SCRIPTURIENT REVIEWS | OPEN

❄ THE LAST METZLIAN | SILVER ❄

Reviewer: PeterPan2210
Reviewee: Unloveable_Night
Story reviewed: The Last Metzlian
                               _ _ _ 

                Overall comments
Your story in three words: Unique, Creative, Original.
Strengths: Creativity
Weaknesses: Grammar and Descriptive narrations.
                               _ _ _

Cover:
10/10

Very, very suitable cover. Suits the genre and topic of your story very well too.

Title:
10/10

The last Metzlian. The title is very interesting and very unique. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a Metzlian, I’m pretty sure most others haven’t either, which is why I feel that the title is very eye-catching.
Good job.

Description:
9.5/10

Although the content in the description was accurate, the grammar in the description was terrible.

Basic Plot:
10/10

Again unique. I don’t know if it was planned but your plot sounds like the fantasy-modified version of Anthem by Ayn Rand, at least to me. But brilliant stroke of creativity I’d say.

Content:
7/10

It’s good, the narration part, the ideas, but the dialogues are sub-par. They sound extremely casual and monotonous. You need to improve on writing your dialogues.

I didn’t think that your descriptions were very interesting either. You also need to work on descriptive narrations.

Moreover there’s barely any information on who the Mardukins or the Metzlians actually are. To be able to relate to a story, you need prior information, some build up, something to analyse and understand. Concepts like yours need to be explained. For example: If someone’s telling a goblin or faerie related story to someone, they’d first make them understand what a faerie or a goblin was, like the very concept of their existence. Your story doesn’t provide much explanation of the concept.

Pace + Sequence:
9.5/10

The pace and the sequences of the scenes are pretty good. Maybe  you should describe Tsukia's back-story a bit better though.

Maybe after fight or practice scenes, you could insert a flashback of her losing control over her powers or something equally dramatic.

Grammar + Punctuation:
5/10

The grammar was terrible. You’ve used ‘A', ‘An', ‘The,’ ‘has', ‘had’ incorrectly. It just seemed like English wasn’t even your first language.

In one of the lines, you’ve written, “The child was in her chest" Do you understand what that statement implies?

By using ‘in’ in the statement, you’re making it seem like the child was actually physically inside her chest. Which she wasn’t. So improve that.

There is a lack of important punctuations too.

Although the vocabulary was good, I feel that you’ve used fancy words just for the sake of it. Don’t use so many fancy words, they make you seem like a show-off and increase chances of ill-interpretation. Most fancy words aren’t used in exactly the same context as their dictionary meaning may be, which creates a rift between what your prose might have meant and what I, as a reader, understood. According to me simple is elegant, so go for a simple prose instead of a fancy prose .

Structuring/ Tone + Voice + Tense:
6/10

The structure seemed to be dwindling during the para-change and consequentially, it made the flow sound a bit awkward.

You seem to be switching between active and passive voices even in the first person POV.

The Tense maintenance seemed a bit off at certain places too.

Originality:
9/10

There was a lot of originality and creativity involved, especially in the main plot. The content, as I said didn’t quite fit well with me and the fact that you introduced a possible love interest this early on in the story put me off of the story too.

Otherwise, it’s all good. Work on your grammar and you should be good to go.

Reader’s enjoyment:
5/10

I didn’t quite enjoy it. As I said, it wasn’t quite my style. I don’t like venturing into entirely unknown alternate universes. I need to be able to grasp some concept of the story before I start enjoying it which is why I didn’t quite enjoy yours.

Overall score:
81/100

Thank you for choosing me.
Please rate the review on a scale of 5 based on how useful it was and suggest improvements, if any.