This is the first post of its kind I've seen on YWS and I have to say you did a great job.
The piece feels like an exercise in methodical descriptions. So all my comments are on two line of thought —
i. Whether a description of such an image should be purely factual, or should personal interpretations, thoughts on symbolism and context be added to it.
ii. Given that it is a methodical part-by-part description, where it works and where it could be improved.
So the first thing I did was read @wafflewolf7 's review, and I agree with them, that too many numerical or concrete descriptions let's the over-all sense and feel of the work take a backseat, which should be avoided.
The next thing I did was I reverse image searched the image and it turns out that it is a cover of an album by the band Circa Survive. And you could have talked about that too in a way, since the rules on such stories and descriptions aren't hard and fast. Whether to add that dimension of discussion to it, is of course upto you, but in my opinion, it would possibly be beneficial to the reader to give them a sense of the origin of the art-work, as well as it would let you talk about what inspired it. Though it would definitely add more work to be done in the story.
Moving on to the actual review —
1. The vocabulary is pretty diverse and sufficient for the descriptions, given the complexity of and the various elements in the image. Like talking about the overthrow etc. The grammar and punctuation seem fine enough too.
2. Here is the second danger with giving descriptions like " five-foot pillars that stood fifteen feet apart."
There is no frame of reference that I see that gives an estimate for that value, so in a way you are making some assumptions about the image. (Thus, it might be better if we get your personal opinions and thoughts and images anyway.) The woman could be normally sized, or a giant (like, as you mentioned, Atlas). The buildings are too far away in the distance. The shell denies realistic classification anyway. You also assume that there's tar covering the shell, though it just be its natural colouration. You also assume that the woman is literally crying from the weight of the burden even though face can't be seen. So I'm not saying it's wrong to take some assumptions, but to realize the responsibility when you realize you can.
3. The other side of that is that Your observation skills are pretty good as evidenced by how you've described the buildings in the background. So I would say that you have an eye for detail, but you should also maybe spare a thought as to what should be included and excluded in the 'story'.
That is all, I like how the narrative is built in the latter half, especially even noticing the liquid in the shell dribbling down and weaving it into it!
Good work and keep writing!
Points: 400
Reviews: 66
Donate