Player Comments on Robin

[I didn't find a "positive" ending to the story. If anyone finds one, please PM me!]

A twisted version of the classic story.

The author clearly has some familiarity with the tale of Robin Hood (or rather with some particular version of it - there are many that have been composed over the years/millennia, which are wildly inconsistent with one another. If you are interested in this sort of thing, I recommend reading the wikipedia article on Robin Hood.) Many scenes from the original are re-used here, but always with a unique (and usually very dark) twist to them. However, this does not feel at all like a re-telling of the same story, and the author has struck a near-perfect balance between inspiration and innovation.

There were a few things I particularly liked about this story. Simply put, the author is a gifted story-teller. The description, narration and dialogue between characters is unfaltering in its entertaining style (or at least I found it so); it is genuinely engaging and very enjoyable to read. The plot itself is also very well thought-out, and does not plagiarise from any texts that I have read.

The story was of a very satisfactory length, and by no means linear even if there were some "false choices". Despite the author's disclaimer, playing it through twice can yield fairly different stories, and I highly recommend that you do so.

However, the story was unrealistically dark. It seemed as though almost every character had no qualms whatsoever about killing people on a whim, over a trifle. There was no shortage of murderers, rapists, psychopaths, torturers, paedophiles, all-round degenerates etc. throughout the story, and this made it all seem less convincing. It would have been more believable if there had just been one or two characters (including the protagonist) who harboured repressed lusts! In the end, one has to conclude that this is simply taking place in a different universe, where humans do not have the same moral code that we seem to be programmed with. All in all, the extent of everyone's depravity seems a bit silly and the writing is unconvincing in this regard.

In fact, the story was so persistently dark, that events which should've been deeply shocking to the reader came across very casually, and by the end I was more or less expecting some hapless individual to be brutally murdered on every page. The author is by no means the only writer who makes this mistake. Many people try to write disgustingly twisted novels, thinking this will instil fear or horror in the reader (and also seem really cool/edgy). It doesn't. The most striking "dark" stories will have very little explicit violence or gore. Moreover, they will often avoid directly showing the reader anything obviously horrific. Implication is one of the most powerful tools when writing horror, along with a little suspense.
If you are getting the reader to question internally whether something horrible may be going on out of sight and waiting for a clearer revelation, this will be more effective. The author does this successfully in the scene where some Bishop or other is sitting on a chair next to a girl. With a little background knowledge, the scene is very uncomfortable for the reader - they're already asking themselves whether this Bishop is so upright a man after all (even if it is a bit of a cliche.)
An impression of horror is created so much more forcefully if disturbing events are used sparingly. From the stories I've read of his, EndMaster is particularly good at this. In contrast, horrific events/utterly depraved actions are dealt with rather lightly throughout this story, and occur all too regularly to seem particularly noteworthy.

Continuity issues are not infrequent throughout the story - however this is forgivable considering the short time-frame over which this story was developed, and the complexity of it (I can imagine many variables were used.) For the same reasons, there are many spelling mistakes throughout, which just interrupt the reading experience a bit.

The tone of the story is also inconsistent at times. Firstly, there was noticeable clash between the 'humour' and 'horror' elements of the story - I wasn't sure whether it was supposed to funny or disturbing, but it seemed to be a weird mix of both. In some scenes, it would be a jovial old Robin Hood who merrily sliced his way through a supple neck or two, while others seemed much more serious and dark. It was just dissatisfying how lightly all the murders were presented, although the author was clearly trying to make it all seem horrible. This relates to the issues I mentioned earlier. None of the murders were significant anyway, because I didn't care about any of the characters who got killed. Generally, the humour/adventure/horror aspects clashed quite badly.
Robin Hood's character was also inconsistent (and not in a "progressive" or "reformative" sense.) He seemed to oscillate between being a naughty rapscallion (scumbag) and unhinged psychopath. It is utterly bizarre how someone who is sometimes presented as an utter madman, can at other times be so composed and submissive. How someone who at sometimes enjoys murdering children at other times is wracked with guilt over smaller crimes. How someone who commits the darkest of deeds can also get pleasure from silly little things like knocking food over. I won't give any more examples, but I don't think Robin's character is consistent at all - these changes sometimes can take place in a matter of seconds (sentences.)
Even the language used by the narrator, and the language spoken by the characters is remarkably inconsistent. Without meaning to be rude, I don't think the author has a very good grasp of archaic English. Old words are dotted sporadically into modern sentences, sometimes in the wrong context, but altogether sounding out of place. Characters are adept at speaking both modern English and 13-16th century English it seems (there's actually a despicable joke about something being "so 12th century" in there somewhere.) This messy clash of styles just makes the whole thing so weird and unconvincing. I think it would have been better if the author had stuck to modern English.

While the author has put a lot of effort into writing vivid descriptions of scenes, some of it seemed overdone. Extravagant similes/metaphors were just a little too commonplace to be taken seriously. Some expressions also seemed a little clumsy, like "cross gripped white knuckled". It's clear what the author means, but it doesn't read very naturally.

Overall, I really liked it, and spent a good few hours reading it. 5 or 6 out of 8.