes" phenomenon is depressingly real. When it came time to write a sidebar for the WOTBS 3.5 hardback release, I was paralyzed with anxiety. Though it was very short, I think five people ended up reviewing it.

Anyone who comes to review others' writing will inevitably end up with "favorite" stories; most of mine come from coworkers, most of them engineers. I usually start off by citing the (innumerable) proposals written as though they were procedures and specifications*. One in particular made me wonder whether English was even the author's first language** -- reading it out loud (as I often do), I sounded (to myself) like nothing so much as a foreigner with a phrasebook.

* In general, business proposals ought to be written with a "sales" bent, not as a "reference manual."

** It was, so I could only conclude that written English was not something the author had mastered -- surely a handicap in a job where writing is a major part of every day.

And while I was here too late to see RW's submission, I trust that it is FAR from bad.