Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
Basic punctuation & other errors on the first page don't inspire me to keep reading. Authors who don't know how to punctuate dialogue need to hire editors.
|
Totally agree. The message from fedrich519 also sounds like spam. But at the same time it also reminds me of an idea for a book I initially attacked a while back, then abandoned for a better plotline because it was too hard to pull together effectively. As for what it covers, I think there's something there. Namely, what if the disaster in question didn't occur quickly, but rather was a slow, drawn out one? I mean, disasters don't need to be immediate to have long lasting, crippling effects on a culture or people. The general idea of a disaster is something catastrophic that destroys what used to be life as usual. Urban decay in all honesty is just as effective a destroyer as a massive earthquake. It just takes longer, and can be stretched out over several generations. But in the end the effects are the same. Just look at Detroit. That's a slow moving disaster that has taken decades to unfold.
That in itself is an interesting topic, but not as exciting as something that just pounces on you out of the blue. It's like watching a glacier bearing down on your town. It might reach you eventually, but it'll take a few years. In the meantime you can work to mitigate the consequences, or even outright stop them. The aftermath can also be less dramatic as people have time to adapt as things are unfolding, whereas a more traditional disaster leaves you with little more than a few seconds to duck and cover before things go south. But again, slow disasters aren't anywhere nearly as exciting as fast ones. Probably because it seems too much like daily life to a lot of people.
