Happy Review Day, OneThousandDrums!
It's been a while since I last reviewed, so I hope you'll pardon me being a bit rusty. If you have any questions about anything I mention in this review, feel free to shoot me a PM; it's a bit more reliable than replying to the review.
With that said, I'm going to focus on the technical side of things for this piece because right now, the technical side is experiencing some difficulties that make the reading experience a bit rough.
The first sentence is a good starting point, and it reveals several of these technical issues:
She sat among a dark room; she was the only lit person in that room.
The first issue with this sentence is the use of "among". "Among" basically means that whatever it is is part of the thing it's among, so the first half of this sentence reads like she's sitting as part of the dark room, which doesn't make sense.
The second issue with this sentence is the semicolon. While it isn't incorrect to use one here, you use a lot of semicolons throughout this, and not all of them are correctly used. One example is in this sentence: "Many looked like storm clouds while she the only white cloud hanging outside the group; an outsider, if you will." In this example, an m-dash or a colon is the correct punctuation to use. Semicolons are one of the trickier pieces of punctuation, and I'd advise avoiding them as much as possible until you become more familiar with the ins-and-outs of using them. The OWL at Purdue has a great overview of the difference between commas, colons, and semicolons and when they're properly used which I highly recommend you check out.
The reason why the semicolon is an issue in the first sentence ties in with the third main issue: repetitive sentence structure. Right now, both clauses are structured "She (verb) (descriptor) room", and considering how short the clauses are, this repetition in the structure is really, really obvious. Considering you want to connect the ideas together, there's no reason why, in this case, you can't combine the two ideas together into one sentence. Something like "She sat, the only one lit in a dark room" would read much more smoothly while also varying your sentence structure.
Right now, you use the same basic structure for a lot of your sentences, and it gets pretty repetitive. Varying your structures would help make your writing a little more interesting.
Her yellow hair pressed against the dull subway wall, her nose into a dinty old book. Her green-blue eyes that wondered from word-to-word, creating scenes in her head.
Both sentences here have misspellings in them. "Dinty" should probably be "dingy" and "wondered" should be "wandered", since eyes can't think for themselves. These two sentences are also a good example of how you reuse the same structure for your sentences.
He had been there since six in the morning, hunched over a old computer that never seemed to work, with a cup of coffee staining the fake desk. He touched his headache-ridged head and sighed; his working day was over. He grabbed his fedora, black overcoat, and his brown briefcase.
He walked out to his brown station wagon and threw it in as he got in.
There are a few issues with these sentences. The first is how your actions get attributed to the wrong things. The most obvious case is in "He walked out to his brown station wagon and threw it in as he got in." which makes it sound like he walked out to his station wagon and threw the station wagon in as he got into some unspecified place. A less obvious case involves a cup staining a desk that isn't a desk because it is fake.
The easiest way to catch and prevent these sorts of misattributions is to stop every once and a while and ask yourself "What is doing this?" or "Who/what is (insert pronoun)?" If it matches up with the last thing mentioned, all is well, otherwise you'll need to specify what is doing the action or being described.
Though I think it would be pretty neat if he just casually tossed the station wagon into the someplace he was going. I know it's not what you were aiming for, but if you ever decide to write urban fantasy, it would be a very nice descriptive touch.
The final technical issue is your over-reliance on adjectives and other descriptive words. What winds up happening is that there are so many everywhere, they begin losing their effect as they clutter the writing. A lot of the descriptors you use are also quite vague and generic, and simply substituting synonyms for them doesn't work. A particularly glaring example is in this sentence:
The negro-haired man smiled to himself as he walked towards the girl.
In your quest to find synonyms for "black", you've used a slur, which is technically an incorrect usage of the word, which you really shouldn't be using to begin with. Thesauri are really useful, if you also know the meaning and usages of the synonyms it lists. It's always a good idea to check the word you're planning to use in a dictionary, though, just to be safe and avoid mistakes like the one in this sentence.
Instead of using so many adjectives, it would be more effective to use more vivid verbs and thus show us how the characters act and appear. Instead of simply walking, a character could saunter over if they're feeling very confident, or they could tiptoe over if they're trying to be quiet or go unnoticed, or they could stomp over if they're upset or angry, and so on. Incorporating more vivid verbs would also help cut down on the number of descriptive words you'd need to use, which would make the ones you do use much more effective.
Aside from practice and getting critique, the easiest way to learn how to write better is to read books you really like and then try to figure out what it is you like about them so much. You'll learn a whole bunch of different techniques that way, as well as how they work and why, which will really help improve your writing.
Points: 72525
Reviews: 1220
Donate