Even though the cruel winds of the spring-tide have subsided, the merciless waves of the angered sea have not yet receded. The outcrops of rocky shores are still suffering, empathising with Mermaid after having been marooned on this remote island. Mermaid can not catch sight of her Merman. “May he have been engulfed by the furious waves?” she melancholically wonders. The last thing Mermaid remembers are Merman’s hands pushing her up to the surface. He was holding her wounded tail away from the salty water; he didn’t want her to suffer more. Mermaid still keeps in mind the dusky path along the labyrinths of the deep which Merman used to merrily lead her through. She still recalls his giggles and sighs. Now, the tragic shades of the night have fallen, studded by the whines of bereaved insomniac night-watchers and by the vigils of occulted lovers. “Will the new day be ever born?” Mermaid apostrophises. Merman and Mermaid were only collecting conches for their upcoming wedding. They swam and swam; but the sea was too tumultuous. The deafening roaring of the waves overwhelmed them. “But why?” Mermaid abruptly asks, wistfully begging for an answer from the all-beleaguering waters of sea. A moment of silence ensues. She passes her fingers on her blue-green scales. At that moment, Mermaid conjures up Merman’s touch when he tried an olive-green conch on her lobe prior to consummation. What a touch! It catapulted her towards the twilit skyline where only the warbles of nightingales could dissipate the eloquent dumbness of the boundless horizon. “Will the neap-tide ever be there again?” “Will Mermaid ever experience Merman’s touch anew?” “Will Mermaid and Merman ever float together and tease the anxious sailors?” “Will I embrace Merman again?” “Oh, I would if I could. Yes, I would if I could.”
Points:
Time spent:
Canary word: Present
Possible AI signals:
Original Text:
Are you sure you want to delete this comment? This cannot be undone.
Mark this comment as a review? Points will be awarded to the poster.
Your comment was posted, but it wasn’t long enough to count as a review. Reviews need about four complete sentences (at least 250 characters). Try writing another review that explains your thoughts in more detail — the author will appreciate it, and you’ll earn points for it.
125,007 Literary Works • 672,815 Reviews
Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening/Night(whichever one it is in your part of the world),
Hi! I'm here to leave a quick review!!
Anyway let's get right to it,
Okay this is an interesting one here. For starters I will say that perhaps you need to look into splitting this up into a few paragraphs. As it stands at the moment, it does work fairly well, but the flow really isn't the greatest when it comes to reading, and part of that could really be rather easily solved by splitting this up into a couple of paragraphs.
Moving past that issue though, I do love the story itself. The sort of higher level language used her gives it a very fairy tale esque vibe which fits in nicely with the characters here too and it makes it resonate quite nicely with us readers because that changes the sort of expectations we have for this story.
And the story itself is interesting, if maybe a touch on the confusing side towards the end. I feel like all the dialogue is a little too vague especially because the surroundings aren't described in too much detail and some of the context is easily missed. It all does make enough sense once you've read it about three times, but the first time read being a bit tougher to digest isn't a great situation to be in.
Aaaaand that's it for this one.
As always remember to take what you think was helpful and forget the rest.
Stay Safe
Harry
This was an...interesting prologue type thingy, but way too many adjectives and definitely a lot of words used that weren't needed. Write what you need. It's better to have one word that is concrete than ten words that are mumble-jumble. Keep working and please take into consideration these crits. These people on here give excellent advice and it's highly suggested to use it.
ENOUGH.
To everyone who has critiqued this story... You all put in very good efforts, and I saw nothing wrong with most of them. However, when you start to criticize a writer's argument, that's pretty much off-limits. You can explain yourself and disagree, but do it respectfully, please. Writers are entitled to their opinions. If they disagree with your views, let it be. Don't try to force your point on them. That being said...
The Other... Here's the deal. We all try to fully appreciate a writer's style - after all, who are we to say how a person should or should not write? However, I do think that everyone here has a good point. Now, I know you aspire to be remembered for your genius and whatnot - but so do we all. And while many of us may indeed make it to the status of "Professional Author" and gain a little bit of profit from our writings, I highly doubt any of us will write the next timeless classic. Why? Think about it. You seem to have an extensive knowledge of famous authors from all different time periods. How many writers lived during those times? How many wrote as a profitable hobby? And yet only a slight handful of those writers were able to break the bonds and be amazing. Now, I'm not trying to say you can't do it - I'd like to be there myself someday - but I'm just trying to show you a realistic side of things. But I digress.
You see... while I've always admired sophistication (and I wasn't all that bothered by your story), not everyone appreciates long, complex phrases. Apparently those who have critiqued are among those people. You have to remember that this is the YOUNG Writers Society. It's unlikely that you'll find the Great American (or British or whatever) novel posted here. Sure, maybe the beginnings of it, or rough drafts or trails of ideas, but multiple Shakespeares and Tolkiens aren't going to show up here. I suggest you check out JustGoat.com, the "older" sister site, and see what people closer to your age think of it.
Also, you sound just a bit defensive. Of course writers are protective of their work and could easily argue a point to their death. But on this site, one posts one's work to get feedback and constructive criticism. Granted, several people here have not been the most respectful in their posts *glares*, but all the same it would be nice if you would at least acknowledge what they're saying before you immediately shut them out and give them a form answer. Think about it - we're readers as well as writers. The majority of your audiences aren't going to be philosophers and such - and if that's what you're going for, then your story won't be as well-read as you assume it will be. My suggestion is to write to both the intelligent and the unintelligent. Complicated words don't show sophistication - they show that you know how to refer to a dictionary. A good writer could use the simplest of words and yet still write a complex story only few will fully understand. What do I mean by that? Add foreshadowing, subplots, allusions, and metaphors. Don't overdo them, of course, but if you include those, the readers will either get them or they won't, but they won't get lost in the main plot. Someone mentioned Tolkien. Sure, you could summarize it easily by saying Frodo acquired the One Ring from his uncle and embarked on a dangerous mission (along with his friends) to destroy the Ring, which he ultimately does. That's all some people ever get out of the trilogy, and that's enough to keep them interested. Some people will pick up on the subplots and their importance to the story. Some will catch clever allusions and parallels. All this without having to grab a dictionary and look up words.
