Reviewer: KitZimmerman

Book: Mystical Realm by EnamiDah

Book Title: 3/5

While the title itself aligns with a setting in the story, it is not inherently original, catchy, or intriguing.

Book Cover: 4/5

The cover has nearly every element it needs to be successful, with the exception of one—context. Aside from the title and blurb, this is the first point of contact for readers, meaning it needs to use every possible angle to draw them in. With that said, the cover itself leaves some elements to be desired, specifically in how it might hint at what's to come.

Summary: 2.5/5

I admit, I am hard on blurbs, but that isn't without reason. I am a writer, but my spouse is a marketer, and a good one—and her's is the superior skill set regarding blurb crafting. (A hard-learned lesson on my part. Trust me, I've pushed back on a lot, but she's right: Every. Single. Time.) Blurbs are something we work on together because they require skill sets that most authors have not developed.

Although Mystical Realm's blurb hits the market standard of 100-200 words—110, at the time of this review, to be exact— there isn't actually a lot happening. Rhetorical questions and excerpts (no matter how well-written) often fail as marketing ploys to draw readers in—they are extra tools better used as taglines, not the heavy-lifters for garnering interest. 

What's needed is an establishment of what's personally at stake for the protagonist(s), their internal conflict(s) (and, ideally, how it relates to an external one)—not generalization or focus on what would be at stake for just anyone. In other words, readers need to be given a reason to care at the onset—an emotional hook, as it were. A focus on plot in a blurb has been proven to be secondary (unless you're writing one for a successful, pre-existing universe like Marvel, but even then, I would advise against it).

Grammar & Punctuation: 3/5

There were noticeable mistakes, though they weren't severe enough to make reading too "cringe". From a semantic perspective, incongruent word choice was perhaps the most glaring of grammatical elements. This is where I advise writers to challenge not just every sentence or phrase, but also every word choice during the revision (not editing) process.

Character Building: 1/5

Character development was perhaps one of the weakest areas of Mystical Realm. In my opinion, the issue is rooted not in just any one area of the narrative but perhaps in a few. Although I won't elaborate on all the finer details of what makes for strong character development, I will expand on it further in the Reader Engagement section and offer some supplementary feedback directly below.

The first thing I was left wondering was: How old are these students? They seem very young, perhaps in upper grade school, but they navigate attire and society like adults (e.g., ordering drinks at a bar). There's not much to suggest they're in college—if anything, it's the opposite. This incongruency left me scratching my head and also raised concerns about possible breaches in Wattpad Content guidelines.

My second question: Where does this take place in the real world? Setting can give context for other important elements like cultural and historical influences (i.e., why so many names begin with the letter "Z").

This third point arises more out of a personal pet peeve than anything else: there are a lot of characters whose names begin with "Z". There were enough to at least make them difficult to track, especially since characters felt two-dimensional and therefore indiscernible from one another. If the reasoning for these names exists solely because one finds the sound alluring, I would suggest another angle to inform those decisions, as those biases often bleed through one's work in unintended ways (e.g., readability).

Writing Style: 2/5

There is a fundamental understanding in any creative endeavor that when one bends or breaks the rules of inherited form, it needs to be done well, and here's why: everyone is watching—closely. If a form is completely invented, people will pay even closer attention. 

One of the most prominent stylizations in Mystical Realm was the breaking of dialogue tags from corresponding lines and placement into separate paragraphs. The issue here is that because it wasn't done well, it drew my attention and scrutiny. Overall, the experimental form failed because it harmed readability, which had a cascading impact on other elements, such as sequencing and engagement. 

Also, regarding style, there weren't many cumulative sentences to pull things along, which inhibited flow. (Note: This isn't to say I don't believe in minimalistic writing styles, but they're more applicable to flash fiction than episodic short stories and can still be dynamic. Minimalist techniques can be extremely effective in building tension and providing subtext, but no such effort seems to have been made in this piece, nor would I advise it. I will elaborate and tie this back to character development in the Reader Engagement section.)

Plot Originality: 2/5

There wasn't really an original story spin happening within the plot archetype. Personally, I find the "fish out of water" trope (or isekai, for those more apt to speak manga/anime) as equally effective and as it is overdone, which requires extra effort on the part of the writer to set it apart from other stories, or to at least entice readers to stick with it. 

"Fish out of water" works only when the world is revealed to the reader through its "fish" (typically the main character). Consider Harry Potter: we discover the Wizarding World through his experiences, but at an even-keeled pace where we discover things on a need-to-know basis. Withholding information too long is detrimental on multiple levels, which is something I noticed in Mystical Realm. 

This isn't to say that making a plot point or adding layers of mystery will change things up (if anything, that muddies the water)—what's needed is a focus on the characters, specifically the protagonist and what John Truby calls their unique weakness-need, and how that weakness-need forces them to navigate a new world in a way that makes them confront their character flaw(s), which is typical a reflected in the new world itself. (I'll also speak more about character development in the Reader Engagement section.)

Reader Engagement: 1.5/5

So, we're finally here—the part in the review I've repeatedly referred to, specifically within the spheres of Character Building, Writing Style, and Plot Originality. But why? What do those points have to do with Reader Engagement? Well . . . everything, really. Three of the primary issues plaguing those three areas of critique, which have culminated into what's being discussed now, are that of clarity, pacing, and and a lack of ingenuity. 

Consider this: reading literature is a unique art form in that it requires audience participation in the creative process. If characters are underdeveloped (such as who they are or what they issues they face, why, and the stakes involved), the author has little opportunity to draw their readers into the experience. If readers are told what characters look like for the sake of it, the narrative is robbed of its creative potential for strong characterization and subtext. 

If readers don't know where a story takes place and when (which provides historical and cultural context for stories set, even if partially, in our world) or the relative age of characters, readers are left unsure how they should relate. Characters are the linchpin of good storytelling, and it is they who should ultimately be driving the plot if you want people to connect with them—not the other way around. 

If it takes too long to unveil aspects of character, setting, and plot (and how tropes therein break the mold) because the author is too focused on the novelty of a mystery only they know the answers to, readers are left unmoored, disinterested, and aren't really given much reason to stick around. And if throughout a story's telling, the author's writing style is experimental, all the more is pacing bogged down and clarity muddled. 

(There's more that could be said about how the previously mentioned ties into creating and maintaining tension and mystery throughout a story, but I will perhaps save a deep dive for that in an upcoming "class" piece here in the community.)

Comments:

There are a couple of other elements that factored into lower scoring that didn't necessarily fit neatly into any one of the above categories, but I thought they might be worth mentioning for the author's consideration in revision:

Messy sequencing throughout. Example: Chapter 3 - John is referred to by his name before he's introduced to the reader as such.

Tension is lost in a lack of understanding of the stakes specific to the protagonist and rushed summarizations rather than dramatizations, which impacts character development and grounding readers in settings (especially when scenes move swiftly between locales). A balance doesn't seem to have been struck, as some scenes happen too fast and others too slow.

Example of "stakes": Yes, it's scary for anyone to your life to be in danger—but that's scary for anyone. The only time that works is for a basic horror story, which this isn't. Readers need more reason to care.

Rapid scene and locale switches within the frame of single stories, which felt jarring.

Ultimately, these are just my thoughts and opinions, and I think every writer is entitled to their artistic choices, though never without consequence.

Overall Score: 19/40