Hello,
Gotta say, I feel a bit conflicted about this one. Parts of it were really quite good; others, less so. First, I'll start with the positives.
I like the premise. This sort of action story—especially an action short story—can be very, very hard to pull off, and it seems like you know your way around this terrain. The intensity of it, the wild uncertainty and danger, were present throughout the story. The tone is frantic, as it should be, pulling the reader anxiously along as Daniel flees from chaos and certain death. It's chaotic and it's messy, and, because of the subject matter, it should be.
I also appreciated how you broke it up a bit with the occasional journal entry of sorts, straight from Daniel. That's a neat way to get inside your character's head when writing in third-person; I only wish you would've done that more often, because as it stands, Daniel wasn't terrifically well-developed (though in fairness, having a terrifically well-developed character in a short story is a challenge), and I felt like those entries were squandered, somewhat.
I really liked the ending—ambiguous, cliffhanger, edge-of-your-seat endings are a favorite of mine, and yours was just that. It left me wanting more.
Now, for some constructive criticism: First of all, this did feel a little... well, I hesitate to use the word "derivative," because using derivative as a criticism is, itself, derivative. But eh, screw it: This piece definitely felt derivative. That's the issue with this type of story—the world-war, action/adventure story. It's been done so many times before that it's hard to write something within that genre that doesn't feel stale. Daniel—or at least, the little scraps that readers know of him—came off like yet another Generic Action Hero. He didn't have that zeal of newness or inventive shine, you know? His presence felt purely perfunctory.
There was also an almost tragic lack of description in this piece. I agree with what Squirtlepowiee had to say, about the missed opportunities: smelling the smoke, hearing the explosions, seeing the corpses, as well as just the general discord of the city all could've been described beautifully, heartbreakingly, and would've gone a long way to improving this story. That, as well as more emotion and feeling on Daniel's part.
One of my biggest gripes with this piece is the overall way its written. It seems that you're speeding through it, writing more of a play-by-play overview than an actual, proper story. At times, it's written more like a summary of a book than an actual book—due, in no small part, to a lack of what I mentioned before (imagery, character thoughts/feelings, etc). It doesn't feel like we, the readers, are witnessing the action so much as being told action took place, after the fact. And that's really not terribly fun.
Anyway, onto some nitpicks and comments and such:
Had a bowl of cereal.
Well, it is the most important meal of the day. (Admittedly, I heard this line in a deep, gruff, manly-man voice, and there's something hysterical—at least to me—about that sort of voice saying, with utter intensity and seriousness, "Had a bowl of cereal." But I digress...)
Daniel sat in his chair and started typing. He was a police hacker. He had just been instructed to attempt to hack wireless communications between alleged American spies hiding out in Brisbane, Sydney and Hobart. As he typed, another officer turned on the Television they had in the office and out on the news. It was just typical morning news, a dog is lost, child goes missing.
This is a deeply flawed opening paragraph. For one thing, it's a bit rushed. For another, you state Daniel's line of work immediately, with no preamble, no subtlety... it's just sort of there. You do the same thing with the next bit, telling us plainly what's going on and what he's researching. It's not great, to say the least. You don't have to spoon-feed the reader—let that information come forward naturally, organically. Putting out some flatly-written background info as soon as a piece begins won't enchant readers, I'll tell you that for free.
(Also: the comma after "morning news" should be a colon.)
People were running through the streets in a frenzy. The police were instructed to evacuate the city. Daniel ran past a group of people and jumped into his car. He drove through the streets, avoiding other cars and people running onto the road. He parked outside of his house and ran inside. He turned on the TV and ran into his bedroom, grabbing a duffel bag. He then ran into the kitchen and threw some things into it.
The repetition... it burns...
Gotta try to vary that language. If you're stuck, look up synonyms for the word giving you (or your reader) grief—which, in this case, would be 'ran/running,' 'people,' 'streets'...
And this is another example of what I was talking about before: See how you say "the people were running through the streets in a frenzy"? You're telling rather than showing. Don't just say they were in a frenzy, show us. What are they doing, exactly? How are they acting? I want details.
(Also, you say he "ran into the kitchen" and then "threw some things" into his bag. What kind of things? What would he be retrieving from his kitchen, a toaster and some canned peaches? I DEMAND ANSWERS.)
We're getting reports that the US has just launched nuclear missiles against France and England.
Dammit America, can you go two seconds without shooting something? Just two seconds! You know, England I can understand—look at the history between you guys—but France?? France has been good to you! What about the Statue of Liberty? Did you forget about the Statue of Liberty?? She doesn't have to put up with this!
Daniel finished throwing things into his bag, he then turned off the TV, and ran to his car.
Change the comma after "bag" to a period, and strike the comma following "TV" altogether. Also, you still haven't told us what these "things" are he's throwing in his bag. And you used the word "ran" again. Change it up a bit—hell, go crazy and use the word "jogged" or "sprinted." Maybe even, if you're feeling adventurous, "galloped." Or "sashayed." Something.
He didn't lock the door, heck, he didn’t need to.
Is this line necessary? I think we can figure out he doesn't need to lock the door. When the nuclear missiles come out, the last thing that's gonna be on my mind is a burglar.
He drove down crowded streets in an attempt to leave the city. He knew that it'd get hit.
This is confusingly written. Perhaps try, "He drove down crowded streets in an attempt to leave the city, which he knew would get hit."
"Euclydes this is Wendigo come in, over"
"This is Euclydes, what is it Wendigo? Over"
"We've got mass looting in the Fairfield-Cabramatta area, orders? Over"
You need a period at the end of alllll of these. You make this make several more times throughout the story as well.
The evacuation buses start leaving the area. Daniel stayed in his car. He was near Blacktown now. He still has far to go. He turned his radio back on.
You change tenses here, as you do other times throughout the story. Pick past-tense or present-tense and stick with it. (For what's it worth, I think a story like this would benefit from being written in present. That would really transport readers right into the moment.)
He was there with a group of others; Michael, a tourist, Haley and her daughter Jamie, Earl and his wife Charlene and Ivan and Eliza, twins. Earl said they should keep moving. Michael said they should stay at the lodge. Daniel ends the argument by saying they should stay here for the night and argue again tomorrow.
Daniel's awfully sassy for someone who just narrowly escaped death.
Anyway, lots of gripes here. First of all, the semicolon following "others" should be a colon. Second, I really, really don't think you need to state all of these characters' names and their relationships to one another, especially considering most of them barely make an appearance in this story. And this is yet another example of what I was talking about earlier: you give us a summary of what transpires between these people ("Earl said they should keep moving. Michael said they should stay at the lodge.") but don't show us the conflict, don't dig deep and describe how these people feel about being suddenly thrust together in the midst of all this. There's no emotion, no depth, to any of it. That's the drawback of summarizing so much of your story.
Daniel couldn't sleep.
Shocking.
So that's about everything. What's frustrating to me about this piece is that it has the ability to be really, really good—it's just rough. It requires quite a bit of smoothing and TLC to make it shine, but I'd encourage you to give a rewrite a shot. I think it's worth it.
Nice work overall
Points: 2856
Reviews: 41
Donate