555~~~
I am very pitiful to begin with!!
No one has ever loved me since I was little~
Now it is so miserable that she has to work as a maid for someone called "Imperial Tomb"!
If not for having no money! Who would blame him!
Although it's good to eat and live here~
But, this girl, I don't want to get needle eyes!
Because I see a "good" passionate scene almost every day!
Damn it, I just don't like it!
What? He actually wants me to have a passionate show with him?
Women today are so ignorant! !
I want him to be my servant because I admire her!
I never thought that such a small and exquisite girl could have such good connotations!
Makes me want to have a great show with her right away
Reader comments
Guang: As an author, I really want to expose my shortcomings. Youguang is not good at punctuation. If you look carefully, you can see that there are persistent punctuation errors in the article [The punctuation errors are basically my fault, and the punctuation of another author is perfect when writing the article]. Even if Youguang wants to copy, [copy. At least the book has been published] You shouldn't make such a stupid mistake. Maybe this explanation is a bit superfluous, but for me, it's already embarrassing because this is a text that the author coded while enduring dermatitis. The author said that he didn't want to be splashed with X water.
The copywriting is well written, the opening chapter is clear, and it is quite attractive. If possible, for the "To witness a piece of history..." Part of the 2nd font below, leave it blank and leave two spaces blank. It will look better.
There is a regret in the first sentence:
"The left eye is focused on the future." I specifically checked the word "concentrated on" in the "Modern Chinese Dictionary" and confirmed that it was not included in it. Baidu took a look and saw that it has two meanings, namely "condensation, gathering" and "gazing", but the usage examples of "gazing" are from modern times and even ancient times. From this point of view, it is clearer for readers to use "gazing" or "gazing".
Apart from that, there is nothing to fault about the copywriting.
Before commenting on the article, Blueberry Jam first suggested that if the author's future articles have only 200 words in the preface, it would be better to combine them with the first chapter.
In terms of characters, Muller Klopp's setting is very good, especially his identity (the real heir of the Trelawney family) and his subconscious actions (touching the eyepatch). These two points alone are not significant, but when viewed together, it is obvious that the author has spent time on the setting of this protagonist. By the way, as an aside, regarding the fact that the author has always used "Muller·Kropp" instead of "Muller Kropp" for Muller's name in the text of "Shackles", I don't feel so comfortable with it, especially since the original characters in HP all use Chinese names, and only the English name "Muller" is mixed in.
Unlike the wonderful performance of the original character Muller, "Shackles" does not explore the original characters in depth. Not to mention Draco's complete armor transformation, even if it is a three-person group, Ron has no role to play. Hermione is the first little wizard that Muller came into contact with, but the author did not give her many eye-catching plots. Harry, too, is a side character and only plays a leading role in the plot. Not to mention the supporting roles, even Bryce as Muller's CP, even though he is considered the second male protagonist of "Shackles", apart from his neutral stance and being more sensible and intelligent, I did not feel any other characteristics of his character.
From this point of view, I hope that the author can give the main characters some more distinctive character traits, instead of just using them to promote the development of the plot. In that case, the people in the novel only have a superficial appearance, but no more attractive connotations for readers.
In addition, there are some innocuous little bugs in the article. The most obvious one is probably that the author does not distinguish between "acquisitions". However, there are now more and more articles in Jinjiang that do not distinguish between "acquisition places", and most readers can adapt to it.
There are also some places where there are some usages and combinations that readers can understand but are not common. For example, "the tour guide happily explained to everyone", "together..." This kind of expression is rarely used in novels, but to use "to..." It feels a bit like the idiomatic method of southern dialect.
On the contrary, as for the author's special request to be evaluated on the plot and writing speed, in fact, when I read the article "Shackles" by Blueberry, I didn't feel that there was anything wrong with the rhythm, and I even thought it was pretty good. Perhaps because I write long articles myself, I feel very comfortable with the writing speed of "Shackles".
However, if you look at "Shackles" from the copy page and the chapter titles, you may be able to discover things that you cannot detect when you only read the text.
