Place holder for when I give some comments and make my vote. [hider=William McDougal][@Calle]There is nothing wrong with a backstory that is normal. Dramatics, suspense, thrills, horrors, and tragedies. Plenty of CSes roll along with a general trend of fantastically intense pasts for the characters in question. With the right writer, and the right temperament and discipline, a character of 'normal' background can lead to astonishingly good things. I love that he has a grounded connection to Ashfork. I'd be interested in exploring who William is more as a man, how much he loves the place, how many good or bad memories he has of the place, and with the strange goings on in town he has some seriously intriguing motives to explore. That would be the particular flaw of the CS too. It's not a bad thing for a character's history to be vanilla in nature, it is a bad thing for the socio-psychological element to be left somewhat bare.[/hider] [hider=Theodora Shockley][@ayzrules] Theodora is rich with life. That's the best part of the CS, or any of the other sheets I've read. I feel like you really allowed for her personality to shine off from her description all the way down to the end of her bio. Your style really made that happen. If there's a character I'd be most excited in seeing interact with others and the world of Ashfork, it would definitely be Teddy. Would she shoot me for writing that, I know me and her aren't close. Or maybe I'll just have to protect my head from parasols. Of note that I could see as a flaw in the CS would be perhaps the stylistic element of the writing reared its head too much. What can be a useful and wonderful tool for establishing character can end up being the obsession of a particular trait that ultimately consumes the rest of the character's depth. It's kind of like how frequently in Sitcoms they take the 'dumb' character and they become progressively dumber because the writer's have a dearth of ideas so they decided dumber = more funny when it doesn't. [/hider] [hider=Samuel J. Foster][@Briza] Aesthetically, you have my favorite CS appearance-wise. Big ups for my boy William too. FREEDOM! Back to the relevant topic... Samuel sounds like a quintessential Western gunslinging hero. He has an honesty to his features, and also a tenderness. Be that as it may, there is that darker part which leaves me curious. Very Clint-like. As for the history, I loved the mystery revolving around the Russians. I've half-way got this normal amount of suspense about bad connections from back home, a sort of boogeyman mobster type of feel. Then, there's that Lovecraftian feeling simmering in the back of my mind. Maybe that's because I'm re-watching True Detective, but it's there. What I'm saying is that that's good, and it bolsters Samuel's character profile. I don't know if you intended it, or not, but I feel like Samuel is the type who feels more about that certain situation than he lets on. He's a man who should talk more. A man who lets things fester for too long. My main critique is that there's a choppy narrative flow. I felt certain things were repeated too often, like the darkness, or the hidden truths. Granted, I love abusing hidden truths and character darkness. There may just be better ways to get it across. I'm also sitting here wondering whether Samuel is the father of that birthed child, and if Samuel is a real sunuvabitch despite appearances. Questions questions... Which is a superb thing in itself. You've activated my mind, and I can't help but think about whether I've read too much into Samuel and am projecting, or if you've been subtle enough, but planted good clues as to the true nature of the man.[/hider] [hider=My Vote]In the end, my vote goes to [@ayzrules] My reasons are my own. This was an intense battle of choice that literally came down to multiple re-readings.[/hider]