It is about 4600 words. Annnd, since I'm sure I need to include them, the first 13 lines:

She felt the last trace of life on the world calling out to her. With a grimace, Oyra slid her feet tiredly across the ice. They ached from her long wandering with no food to sustain her, no rest to ease her weary body. She shrugged deeper into her heavy coat, trying to fend off the cold that constantly crept inside it.

With every step, her sense of that bit of life grew until she found herself standing before a small pond. After miles of snow, it seemed strangely out of place-like one of the huge glass walkways that had flowed from building to building in the last desolate city she had found.

The moon quivered lightly upon the ice like the faded glow of her cursed life. Shivering, she looked up into the backdrop

She felt the last trace of life on the world calling out to her.
I'm more willing to be tolerant of the confusion in the first sentence. It may be a little too obscure and confusing, but it conveys a tone, which-- since this is only the first sentence--I'm willing to risk you will clarify. Soon.

With a grimace, Oyra slid her feet tiredly across the ice. They ached from her long wandering with no food to sustain her, no rest to ease her weary body.
My initial reaction is: "Ew. Adverb overload." Why not say: Oyra slid her aching feet across the ice. That does the trick without using an "ly" word that isn't working like you want it to. It also solves the problem of the entire sentence being too long. Zap a period into place and expound on the no food, no rest... after all, THOSE things affect more than her feet. She would feel a weary ache in all of her body, not just the feet.

She shrugged deeper into her heavy coat
Shrugging is usually done in the context of taking something OFF... shrugging the coat OFF. A better word to convey what you mean to would be "She burrowed deeper into her heavy coat," or nestled, or anything that implies a going-into, not a taking-off.

With every step, her sense of that bit of life grew until she found herself standing before a small pond.
Here's where you lose me. What do you mean by "that bit of life"? This is too vague, and I need greater clarity.

After miles of snow, it seemed strangely out of place-like one of the huge glass walkways that had flowed from building to building in the last desolate city she had found.
My reaction here is: "HUH??" That is NEVER a reaction you want from a reader! There is not enough context for us to understand this sentence. You must keep in mind the reader starts out, cold, without your pre-conceived notion of what this book is about. We are basing our initial reaction to your first 13 using every other fantasy/sci-fi book we've ever read in our lives, to try and quickly grasp your milieu and your world. It is to your disadvantage to be vague at this point. You need to TELL US what we are seeing. For instance, the "bit of life", the "it" that seems strangely out of place, the "huge glass walkways" that flow between buildings and the "last desolate city"... these are all confusing references and there is nothing solid for us to begin building a mental reference point so we can track what you are trying to tell us.

Again, this is about being clear with what you DO say, not about the fact that we will learn more about the plot later on. If you are going to use these phrases at this point in time, you MUST clarify what you mean by them. Perhaps this one paragraph is too ambitious. Save the "glass walkways and desolate buildings" until we need to know about them. Right now I'be be hapy to know what you mean when you say "bit of life." Does that mean the character is pregnant? Then tell us so.

The moon quivered lightly upon the ice like the faded glow of her cursed life.
I'm not fond of the imagery of "the faded glow of her cursed life." A life doesn't glow, so the metaphor is lost on me. But I can allow for style.

Most of your objections were simple stylistic issues. I still don't see at all how they affect meaning, but I sure know they affect tone.

The first sentence is one of those "ambiguous hooks", as in...you don't really know exactly what she's talking about (I'm not going to tell you right off what the "last trace of life" is or why there is only a trace of life at first) but that's so that you keep reading. No, I really didn't think about it like that when I wrote it, but I think it turned into a nice hook.

Your objections about the next 2 sentences are completely stylistic ones. Your "Adverb overload" is like a whole 2 adverbs...maybe 3. You're right, I could have said it the other way, but it would say the exact thing I did while ruining my tone. And as far as the no rest and no food, that comes in like 2 more paragraphs as well. I can't state a sentence and then run into some explanation of every little bit--that leads to what you guys complain about as "too much detail too quick."

And yes, you can shrug deeper into a coat, depending on which way you rotate your shoulders. I do it all the time when I'm in my coat.

"With every step, her sense of that bit of life grew until she found herself standing before a small pond." You said this is confusing...but again, I fail to see the confusion. I'm telling you she's sensing life, just as I told you in the first sentence, but now I'm calling it a bit instead of a trace. And she follows her sense of it until she reaches a pond. Don't see what's unclear about that.

"After miles of snow...desolate city she had found" Personally, if anywhere, I could see that the little glass walkway thing is confusing. But we often mention little tidbits in stories that we don't fully explain. Since we are from her general POV, this is a slight reference to something else before the story starts...but it really doesn't matter that you know exactly what the "glass walkways" are. I disagree about there not being enough context however. You're looking at a frozen pond. It reminds her of glass walkways. The "that flowed from building to building in the last desolate city" bit is just to show you a bit of the level of technology of this world...a brief thing that says "Look, this world was advanced enough to have tall buildings with glass walkways." But even without this, I don't see how you don't get the comparison of the pond to glass.

