When Emily entered the rooms of Lady Agnes, there was a fire burning in the hearth, although it was the height of summer. The heat struck her like a physical blow; she gasped aloud.

Lady Agnes had been sitting in a chair by the chimney; at the sound, she rose, and turned to scrutinise Emily. Her face still held the beauty Lord Henry had married her for: lips as red as a lover's rose, pale, translucent skin stretched over high cheekbones, and brown hair streaked through with highlights of red, like reflections of the fire in her hearth. The only thing that marred her beauty was a coin-shaped birthmark on her forehead, half-hidden by a few errant strands.

"Well, well," she said. "So you are the girl. The king's niece."

Emily curtseyed, nervously, eyeing the other. "Yes, m'lady."

[This message has been edited by Silver3 (edited November 22, 2004).]

the thing that i notice straitaway is that you use "m'lady," which is pronounced "meh" lady for a noble girl, who would have been taught to say it "milady," pronounced "me" lady or "my lady" which is exactly as it appears...

basically i'm just saying that the character isn't something i could believe

the next thing i'm curious about, what the heck is the POV? i'm not in anyones head, i'm just wandering around in empty space, and i see the writer of the piece far too clearly, it takes me out of the story instead of putting me in it... if you are planning on using omniscient, it is very hard to do (i'm trying to use it myself), the best thing to do for omniscient is to create a storyteller, whether you actually point him out to the reader or not is optional, and then stay very forcefully in his subjective outlook on the stories events, sure, he already knows everything, but he only reveals things to his listeners as they need to know it, whilst making the listener realize that there's more hidden inside... something written like that pulls me in extremely well, even better than some first-person narrative

My only suggestions revolve around wording choices. Here are my opinions:

<When Emily entered the rooms of Lady Agnes, there was a fire burning in the hearth, although it was the height of summer.>

Two 'to be' verbs in one sentence. If it was flipped around a little, at least one could be buried. I almost think it could do without the 'there was' and the sentence would read much better.

<Lady Agnes had been sitting in a chair by the chimney; at the sound, she rose, and turned to scrutinise Emily.>

Instead of 'had been', trim, and say 'sat in a chair'.

<translucent skin stretched over high cheekbones>

Yuck! Unless this is a non-human culture or a people with a unique sence of beauty, the thought of semi-see-through skin makes my stomach turn.

<"Well, well," she said. "So you are the girl. The king's niece.">

This does not seem like nataral dialog. It might be better as: So you are the king's niece.

The conventions your characters use to address each other are up to you, of course; you're not bound to history or common practice. I've read stories where these language forms were completely made up (The Dark Tower, for one).

Standards of beauty change over time. Extremely pale translucent skin was once thought very beautiful, and most people are aware of this. You'll have to decide for your world what the standards of beauty are, but I for one do not find the idea of streched skin to be even remotely beautiful. Joan Rivers has stretched skin, if you know what I mean.

There is another important concern not yet mentioned: We do not know where we are. Obviously, you do as the author, but all we know about the setting is that, wherever it is, it is summer. Fireplaces, lords & ladies, and unicorns in the title give us a sense of time, but we need to know where we are.