Hello friends,
I have recently completed a short story of just under 2,000 words. I have revised and drafted it several times.
I believe this is essentially as far as I can take the story alone.
Would anyone be willing to read it and offer thoughts/criticisms/suggestions? I would appreciate that very much.
Thank you in advance for any responses.
http://pastebin.com/raw/4RdR2GDq
Among the bustle of holiday shoppers, there was one other still figure. An old man was watching the tree too. He looked one hundred years old. His face was as gnarled and grooved as the bark of the tree. Water came out of his eyes, meandering down the ancient lines on his face and dripping off his chin.
“Are you alright, sir?” I asked. “Why are you crying?”
Stopped reading right here. Every single thought you included is duplicated. The lonely figure: twice. He's old: twice. He's crying: twice.
Less is more.
>>7812926
He looked one hundred years old
sounds like elementary school writing tbqh
>>7812783
Rework everything up to the man talking, rest is good desu
You can ignore the trash advice that the three snobs above me have posted. I'll give you some honest feedback. First, I find your description at the start of the story acceptable. However, when the old man begins to speak, you maintain your flowery narrative prose during the monologue, which breaks the suspension of disbelief; no human being speaks like that. The shape of the story is acceptable. One small point that must be made is that the scars on the old man's hands could be interpreted as stigmata. If this is what you intended, then that's fine. Just be aware of this interpretation. This is not bad, certainly a lot better than most of the utter garbage that I see on this board.
>During the massacres at Hong Kong, Japanese troops entered the Military Hospital at St. Stephens College and bayonetted the sick and wounded in their beds, and raped and murdered nurses who were on duty there.
This sentence is long and ugly which I assume is your intention. I like the idea but the "and" x4 is overkill. I would do something like this:
>During the 1941 Hong Kong massacres, Japanese troops entered the Military Hospital at St. Stephens College, bayonetted the sick and wounded in their beds, and raped and murdered nurses who were on duty there.
I changed the first sentence because saying "the massacres at Hong Kong" is really vague which is antithetical to the cold military report feeling of the rest of the sentence. Also I assumed this isn't a real quote, so if it is real then disregard these changes.
>I was admiring a fine Christmas tree at a shopping mall.
Descriptions like "fine" are really useless to the reader, even if it is a part of your narration style. The same goes for saying the star is "beautiful".
>It was a real tree—that was what struck me.
Awkward syntax, even if that is what you're going for I'm not sure if it's worth it. There are ways of writing in a younger voice without it coming at the cost of clarity or flow.
>Long ribbons and colorful baubles spiraled up the tree, atop which sat a beautiful star, tying the whole scene together and giving it a magnificent sense of unity.
Your visual descriptions need some work, of course the ribbons are long if they spiral up the whole tree, what colors are the baubles? What makes the sense of unity magnificent? which decorations is there unity between? You say it ties the whole scene together but the reader doesn't actually know anything about the scene. Don't prop up your descriptions on vague language.
>Among the bustle of holiday shoppers, there was one other still figure.
I assume this means other than you? It's a bit unclear because you never describe yourself as still. Also the "too" in the next sentence is redundant.
> He looked one hundred years old. His face was as gnarled and grooved as the bark of the tree.
The first sentence is nebulous and unnecessary. It would really strengthen your writing to remove almost everything that isn't completely necessary. Also Christmas tree bark isn't really that "gnarled".
>Water came out of his eyes, meandering down the ancient lines on his face and dripping off his chin.
Tears are not solely water, this sounds pedantic but inaccurate descriptions make the writing seem childish. It is also a bit unnecessary to say that the lines are ancient, you already said it in the previous sentence and wrinkles imply age innately.
>>7813213
> “Are you alright, sir?” I asked. “Why are you crying?” “I am crying,” said the old man, gelatinous tears flowing freely, “for the soldiers of St. Stephen’s.”
This feels very rushed. The dialogue is totally void of character and gelatinous + flowing freely is a bit oxymoronic.
>This curious moment felt like something out of a dream: a crying old man speaking cryptically of strange soldiers underneath a real Christmas tree.
To reiterate a platitude, show don't tell. If you employ accurate descriptions, the anomalous nature of the conversation should be apparent. The second half of the sentence is overwrought. Also, while a colon is not grammatically incorrect, a semicolon would work better.
>I was thoroughly impressed now. “Who are the soldiers of St. Stephen’s? Why are you crying for them?” I asked. I was certain there was a narrative here. “What happened?”
Impressed is a strange word choice, also "I was certain there was a narrative here" is strange and unnecessary, your curiosity is apparent from the fact that you are asking him questions.
If I have time (and if this is helpful), I'll come back later and comment on the rest.
>>7813218
You could have helped a lot more. None of this is worth anything, but thanks, I guess.
>>7813928
>Guy literally shitting on you for writing a 500 word critique
Don't even bother man. They don't deserve to have their story written any better.
