Thanks once more for the critique, guys. I've taken this vignette elsewhere and my critiques have been futile, either, 'omg this is win!!!!!!!' or 'omfg this swearzzz!!'. I'm pleased with the critique, I feel that by taking your changes into account, I will be able to give this piece some direction which it clearly lacks.
Quote:
Quote:
I do appreciate that perhaps the prose does come across as rough and could flow better. I doubt that this could be altered through editing, as this piece is intended to have a cathartic effect, thus cutting here and there is hard to maintain that quality, alongside being able to read well. Haven said that I challenge you to expand upon why it's difficult to read.
Everything can be improved. That's a wonderfully juvenile statement you just claimed. You doubt, really, you doubt that this could be altered through editing? You're really that good, aren't you? Nothing should be changed. Everything is perfect. Please, let me land on my knees and sing the good graces you so deserve and demand.
I realise that with this statement, I've come across as quite the A-Hole, when I played down the use of editing I wasn't saying that my work is flawless, far from it. Far from it. I believe that rewriting is a better solution, given that this vignette requires a cathartic tone, which wouldn't work if I deliberated over word choice of what has already been written. Needless to say, I'll be taking your advice when I rewrite. :thumbs_up
Quote:
The one problem that plagues me harder than anything is that you keep inferring 'you.'
Are you talking about me? I'm not feeling much of anything right now. Just a tad bit confused, but nothing else.
I didn't do any of those things in the story. I'm not taking a shower. I didn't go blow stuff up or commit horrible atrocities for blood money. The 'you' at the beggining of the majority of the sentences take away from the story. Not only is a bit redundant, but it also puts the reader in a situation that they're more than likely unfamiliar too. They're not doing anything.
If this was a character, a he, she, or maybe even I, the story would be improved a great deal.
Quote:
The 'you' is definitely the key flaw here. You're asking the reader to imagine they are a bastard. Asking the reader to put themselves in an unfamilar situation and assign perhaps unfamiliar characteristics to themselves will go beyond their limit of imagination as opposed to reading about, let say 'Azam' who is a bastard, slowly turning the soap in his hands as he mulls over his recent deeds. The reader is then free to assign any amount of things to your character and relate at a much more realistic level.
Should you make changes I will be happy to read it again.
So the oral effect created via second-person POV creates more weaknesses than strengths? This crass, vomity tone I was looking for find can be found in other writing techniques. Thus, I think you've swayed me; I'm going to rewrite this in first-person POV.
Quote:
Name that dog. You're trying to make a connection when you write a story. If you give something names, something concrete and specific, you'll only reinforce that connection. Kids starving in a 3rd world country? What's the factorie's name? What's the kid's name? What's the country's name?
Definately. There's a point I did miss, I feel that utilized this technique would balance out the abstract ethos with concrete, allowing it to be easier to follow. I'm definately gonna do this. ^^
Quote:
at the end of the day, swearing is just a 'get-out-of-jail-card'. your probably bored, well I know you are, weve discussed this, your bored of writing tame stories, you want to stand out.
fair play.
thing is, most people will be turned off by that. be honest its filthy.
This is where I defend my work. Some people have a problem with swearing. Some people don't. I respect your opinion, but as a writer, I feel that this is the best way to approach this piece of work. With hindsight to what the others have said though, I will tone it to down, not to appear lazy. I want my prose to have energy; not lethargy will be permitted.
Quote:
Say that to yourself. You're trying to be conversational, but you're failing. Say this sentence out loud to yourself -- isn't that a mouthful? One of the easiest ways to find out if you have good flow is to read it out loud. Are you all that successful? Maybe. When I read it out loud to myself were you successful? Nope.
Some of the words can be cut. Magisterial and incipient are great $5 dollar words but this is a vignette. A quick, off the wall, style of art. Do 'magisterial' and 'incipient' add anything to the piece? They're unneeded. One adjective is enough, buddy. It might mean having to bust out a dictionary, but they add nothing.
Agreed. Big time. In the past I've always minimalised the use of adjectives and adverbs, here I have experimented with breaking that rule. In the writing stage, I felt that by using words fitting with the sociolect of an upper-class person, whilst contrasting it with filthy language fitting into the sociolect of an uneducated person -- that I would create a contrast which would spark interest in the character. Whether or not this effect worked, I am unsure.
Quote:
I'm guessing this is a quiet rip-off from Palahniuk. Supposed to give the reader some grief over how their simple commodities are the products of evil. Well, feel free to borrow the idea. But you can strengthen this line so much more by bothering to be a bit more specific. If you give actual names, numbers and dates, (much like Palahniuk) you reinforce the connection between your piece and your reader. Where in Baghdad? How much food did the children eat in a day? One, maybe two bowls of rice?
What kind of uncle gives their niece/nephew soap? Pretty odd context.
Although Palahniuk has had an influence on my writing, the symbol of the soap wasn't ripped-off from him, the intention was to work with the symbol of our protagonist attempting to cleanse himself with the green soap, from the red sins that permit him. A nod at Lady Macbeth in Macbeth. As for the development of the concrete details, this is another element I want to rehash in the next draft. And Martini, another element I want to alter is my character development, I'm not fulfilling his potential. He lacks consistency, yes?
Quote:
Jesus Christ, don't be scared to have some variety in your piece. How many times did you use 'you?' You didn't say 'purpose' or 'good,' nearly as much as 'you' but it's redundant when you use them so closely together. Maybe that was the intent --being redundant to reinforce an idea-- but the way you executed it was pretty sloppy.
A thesaurus is your best friend.
Thesaurus.com gogogogogogo
Just for starters:
purpose - meaning, intention, ambition, will, reason, design
good - righteous, meaningful, positive, fine, wonderful, worthy, positive, acceptable
All are strong words and can be interchanged freely with their synonyms.
The use of 'you' is likely to be cut down if I change the tense from second to first, however, I must admit I do have a penchant for personal pronouns, yes, I will reduce. As with 'purpose' and 'good', I did intend to repeat certain words for effect. Did the effect not work? Haven said that, the words that I have chosen to use are pretty poor and don't pack many connotations, which I usually make a conscious decision over. Will consider the synonmyns.
Quote:
This feels pretty removed and robotic. Where is the voice of the story? Avoid 'be' verbs. 'Are,' 'is,' and 'am' are all 'be' verbs. They're passive and don't paint a picture.
You are trapped. This is oblivion. This is hell.
Those are painfully weak. The reader is ON FIRE. They're BURNING. You can say that the reader is in hell, but does that convey any emotion? It's so monotone.
I hope to bolster the way that I narrate the story. I never noticed how the variants of 'be' verbs managed to suck much of the power from my prose, I will certainly alter this.
Quote:
And quick question, is this about an Arab? I'm guessing all your allusions to blowing **** up and because it's the present day, that you're writing about an Arab. Or at least, you're making the reader feel like they're a terrorist from the middle east. Do you really think that a terrorist would be having these sort of thoughts?
It's all quite questionable.
Definately questionable, I've tried not to conform to stereotypes or archetypes, haven said that, it probably reads like I've gone into this blindly.
Thanks for all the critique guys, especially aBIGsheep, I will be posting a rejigged draft shortly. ^^
