Sparrows.

Aww, Kirsten, good for you to write something again! And...well...that does seem like a lack of confidence. But, I'm sure you'll get your writing mojo back, dear.

Removed

The second sentence here is a fragment, and although it could possibky work, here I had to reread it a couple of times in order to get what you were saying. What about just connecting them as a grammatically correct sentence? A bony shoulder removed itself from the sparrow's presence, decidedly giving up on his silent companions. Also, if the companions are the sparrows, 'companion' would have to be plural.

Removed

I love these sentences, really. The girl's reply made me laugh. However, I could only tell that Jose was the girl because you went out to actually say it in a post. Choosing a name such as Jose, which I presume many of us are reading as 'ho say', the boy's name, is not clarifying an already complicated storyline. See what I mean? We would have an easier time following your story and your conversation if we realized earlier that the girl is Jose. A different name, perhaps?

Also, in the beginning Jose was trying to tell Tom to leave the sparrows alone, and he argues back at her. This leads us to believe that he doesn't intend to leave them alone. But then here, immeidately after, he says that he has tired of their company. Huh?

Removed

See what I mean? In the beginning it seems as if he wants to stay with them, but then here you contradict yourself in him explaining that he doesn't.

Removed

The first sentence's comma is misplaced, and I'm not too sure of your use of 'unequivocally'. Perhaps just take that word out and tag 'certainly' at the end. I'm realizing that your fragments are either mistakes you are repeatedly making, or a choice of style. If you're doing them on purpose, I suppose they're fine; however, it does throw off your sophisticated, elegant flow a bit. Just something for you to consider.

Removed

The entire paragraph before and the entire paragraph after imply this very fact. You have no need to spell it out to us-- give your readers some credit. We can figure this out by ourselves.

Removed

Your use of 'little boy' and 'small boy' so closely together also disrupts your flow. Whenever a reader reads the same word twice, placed very closely together, it always sounds a bit off. Perhaps you can rephrase one of them not to use 'boy'.

Removed

Here, you don't need the last sentence. We realizing what he's asking her, because two sentences ago he asked it. No need to repeat.

Removed

Too many 'sures' here. Only one per sentence, m'dear, for that flow thing I was talking about earlier. Even prose needs a flow.

Removed

Love that. I am so saving that as a comeback for some egotistic jerk in my school.

Alright, so-- is the 'she' towards the end the same as Jose? Because, it doesn't come across that way. Tom seems to be very familiar with Jose; familiar enough for them to joke with each other. However, here with the second girl, I don't quite understand their relationship. All of the things he's accused her of would be unfounded unless he knew her and knew her well; however, you give us the impression that they are meeting for the first time. If he knows her wel enough to make these bold claims against her very personality, we must see that somehow. A name, for one, wouldn't hurt. I understand your urge to remain slightly mysterious, but it doesn't help if we're not sure what the heck is going on.

So, have them show some level of familiarty with each other. He can be thinking of experiences he's had with her, or of other times he's observed her with her friends from afar. These things he's telling her are quite bold and harsh, and a complete stranger would have no evidence to back up these claims.

So, that seemed to cover all of the glaring and even the minor issues! I'm sorry if this seemed harsh, but that's what I'm here for, yes? I do like what you've done here. Although there isn't much cohesiveness throughout the piece, that didn't really bother me. It was all tied together by the boy and his strangeness, if that's even a word. I liked all of the points you made here, and the dialect especially enhanced it.

I do think that you could use a bit more description, whether it be how the buff of his pant leg is always rough against his skin, or how the girl's red curls bounce slightly as she pouts. Whatever it takes to help us into the story, to help us feel the story.

Well, I hope that was helpful! And you really are a lovely writer, dear-- have faith in yourself. If you do not make an impact on the world, at least you will have made yourself happy by doing something you love.

