Young Writers Society

Hi BenFranks! Nice to see you again!

Pierce the night, O’holy rain. Dance rhythmically on silence’s skin. Her light caresses your evening droplets; her light guides your descending deaths. Drop softly, O’holy rain. Drop softly.

This is pretty and a nice opening, but I’m not sure why it’s O’holy and not just O holy. I know it’s nitpicky, but I just wondered.

Felicity strode up a narrow concrete path on a moonlit night as it twisted and turned through the narratives of Saint Joe’s Cemetery.

I’m in favour of short opening sentences and being eased into the beginning. Otherwise it’s CHARACTER! SETTING! DESCRIPTION! ACTION! all at once and it can be a bit much. So I would split this up so it’s easier to process: Felicity strode up the narrow concrete path twisting and turning through Saint Joe’s Cemetery. The moonlit night was still and cold... etc, etc. Tweak to how you wish it, but I do think splitting it up would be better so you don’t have all the description and introduction in one sentence.

Hands quivering.

Why is this a sentence all on its own? Are we meant to pay especially attention to her shaking hands? But why are they shaking? In the sentence before you used “strode” which implies confidence, which is at odds with shaking hands, which implies fear.

Her velvet green eyes gleamed wet, justifying her pale-white beauty, yet seeking no attention from her neighbouring rested.

This is a bit... I don’t know. Purple? Overly fancy? “Gleamed wet” sounds strange, and I’m not sure how necessary it is. If you mean her eyes are wet with tears, then say wet with tears. If you mean they’re moist cause everyone’s eyes are moist, then you don’t need to say that they’re moist at all. Why does the fact of her eyes being green justify her beauty? “Justify” implies validation, so why does she need a reason to be beautiful, and why do her eyes give her that reason? “Neighbouring rested” doesn’t make sense. Do you mean the dead in the graves? In that case, you should reword, because right now it just sounds strange.

Felicity’s small, perfect lips sounded out the whispers of the rester’s riddle. Her innocent hand, warmly confined by black leather, stroked the side of the stone. Even through the glove she could sense the stone’s dampness, wet with fallen rain. Felicity began to weep.

I’m really not sure about Felicity. She’s been described as striding, which implies confidence, and she went straight to the black stone, which implies that she knew she was going to find it, so she came to the cemetery on purpose, which is a brave thing to do at night. But her hands are shaking, which implies fear, and her hands are innocent, which clashes with the previous image of confidence and purpose. Also she’s wearing black leather gloves, which automatically makes me think of butt-kicking and ninjas. So I don’t know which image I’m meant to go with. Who is Felicity? Obviously this is just the first chapter, so you’ve got time and space to elaborate, but right now I’m confused by the conflicting imagery, so I don’t even have a solid first impression to go on.

Rows of shrubbery encircle me; the opaquely darkened greens of thousands upon hundreds of leaves huddle around their skeleton’s twiggy ribs.

Should be “hundreds upon thousands”. I did have to read this a few times to really get it, but that could be me being thick.

My purple-blue hands each grasped my wielded weapons of choice; in my right, loosely perched between my honourable thumb and twisted index finger, hung an ink pen – its nib wet with black; in my left, grasped in my cold grip, a simple leather notebook.

“Grasped”—tense change? (I saw this in other places as well where you jumped from present to past.)

And again, like with the description of Felicity’s eyes, this description is strange. It’s like it doesn’t quite fit, doesn’t quite work. I don’t see any reason for the “honourable thumb”—why are thumbs honourable? It’s like there’s too much for too little. All you’re doing is saying what he has in his hands, but you spend over forty words doing so. Is there a reason for spending so much time on this one simple second?

---
Hai!

So. You have some lovely turns of phrase here; I especially love “wispy-white liquor-light”. It’s beautiful. However, I think these fancy prose twirls are working against you. I love description, I love love love beautiful description, but something I’ve had to learn is that sometimes simple is best. Just come out and say what needs to be said without dressing it up in imagery.

This is particularly evident in the final few paragraphs. I had to read and reread to get any idea of what was happening, and even now I’m not sure. He’s fallen asleep in church and dreamed of a girl, is that right? It’s really difficult to make sense of what’s happening, what is actual action and what is extended imagery. You’ve got too many words, and it’s drowning your story.

Take here:

Taken in by the local priest my brain fell heavy with sleep, but my eyes were too curious and my ears too disturbed to be plunged into dutiful dreams.

What does this mean? “Taken in by the local priest”—but what priest? This is the first time you’ve mentioned a priest, and you’ve used so much imagery I’m not sure if this is a real priest or a metaphorical one. “Taken in” implies that he’s listening to what the priest has been saying, but it seems like he’s fallen asleep instead. “Eyes were too curious and my ears too disturbed”—why curious, why disturbed? There has been nothing previously to indicate this curiosity or disruption. “Dutiful dreams”—what are these dutiful dreams? Why should dreams be dutiful? If he’s asleep in church, then surely any dreams would be undutiful, and he should wake up at once. What does this mean?

Every word brings its own baggage with it, and although two words might technically mean the same thing, they carry very different connotations that can completely change the meaning and tone of a sentence. Take “grinned” and “smiled”. Technically they denote the same action, but they’re actually very different. You can get sad smiles, but you don’t get sad grins. A grin is typically more careless or impudent or light-hearted than a smile. Smiles are more versatile, and sometimes can be serious, but grins are almost never serious. You can get mean grins like mean smiles, but usually grins are more comical.

Bob is at a funeral giving a eulogy for his best friend. He recounts an anecdote of when they were children and almost got caught for stealing apples. He might smile as he tells the story, and that’s okay, because smiles can be sad, and we know that although the memory gives him happiness, it’s still tinged with sadness because his friend is still dead. If Bob grinned while telling the story, it sends a completely different message. Grins are not sad, which implies that Bob is not sad, which makes us wonder why Bob isn’t sad—maybe he didn’t like his friend that much, maybe he hated his friend, maybe he’s not sad his friend is dead, maybe he’s glad his friend is dead, maybe he killed his friend and is ecstatic about it because now he can marry his friend’s wife and seize control of the estate.

So you see what a difference choosing the right word can make. Poetic description can wonderfully enhance one’s writing, but you do have to be careful not to go overboard, and here I think you did. Think of it like a dress. Or a cake. Frills and bows/sprinkles and little silver balls can change the dress/cake from plain to beautiful, but if you put too much on, it becomes all decoration and no substance, and the result is tacky/sickly.

Do PM or Wall me if you have any questions, or if I was stupidly unclear on anything. Keep writing!

-twit