The "Faded glow of her cursed life" is what I like to call a cross-sensational metaphor. Yes, I made that up. But what I mean is that I'm likening something abstract that you have (a life) to something concrete that you see (a faded glow). Now (forgive me my tone) lets compare the two. You have a life and then a faded glow. "Faded glow" indicates a dying light, or perhaps something distant or covered. Now lets liken that to a life. It could be a life that's dying, distant, or covered.

Now you'll prolly tell me that because I had to explain it it was obviously a wretched metaphor. Um...no. All it takes is a little bit of thought. Sometimes you actually have to think about what you read. I doubt most writers change what they write because they are afraid someone won't try to think about their image and get the image in their mind.

So that's pretty much my thoughts on this. Just so you know, since you are prolly thinking I'm an angry stubborn idiot, I did change a TON of this around, redoing wording and editing "unclear images". So I have taken in this advice already and thought through these images to make sure they work. Yet, still I am getting the same complaints. My question is, when will I stop getting the same objections? When I give it to you and let you rewrite it?

Just some food for thought.

However, "With every step, her sense of that bit of life grew until she found herself standing before a small pond." was the only thing that threw me. I understand the rest of the imagery and I get what you're trying to compare it to.

This sentence seems a bit off only in that I'm wondering about that "bit of life". What is it? Or, more importantly, where is it? I know you stated where it's at, but perhaps rephrasing it might clear it up, say:

With every step, [the sense of life she felt] grew until she found herself standing before it. A small pond (and then go into description of it, maybe.

It's just an idea, however, and I'm sure there are countless ways to change it up to be clearer. I could be wrong though.

As writers, it is our job to tantalize our readers. We do this in several ways---when we make the reader care about a character, even if the plot is completely cliché and hackneyed, they will often read because they don't care about how many times they've already read the story; they want to read about this specific character. We can also include little bits of information to hook the reader, which is what you've attempted here.

However, what Will and Elan have tried to point out is that your phrasing (NOTE: not the information you've given) is confusing to the reader. You can tantalize us without confusing us.

As with Elan, I'm willing to let that first sentence go. I can accept that the MC has a special ability that allows her to sense lives, and that she may be one of the few remaining things on the world that still live.

There are four adverbs in the first thirteen lines you've posted. There is almost always a better way of phrasing adverb-laden phrases. Find verbs that convey the adverb---why can't the MC shuffle across the ice, or somesuch?

Since you're as concerned as you are about tone, Elan's point is completely valid---that third sentence is long and, too this reader, clunky.

Your usage of "shrugged" is unfamiliar to me, but I understood it in context, so it's no biggie. As Elan said, though, you could change it. Every time a reader (or, if you're lucky, an editor) takes a break from your story---especially in the first thirteen lines!---to think "Huh? What does this mean?" you're risking that reader's loss of interest. If you don't feel you need to worry about it, that's cool. I do. I think it would be safer for you to use your explanation in the work itself---it's something that involves "[the] way you rotate your shoulders."

quote:

---

With every step, her sense of that bit of life grew until she found herself standing before a small pond.

---

quote:

---

Here's where you lose me. What do you mean by "that bit of life"? This is too vague, and I need greater clarity.

---

I also think this could use some clarification---not explanation, but I'd like you to draw a clearer picture of what she's doing. How is she following this "bit/trace" of life? Does she feel it like a glimmer on the horizon? Perhaps she can feel it like a gentle tug on her mind, one that she's missed after so many months of seeing nothing but death around her. However you choose, I think you owe the reader a clearer explanation of (NOTE: not the mechanisms, or the story idea, but) the movements and actions of your character.

Once again, I agree with Elan about the buildings---I think that reference needs to come later, when we've gotten to know this character better. As it stands, you're giving the reader too much and yet too little information about your world. Decide what the essentials are. Stick to them.

So you've got my interest piqued, which is always good---what's so strange about the pond?

The abstraction about the moon quivering like the faded glow of a life doesn't conjure up a clear mental image for me.

The last metaphor, as viewed in Elan's post (since it seemed to be over the "thirteen lines" rule and so Kathleen maybe gave it a little snip-snip) is spot-on---I instantly understood the mental image you're trying to conjure.

So, just to assuage your concerns viz:

quote:

---

Sometimes you actually have to think about what you read. I doubt most writers change what they write because they are afraid someone won't try to think about their image and get the image in their mind.

---

and

quote:

---

So that's pretty much my thoughts on this. Just so you know, since you are prolly thinking I'm an angry stubborn idiot, I did change a TON of this around, redoing wording and editing "unclear images". So I have taken in this advice already and thought through these images to make sure they work. Yet, still I am getting the same complaints. My question is, when will I stop getting the same objections? When I give it to you and let you rewrite it?

---

First: "I doubt most writers change what they write because they are afraid someone won't try to think about their image and get the image in their mind."

