Yeah. Why are you answering my questions when I specifically said that it's not me you should be answering them to.
**Also, pls do not answer my questions unless you are disagreeing with my CNC. I mean, don't answer them directly. I am asking them because I want you as a writer to realize that your own info is missing or lacking or wrong and by internally answering my questions, you can improve your piece further and explain things better. So don't answer me. Answer to yourself.
The fact that I've noticed the holes means that any normal reader will notice them as well. The questions are for you to answer for yourself. You are already able to answer them; now demonstrate your answer by clarifying it in your rewrite and succeeding efforts. You cannot just jump to a foregone conclusion and expect a reader to pick up on your scenario without adequate set-ups unless you are writing from the middle.
I wouldn't do it in a thread where you have to write something every day.
That is your prerogative. But just as how you choose to write in white heat, I have chosen to edit in cold blood.
Onwards.
Crank2
- so the room has eyes and didn't stray?
- sculpted like a statue...as opposed to what? And to be honest, I think the word you're looking for is 'chiseled'. To say that it's sculpted sounds gay because you sculpt with clay. But you chisel with rock, and it's clear in the next sentence that you meant to flaunt how hard his muscles are.
- I think you mean his bone structure, not his body is a V. Actually no I don't know what you mean. A "V-shaped" body is a terrible way to describe a buff adonis unless the speaker is a fan of Paul Dini.
- There is no such thing as a "square chin". That would imply that his entire face is a perfect equillateral. You're just concerned about the angle of his chin, so to lose the meaning of 'square' in another context is confusing. Moreso, when has a math test ever been 'square'. We know that there's a square root symbol, but that isn't exactly common or prevalent in the public eye. So the metaphor is kinda weak if not forced.
- I know you were trying to go for the theme of the FF, but there's a difference between 'describing traits' and 'writing a trashy romance novel'. I swear to god I thought your protagonist was just checking him out, what with describing his ever-boneable features and that perfect shirtless chest. There isn't even any sort of reaction to these observations---like is he disgusted or shocked that the human body could ever be that awesome? He's sort of just glad to see them like some yandere who's denying it. Point is, are you pointing out that the trait that you hate is his vanity? Or the fact that he's really really hot for a guy?
Saul1
- If you're going to call something a utopia, then it's a waste in exercise to attempt to define it. Ergo, everything in the 1st and 2nd paragraph is a waste imo. Just say the place is a utopia after a few off-hand observations. EDIT: reading it later, I realized that you are literally calling the place the Great Utopia. That's so retarded. It's like you're calling your own hometown, Hometown.
***Addendum, there's nothing wrong with calling something the Great Utopia; my point here is that you chose to describe the town by defining the word Utopia anyway.
- you can't walk on gemstones. only gemstone roads. This is confusing.
- she seemed to be glowing I can understand, but you paired it up with gorgeous...so....she
isn't really gorgeous to begin with?
- if the man closed his eyes and looked up, he wouldnt see anything at all.
- lolwhat, so the man just didn't freeze or anything, didn't feel the hands slip from his fingers. He literally looked at what he thought was something and in a split-second just could not register anything else but the act of dancing. This isn't a turn-based strategy game. You can't just "go back to dancing" when shit like that blindsides you and you're holding someone mid-dance.
- the next paragraph is the missing 'turn based action'. You should've merged the act of taking someone away in the same paragraph as being taken away. This isn't a movie.
- Show don't tell. Don't tell us he's blind. Describe the whiteness invading his eyes and the darkness surrounding him. Describe all 5 of his senses being deprived and toyed with. This is especially egregious with the "touch of ecstacy" because its already established that they're in some kind of utopia. So what the hell is more ecstatic than being in utopia? Didn't the man already feel good when he was dancing and having fun at the festival-that-never-ends? Did your one word ("Climax") imply that the divine being just gave him an orgasm to stun him?
- So the pain came from the person tearing his hair and not him exactly?
Waffles2
- He
swivelled around? So he made a slow-as-fuck 180, then made a mad dash for the door? I think you just wanted a fancier term for 'turning' and it
turned out to sound alot stupider than it meant. badum-ksh.
