A Statue On The Boardwalk

I can appreciate what you wanted to accomplish, but there some stumbling blocks.

1) It's very purple-prose-ish. "Purple prose" is a term "used to describe passages, or sometimes entire literary works, written in prose so overly extravagant, ornate, or flowery as to break the flow and draw attention to itself." That is, you have sections where you're not so much describing something for the reader's edification, but for your own and for the sake of the words you want to use. And even worse, we lose focus of what's important. Like so:

the breeze flows fluently and true, and for a moment, a fleeting second in between now and then, life, and reality seem like a suspended second, a moment, or a drug. The moment is petrified, and terrifyingly beautiful. And all the occupants of this serene painting feel like they are in a children’s lullaby. Salt drifts through the air,

What do we gain from this passage? That the breeze is "fluent and true"? That, for a second, "between now and [when?]", life is either a "second" or a "moment" or a "drug(?)" Drugs don't really relate to seconds or moments at all.

And this line:

The wind spoke for the both of them for a while. It played with their hair. It danced for them, and carried exotic melodies of joy, and sorrow for them to hear

Again, with the wind. Wind is wind is wind. When you start personifying natural phenomena for such lengths, it's just so twee. (Which urban dictionary defines as "Something that is sweet, almost to the point of being sickeningly so. As a derogatory descriptive, it means something that is affectedly dainty or quaint, or is way too sentimental.")

And this line:

he hushes her and places his finger over her soft pink lips.

Did we need to know that she had soft pink lips?

But besides having an issue with the writing technique itself, your main character is a Russian novelist, correct? A great one who might draw comparisons to the classics such as Tolstoy, Gogol, Nabokov, and Dostoyevsky? Well, as far as my understanding goes and what I've read of them...this oversentimentality and purple prose does not suit classic Russian literature at all. You want your narration to match the characters in your story, even if it's not in first-person. You can't talk about the shiny glittery stars that guide the souls of mankind for eons through the wonder of discovery and curiosity...when your main character is a rough and tough cowboy that shoots first and asks questions later. Plus, Jack calls Elly "babe" which just strikes me as so weird.

2) You switch from present tense to past tense to present to past and then some.

The woman holds tightly onto her long brimmed hat

She did not understand. He stared out to sea with vacant familiarity

He looks like he knows something,

She handed it to him. He crumpled it back up, and put it away

Which just comes across as jarring and unrefined. Listen, this advice goes to you and to everyone else on this website that uses present tense for no apparent reason (and believe me, there are many): If the reason that you're using present tense is true enough, then you probably shouldn't forget that you're using it.
Really, though, the purpose of present tense is to lend an immediacy to the story, a sense of being involved in the action. Instead, though, we just have two people chatting on a pier. Hardly urgent and action-packed. Otherwise, just grin and bear the convention of past tense.

3) Your story is 3/4 told through one man's monologue. Not always a bad thing, but you need to make use of paragraphs. If it's one character speaking at length, you can do this

"This is a character speaking. I am speaking about something important.
"In other news," he continued, "This is also important.
"But this last paragraph isn't really as important."

I'm not sure if I've ever read about this technique in any writing books, but I've definitely seen it often in literature. Notice the lack of an "end quotation mark" on the paragraphs. This way, you can break up the giant blocks of text and make it more readable and easy to take in. And to let your readers understand, you just toss in a "he continued" and we immediately understand the format.

4) Your main character isn't very likable. They don't always need to be, but it gets in the way of our ability to relate to him. Especially lines like this where he just blurts out all the big adjectives he can think of (and, in the end, sounding like Dr. Seuss):

I had somehow wandered into some ancient, decadent... and degraded feeding frenzy! This pestilent pack of rabid bastards were resorting to their most primordial, and antediluvian animal instincts. In that moment in time, they were nothing more than stupid, fiendish apes, indulging in idol worship. And there god was a novel.

And also, as an esteemed writer, he said "And there god was a novel" in place of "And their god was a novel."

A couple other things:
Just spell "Hide and seek" instead of "Hide & seek."

People walk on planks of wood suspended out into the bay, it’s almost night...

Comma splice. That is, you used a comma where you should have used a period, semicolon, dash, or anything else, really.


Anyway, that's my overall opinion. I appreciate the maturity with which you approach the subject, and the confident hand you use, but you need to focus on the major basic points, first. Those basics are:
1) Getting your character's voice right.
2) Using appropriate language.

Let me know if you have any questions.