This is writing. That's what writing is about. As writers, we have images and stories and ideas in our heads and it's our job to clearly, effectively, and succinctly (unless your name is Dickens) portray that idea/story/whatever to the reader. That often means a ton of rewrites that can get progressively more frustrating. However, in this specific case, the image you're referring to is not a clear one, especially given that we're dealing with SF/fantasy. In this genre, any and every metaphor is open for a literal interpretation. For all I know, the MC is seeing a fading life off in the distance.

Outside of this genre, I try to eschew abstractions like this at all costs. Their has to be a more effective way of conveying the same information---a way that, preferably, tells us about the character from the character's POV, not in flowery narrator-speech.

As to your second concern, no one is trying to rewrite your piece and no one would ever be able to and bring the same life and verve to it that you would. So far, you've had three complaints of unclear (not images, but) phrasing. Does that mean that every reader will respond the same? No. The next two-hundred-ninety-seven might be completely positive, thus rendering the complainers in this thread a tiny minority of your intended audience.

But, given the responses, there's some clarity issues. I understand how much you've thought about the images and phrasing already---and there comes a point where you either have to say "You know, they're probably right, and I could sacrifice some of the language I've worked so hard on to acquiesce to my readers (so far)," or you can say "No, I like this image/idea/phrase, and I think it conveys a lot if the right audience will receive it." If it's the first, then every crit or nit or whatever is food for thought. If the second, then there's not much more that we can crit with this story, seeing as there's so little room for change.

As critics, we have to operate under the assumption that every word you present to us can be changed. If that's not the case... well, I dunno. Why are you presenting to us things that you are already sure you don't want to change?

In summary: If you're getting the same complaints (but they're not the same, do note the distinction), there may be a reason.

-----------
Wellington

PS: No offense, etc., implied. If I was mean/crass/unduly obnoxious, please consider that I'm up past my bedtime.

[EDIT: Bloody freakin' UBB code... Grr...]

"Oyra felt the last bit of life on this world calling out to her." Look how much more this minor edit tells us than your opening sentance. Also note how it focuses our curiosity on a very specific question, what kind of person is Oyra that she knows of more than one world and can sense the last trace of life on this one?

Aalayna told me the bit of life thing was a bad wording but I kept it simply because I really didn't know what else to say.

So I'll put in a plug for ethersong. The story is really quite interesting and worth reading. I've already done two critiques of it and I'm working on a third. I haven't gotten bored of it yet.

Survivor - I actually made the opposite comment about the first sentence. I think "*the* world" is better than "*this* world" because "the" is more of a non-word (and it's important to have non-words when you've got a lot of description to help the flow) and "this" begs the question "which?"

quote:

---

The first sentence is one of those "ambiguous hooks", as in...you don't really know exactly what she's talking about (I'm not going to tell you right off what the "last trace of life" is or why there is only a trace of life at first) but that's so that you keep reading. No, I really didn't think about it like that when I wrote it, but I think it turned into a nice hook.

---

quote:

---

Original
She felt the last trace of life on the world calling out to her. With a grimace, Oyra slid her feet tiredly across the ice. They ached from her long wandering with no food to sustain her, no rest to ease her weary body. She shrugged deeper into her heavy coat, trying to fend off the cold that constantly crept inside it.

---

It starts out with a great ambiguous hook. You immediately ask, "why are there only traces of life left?" Then you move on to her sliding across the ice. This would be an excellent place to add a little information about why there are only traces of life left:

With a grimace, Oyra slid her tired feet deftly across the ice. Her stomach suddenly growled in protest, and although she knew there would no food left in this frozen desolation [called Earth], she looked around anyway.

...something like this would establish 1) that the world (immediate area, depending on the plot) is frozen and dead. 2) Oyra is extremely tired and hungry, but perseveres through it all to meet an ends, 3) is getting tired of it all, and 4) has been doing this for a while. So without giving plot elements away, you give the reader something to attach to.

The rest then flows on smoothly into the bulk of the content/story.

I'd be glad to read the story if you want to send it to me.

Jammrock

quote:

---

and "this" begs the question "which?"

---

Just tell me
http://www.hatrack.com/forums/writers/forum/Forum1/HTML/002716.html

Arguing with critiques http://www.hatrack.com/forums/writers/forum/Forum1/HTML/001622.html

...and telling me that my critiques are laughable is not a good way to get me to do more of them. I know it's annoying to be critiqued; but the critiquer is doing me a favor, so my response is always "thank you," even if I decide not to follow the advice.

quote:

---

Welcome to controlled ambiguity

---

True... but in this case it's a question that isn't very important to this story. I would rather see ambiguity that is resolved later than ambiguity that doesn't really have much to do with the story. I think there's enough ambiguity here already without adding more, especially when it isn't really important.

I was attempting to argue, I was attempting to clarify. But I guess that can be viewed as the same thing. I just find ambigious comments worse than an ambigious story.

Oh, and it seems that kicking up a storm gets me along pretty well on this forum...I've recieved some of the best comments that way. So that's a bit toungue in cheek...I'll behave now...