- You're describing the nametag bounce back for the benefit of the readers like it's a movie, when you should be describing how the Interrogator felt a snag from his own shirt because this story is about him and his perspective.
- Unless this interrogator was a fat-ass, even if he was sitting really close to begin with, he wouldn't really 'rise' from his position without instinctively backing away from the table first. this renders the "nametag clipping" scene improbable. Instead of sacrificing what looked good in your head, simply describing the nametag from the getgo would've been preferrable.
- You already described the mannequin prior. Describing it again in the exact same way is redundant.
- so he
didn't see the machine first before seeing the note? Did the coffee maker suddenly disappear just to show him the note then magically re-appear just so he could slap it?
- yes, hiding your nametag is a good idea to avoid being mindfucked by the mind-reading mirror mannequin
- "probably still"? what possessed him to rationalize that he would still be when he's already been mindfucked up the wazoo. There is no pretense to let him know if this is a flashback or a dream that he would bother to check. But since he mentioned that the mannequin was
still there then we know this has happened before. So he should've known better by now.
- the entire nightmare sequence is marred by the fact that you are puppetting 3 people, 2 of which have the same name with a different prefix. To bring credence to the unknowable abject horror of this scene you should've just stuck to one POV instead. It would have us asking alot of questions, but it would also make us afraid because of these questions.
- in addition, everything is so mechanical. this happened. then this. then that guy looked at those things. then this guy touched him. It's like you're watching a cutscene from a game and its expected you put the pieces together yourself. The difference here is, there is NO context whatsoever, nothing to go on save for the vague hint that the mannequin has mindfuck powers.
- so was the "loyal subject" just standing there the whole time?
- being freestyle doesn't give you an excuse to be convoluted. It's like saying you splashed an entire canvas around and did a few strokes to capture an image that looks entirely different, then mention that it's actually a Jackson Pollock to escape embarrassment. writing what you want whenever you can does not excuse you from the rules of storytelling. otherwise nobody is going to get it.
Alright, you've been seeing alot of "as opposed to what" phrases by me recently so I'm going to give ya'll a writing tip for it: Just because it sounds right doesn't mean it should BE right. Green plants are always a given so to mention is redundant unless an otherwise color is significant to the story. To say that someone's abdomen is 'sculpted' already telegraphs a statue-like metaphor (and a bad one at that, read above). Similies and Metaphors are meant to make the reader
think, not to state the obvious or the obviously cliche. I'm sure we've heard "cold as ice" for as long as we've lived. Surely there are much more creative ways to portray how cold something is. Use your heads and dazzle.
Oh by the way, attempts to sound witty by using alternative words for the same phrases
will not work. So I'm not sure if that's what Crank tried to do when he just substituted Chiseled with Sculpted because the latter sounded different and he didn't want to be cliche...intentional or not, don't do it. We'll know. I also don't understand that forced square math quiz metaphor. If you find that you can't work a metaphor well, then don't even try to and expect someone to 'get' it. Same goes for Devour's "musical chairs of justice".
***Actually let me expound on your example, Error. When I first mentioned this, I didn't mean that you should omit this. It's entirely possible that you're trying to portray a post-apoc setting and plants are probably a rarity so to say a "green plant" is there means that it's significant. What I'm saying in my last cnc is that if that were the case, then you ought to
show the reader that plants are a rarity instead of saying theres a green plant here. Have the scavenger marvel at how he's never seen anything like this save for in books and stories he's heard during the Second Stone Age. There is so much you can build from a single phrase and to dismiss it just to get it out of the way is cheap in itself.
Also, I've been mentioning alot of "this isn't a movie" phrases so here's another tip: This isn't a movie. If it plays good in your head. If it sounds good in your head. Then it might not play the same for people. There's a reason why the movie version of books are drastically different. Sometimes, you just can't explain a scene properly in a certain medium unless you're skillful enough to do so. But to literally paint the scene as if your narrator is the camera is not the way to do it.