The chapter titles of "Shackles" are 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3... Something like this. Why is this? Does it mean that the contents of each three chapters can actually be merged?
If the author really feels that the speed of the article cannot be increased and hopes to change the status quo, then from my perspective, I think the problem may lie in your description of the details.
In fact, I think the author arranged the plot of "Shackles" quite well. Of course, there is definitely room for improvement, but whether it is the entry point of the overall story or the detailed arrangement of the plot in the original work, it can be said to be good. But if I really want to say it, I feel that there is no real abbreviation in the article "Shackles", and no abbreviation is tantamount to writing in detail, without highlighting the real focus of the article.
I say that your detailed arrangement of the plot of the original work is good because in the story, unnecessary plots of the original work have been cut out, or only mentioned in a few sentences. However, for the necessary plot, I feel that the author did not grasp the real details.
Proper detailing does not mean that there are only 100 words of abbreviation and 3000 words of detailed writing. It means that there are 100 words of summary, about 300 words of brief mention, 800-1000 words of brief description, 2000-2500 words of careful explanation and more than 4000 words of key statements. Looking at it this way, maybe the author can also find that in the article "Shackles", the so-called detailed writing can only distinguish between a slight description and a detailed explanation, while the abbreviation is almost 100 words in one stroke, so I say that there is no detailed writing without real abbreviation. This is why I think "Shackles" is good, but it doesn't feel like a coherent story.
The author himself said, "It feels like I can never write at a fast pace." However, from a reader's perspective, I feel that the article lacks climax and tension.
What impressed me deeply in "Shackles" was the chapter where Muller met Professor Trelawney. This was also a small climax when the full text reached more than 30,000 words. I thought that the following articles would gradually reveal more mysteries about Mueller, but the following articles became more and more streamlined - as plain as flowing water.
But if you really ask me to come up with any solution, I don't seem to have one. Moreover, every article belongs to its author, and the author is the one who really decides the direction it will take and what it will become.
I like the current rhythm of "Shackles" and its plainness and warmth. Of course, if this article becomes more intense, I will also like it. As long as its style remains unchanged, I think that not only me but other readers will like all the changes the author has made to make the article better and more attractive.
In any case, this review is only based on Blueberry's own thoughts during the reading process. If there is anything wrong, the author is welcome to discuss it with me~
Guang: As an author, I really want to expose my shortcomings. Youguang is not good at punctuation. If you look carefully, you can see that there are persistent punctuation errors in the article [The punctuation errors are basically my fault, and the punctuation of another author is perfect when writing the article]. Even if Youguang wants to copy, [copy. At least the book has been published] You shouldn't make such a stupid mistake. Maybe this explanation is a bit superfluous, but for me, it's already embarrassing because this is a text that the author coded while enduring dermatitis. The author said that he didn't want to be splashed with X water.