~Evi

Eh... this is set in England in around the 1820s, and from what I've gathered people used a lot of 'rathers' and 'perhapses' at time, and children were very formal, even to each other. I think the culture was different in America &c. so maybe the speech would've been different. Nevertheless, perhaps I went a little overboard with the rathers and perhaps'

Removed

Pshh, Lauren you're better than them already, in fact you were probably better than them five years ago. xD

Thanks for the reviews, everyone

~xD

Hey Kirsten Here I am as you requested.


Yay, thank heavens Lauren took care of those punctuation-with-dialogue parts! I thought it would be so annoying to point those out (though of course I would've, if she didn't do it first), but now I don't have to.


Rather

You use this word rather much. I like the word, I love saying it, but it becomes just annoying when you try to choke us with it. Could you replace some of those rathers with 'somewhat', 'a little', and so on? Yes, you could.


[For

You use this word rather much, too. It also becomes annoying when overused, and besides, I can't imagine children using it. I mean in the cases you could also say 'because'. Like 'for they do not possess' etcetera.

Removed

I liked this line for some unexplained reason. I won't even try to explain it.


Okay, this is a little hard to review, I don't think if you know it. I can't come up with very many sensible things to say about it, but I liked the philosophy in the boy's speech.

I'm sorry for such lousy review, but I suggest you read the thing carefully one more time. There are a few spelling errors indeed, and you should notice them while re-reading. Also, focus on the punctuation thing with the dialogue – where to place commas, periods, etc.

If you have questions, just PM me. Thanks for the read!


Demeter
xxx

Hi It's so good to read something of yours at last, Kirsten! It is always a great pleasure. Btw, don't worry about 'returning the favour'... you have critiqued my stories far more than I have yours.

just don't believe I'm good enough. And no, it's not a lack of confidence in my self or writing, I just don't believe that I can make an impact upon the world.

Codswallop!
You are a great writer--possibly one of the best on this site, actually--and a defeatist attitude never helped anyone. But I know the feeling. In my case I just look at some of the undeserving books that get published these days and think, 'Hey, I'm only fifteen. I'm sure I'll be better than that in ten year's time.
Anyway, enough with the rambling...

I'll start off with general nit-picks, if you don't mind.

Removed

Removed

Removed

Yay, this is like your trademark, Kirsten! I can just sense this sort of thing flows out of you; maybe because it is a theme so close to your heart?

Removed

Absolutely perfect & enchanting & endearing in every which way.

Removed

Oh dear, Kirsten, I do believe you just slipped tenses. It is back into past tense further down.

Removed

That first 'rather' needs scrapping. It suggests he agrees, but then he obviously doesn't. See?

Removed

Removed

Removed

This is fine, but you could elaborate more.

Drumroll, please

This is very good. I liked reading it a lot. Like a lot of your stories, this possesses a certain charm that is enchanting to read. Like with 'Orli and Eden', you have shown here your knack for illustrating the wonderment of children.
Here are some issues where I believe it fell short:

Characters
Somewhat like Rosey, I was confused. I mean, I understood who the 'he' was, and I had thought I knew the girl was just another child. But this Jose? You don't explain. I mean, your post above is not clear, to me at least. She is a maid, but is she also the girl? *Confused* If she is a maid, why is her dialogue so posh? Same with the boy, whom you say is in an orphanage. I doubt orphanages of the time had many books for the children to read.

Dialogue
I usually love your old-fashioned dialogue, Kirsten, but something was amiss here. They just didn't speak like children, you know? They spoke unlike most adults, even! It often came across, to me, that you were only writing that way to fit the period this is set in. But there were times when it verged on nonsensical.

Setting and imagery
You are very apt here, at other times. Sadly there was little imagery here. It seemed devoid of an actual setting. You said yourself, when replying to Rosey Unicorn, "an orphanage or somewhere, the place where the children are". This shows to me that you did not properly plan the little details before writing. It means that you cannot picture it in your head fully, so how on earth are we meant to? The mechanics of writing are boring but necessary.

Anyway, I do hope I helped. This is absolutely rife with wondrousness and potential, and some aspects, when I read them, I wished I'd thought of. So get back on that writing track, Kirsten, because we want more!


Lauren