posted
hey this is a new idea for a story, any comment would be great. thanx!
Dark grey eyes stared at the lake, no reflection showing in them. Unmoving just looking deep into the lake which got darker and darker like a never ending pool of darkness. The girl continued to stand looking upon the lake. There was no wind no sounds, nothing. Then there was a scream and the water disappeared, darkness continued. Jumping off the grassy bank into the blackness the girl disappeared and everything went back to normal. As normal as it could be. The water of the lake had returned, unmoving, there was no wind, no sounds. Nothing....
Standing at the edge of the road up on the hill stood a boy looking down at the grassy bank where the girl had been standing less than 2 minutes ago. He had seen everything. Crossing his arms, the boy didn't move his feet. Frowning slightly he then turned, walking back towards the city, leaving the view of the lake and grass, and letting go of the memories of what he just saw.
posted
It's hard for me to connect with this. One of the characters you introduce disappears without making an apparent impact "everything went back to normal" and the other walks away and forgets what he saw. Which leads me, as I'm reading to wonder if anything later in the story will be memorable. Sorry, that sounds harsher than I'd like it to.
You might think about starting with the boy watching the girl. That way his observations can give me a context to connect with.
posted
In the first paragraph, you say that there was no wind or sounds. Then say everything returned to normal, noting that there isn't any wind or sounds. So is having no winds/ sounds normal or not?
I agree with MaryRobinette's suggestion that perhaps the first paragraph be told from the boy’s perspective. I would be ok with him dismissing or forgetting what he saw if I had a greater sense of how/ why it disturbed him so much that he would forget, and some foreshadowing of why it might be important.
(I know that's a lot for 13 lines, just some suggestions in general).
[This message has been edited by Carlene (edited August 03, 2005).]
posted
The events are intriguing, but I found th etone very pedestrian. This is a mysterious event (or so it seems to the reader), but the writing seems to have a flat rhythm. The sentence structure generally runs "After a piece of description, someone did something" and the first paragrph in particular comes across as almost soporific. Rhythm can be effectively spooky, which is the atmosphere you need to create in that first paragraph, if you tweak it right.
The reaction of the boy is also very pedestrian. There may be good reason for this, but he's just seen (apparently) a girl look at a lake, the lake disappear, the girl disappearing, and the lake reappearing. His reaction to this is to "frown slightly" and "let go" of the memories; that's an odd detachment, and those sort of memories would normally be hard to let go of - if he doesn't believe what he's seen, he would surely be actively trying to push the memories away, rather than "let go" of them. But there may, as I say, be a reason why his reaction is so lifeless.
The core idea, however, definitely has potential; I feel you just need to engage the reader more.
posted
Most of the deeper issues have been addressed. There is a definite detachment to the whole thing.
Just a few notes that may help with rhythm.
You repeat a lot of words:
IE: "DARK grey eyes stared at the lake, no reflection showing in them. Unmoving just looking deep into the lake which got DARKer and DARKer like a never ending pool of DARKness."
This is a bit mind numbing for the reader. They don't need to hear that it's dark more than once. Or if more than one thing is dark then maybe describe it differently. Metaphors work a lot better at painting a picture than adjectives do.
Simplify:
IE: "There was no wind no sounds, nothing." You could just say. "All was still." or something to that effect. Simplify as much as possible. This will help with rhythm as well.
posted
Maybe reading it out loud would help. There are a few points where it becomes gramatically confusing for me. For example, in the first sentance, is there no reflection in the lake, or no reflection of the lake in her eyes? And in the first sentance of the second paragraph, you use the word "stood" twice. That threw me off. I have a hard time following what's going on in general. I'd suggest looking back over it, and find more precise words to say what you're trying to say.
Posts: 189 | Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted
It is better to describe things in positive terms than in negative terms (tell what is there instead of what isn't) because when you say something like "no sound" or "no wind," the reader's mind will conjure up sound or wind merely by your mentioning them. Then the reader will have to consciously try to remove the sound or wind from thought in order to "get" what you are describing.
If you say "all was still" or "complete silence," or somesuch, you make it easier for the reader to conjure the correct image or mood and not have to do extra (and potentially confusing) work to "get" what you are describing.
posted
yeah sorry im still here... thankyou for all your feedbakk, i've just really been busy with school and work sorry, but i'm still reading the comments thankyou all for your help i'll go through my story again to see what i can make better i just don't have much time atm.. i'll get round to it though Posts: 25 | Registered: Jun 2005
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