The copywriting is well written, the opening chapter is clear, and it is quite attractive. If possible, for the "To witness a piece of history..." Part of the 2nd font below, leave it blank and leave two spaces blank. It will look better. There is a regret in the first sentence: "The left eye is focused on the future." I specifically checked the word "concentrated on" in the "Modern Chinese Dictionary" and confirmed that it was not included in it. Baidu took a look and saw that it has two meanings, namely "condensation, gathering" and "gazing", but the usage examples of "gazing" are from modern times and even ancient times. From this point of view, it is clearer for readers to use "gazing" or "gazing". Apart from that, there is nothing to fault about the copywriting. Before commenting on the article, Blueberry Jam first suggested that if the author's future articles have only 200 words in the preface, it would be better to combine them with the first chapter. In terms of characters, Muller Klopp's setting is very good, especially his identity (the real heir of the Trelawney family) and his subconscious actions (touching the eyepatch). These two points alone are not significant, but when viewed together, it is obvious that the author has spent time on the setting of this protagonist. By the way, as an aside, regarding the fact that the author has always used "Muller·Kropp" instead of "Muller Kropp" for Muller's name in the text of "Shackles", I don't feel so comfortable with it, especially since the original characters in HP all use Chinese names, and only the English name "Muller" is mixed in. Unlike the wonderful performance of the original character Muller, "Shackles" does not explore the original characters in depth. Not to mention Draco's complete armor transformation, even if it is a three-person group, Ron has no role to play. Hermione is the first little wizard that Muller came into contact with, but the author did not give her many eye-catching plots. Harry, too, is a side character and only plays a leading role in the plot. Not to mention the supporting roles, even Bryce as Muller's CP, even though he is considered the second male protagonist of "Shackles", apart from his neutral stance and being more sensible and intelligent, I did not feel any other characteristics of his character. From this point of view, I hope that the author can give the main characters some more distinctive character traits, instead of just using them to promote the development of the plot. In that case, the people in the novel only have a superficial appearance, but no more attractive connotations for readers. In addition, there are some innocuous little bugs in the article. The most obvious one is probably that the author does not distinguish between "acquisitions". However, there are now more and more articles in Jinjiang that do not distinguish between "acquisition places", and most readers can adapt to it. There are also some places where there are some usages and combinations that readers can understand but are not common. For example, "the tour guide happily explained to everyone", "together..." This kind of expression is rarely used in novels, but to use "to..." It feels a bit like the idiomatic method of southern dialect. On the contrary, as for the author's special request to be evaluated on the plot and writing speed, in fact, when I read the article "Shackles" by Blueberry, I didn't feel that there was anything wrong with the rhythm, and I even thought it was pretty good. Perhaps because I write long articles myself, I feel very comfortable with the writing speed of "Shackles". However, if you look at "Shackles" from the copy page and the chapter titles, you may be able to discover things that you cannot detect when you only read the text. The chapter titles of "Shackles" are 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3... Something like this. Why is this? Does it mean that the contents of each three chapters can actually be merged? If the author really feels that the speed of the article cannot be increased and hopes to change the status quo, then from my perspective, I think the problem may lie in your description of the details. In fact, I think the author arranged the plot of "Shackles" quite well. Of course, there is definitely room for improvement, but whether it is the entry point of the overall story or the detailed arrangement of the plot in the original work, it can be said to be good. But if I really want to say it, I feel that there is no real abbreviation in the article "Shackles", and no abbreviation is tantamount to writing in detail, without highlighting the real focus of the article. I say that your detailed arrangement of the plot of the original work is good because in the story, unnecessary plots of the original work have been cut out, or only mentioned in a few sentences. However, for the necessary plot, I feel that the author did not grasp the real details. Proper detailing does not mean that there are only 100 words of abbreviation and 3000 words of detailed writing. It means that there are 100 words of summary, about 300 words of brief mention, 800-1000 words of brief description, 2000-2500 words of careful explanation and more than 4000 words of key statements. Looking at it this way, maybe the author can also find that in the article "Shackles", the so-called detailed writing can only distinguish between a slight description and a detailed explanation, while the abbreviation is almost 100 words in one stroke, so I say that there is no detailed writing without real abbreviation. This is why I think "Shackles" is good, but it doesn't feel like a coherent story. The author himself said, "It feels like I can never write at a fast pace." However, from a reader's perspective, I feel that the article lacks climax and tension. What impressed me deeply in "Shackles" was the chapter where Muller met Professor Trelawney. This was also a small climax when the full text reached more than 30,000 words. I thought that the following articles would gradually reveal more mysteries about Mueller, but the following articles became more and more streamlined - as plain as flowing water. But if you really ask me to come up with any solution, I don't seem to have one. Moreover, every article belongs to its author, and the author is the one who really decides the direction it will take and what it will become. I like the current rhythm of "Shackles" and its plainness and warmth. Of course, if this article becomes more intense, I will also like it. As long as its style remains unchanged, I think that not only me but other readers will like all the changes the author has made to make the article better and more attractive. In any case, this review is only based on Blueberry's own thoughts during the reading process. If there is anything wrong, the author is welcome to discuss it with me~