I understand your point about keeping a reader challenged, but sometimes readers are easily frustrated by huge words and won't want to suffer through it if they can't understand it. Their fault? Sure. If they want to read the story, they should grab a dictionary.
But writers do indeed write to be understood. That's why books sell - people understand at least the main plot. The actual message of the piece may fly right over their heads, but at least they can enjoy a story. I can't tell you how to write. If you want to continue using large words to challenge readers, go right ahead. I have no problem with it. If you get published, I may even pick up a copy at the library and check it out. I'm just trying to convey the point others are making, because I somewhat believe in it too, and I'm hoping you won't just shut me out and explain that you're trying to be sophisticated.
At the very least, you could edit your original post with spacing and such. You've agreed with that point, and it would make this story a bit more manageable (although again, I didn't have much of a problem with it).
*takes breath* Now, so this will be somewhat relevant to the topic...
I actually liked this piece. Some of the dialogue tags could be simpler (*cringes* honestly, I'm not critiquing your style, it's just that simpler and shorter tags won't overshadow the actual quote), but other than that I had no problem with the adjectives. In fact, the detail interested me. I could see the storm and feel the underlying tension. My problems are simply with logic and such.
This part confused me, although I'm an easily confused person. I assumed Merman was pushing her to the surface through the water. But then you said the part about holding her tail away from the salty water... After reading it again, I'm guessing he held her tail out of the water? I never thought about the salt water hurting wounds on marine creatures, but that makes sense. Anyway, you might want to add a word or two to explain he held her tail out of the water AFTER they reached the surface. Otherwise, it seems like he held it away from the water while he pushed her, and that doesn't make sense.
I didn't read this as a Dudley Do-Right ending (although once I read it through with that mindset, I had to laugh). Because I'm unsure of the general IQ of mercreatures in your story (I've read some where mermaids were stupid creatures and others where they had human intelligence), I was a bit confused at the sudden reference to third person. It's not consistant with previous lines and with the last two lines. I think it could work if you changed the second to last quote to third person... I could still see her talking to herself and pondering the future. I'm not sure what effect you're going for. Perhaps you're trying to convey the fact that she's not quite stable after her loss, but even that wouldn't make sense. If I lost my boyfriend, I wouldn't suddenly switch into third person, would you? Still, I have to take her possible lack of intelligence into consideration. If mermaids are simple creatures in your story, then yes, this could work. I don't know, it's just a little awkward, I think.
Anyway, I like the storyline. It's hard to really expand on a short story and keep it short, so I'm not expecting subplots or anything, but neither am I expecting great works like Tolkien. It's just hard to pull off a great short story. As far as I know, all those whom you've mentioned are famous for novels (and plays for Shakespeare), not short stories. Still, this is a start, and if you decided to expand it into a novel, I think it could work very well. I liked the mystery and the way you slowly revealed details. I think you could develop Mermaid a little more, but it's not completely necessary in a short story, unless you want it to be completely outstanding. It's difficult to do, so it's your call.
I'd like to see more of your work in the future.
Dear All,
I am grateful to you all for commenting on the writing piece. I am surprised to see that although I provided you with the critical rationale behind the extensive use of descriptive words, only two of you managed to discuss the ideas presented professionally enough. Nearly all of you gave their subjective evaluation, which is hardly commendable in literary criticism. In other words, I notice that nearly all of you harp on the same idea: the "unnecessary" use of descriptive words. You assume that this "overuse" hinders communication between the writer and reader. Fine? In order not to fall in the grips of each other's judgmental appreciation of Mermaid's Merman and in order not to enter into sophistic argument about the nature of the rapport between a writer and his eligible readers, here's the deal: remove all adjectives from the writing piece, then post your take of it in terms of theme and tone. You can also enlighten me more on what renders certain works of art, such as Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea, Kafka's The Trial, Camus's The Outsider, etc; readable across times and places.
The Other
My dear Snoink, really, there is no need to lecture. I said it sounds very Biblical; not that it was. By which I mean, it sounds very sententious and important. As though it ought to be used in a proclamation, LOL. It is, actually, a very odd word. And as for the "s" "z" thing, it is actually technically correct both ways - I looked it up
Actually, the correct spelling is "apostrophizes."
The word is not biblical in origin. It's much more modern than that... actually, it's very modern.
Very recently, we Americans, being very fond of bureaucratic gibberish, decided to dress up ordinary nouns or adjectives. We made them verbs just by adding "-ize" on the end. Therefore, we can "trivialize" a trivial matter and "utilize" instead of use. Some of the words are OK and have snuck into our everyday speech, and some are... well.
Yeah.
The word "apostrophizes" means to write in apostrophes. (That, by the way, is why I said the word was not being used correctly.) It's a horrible word and should be avoided at all costs. Whoever came up with it should be shot.
And if you do decide to use it... well... the origin is decidedly American. I doubt the English are going to want to claim that word. With that said, you might as well spell it correctly. If you decide to use it, that is.
First off, welcome to YWS. I can see you're going to create a stir around here! While I am reluctant to say anything for fear of being lynched from the nearest tree, I have to admit...I kind of like this piece. I mean, I found it intelligible, if oddly phrased, and while it certainly needs formatting, I'm the last to say that there is anything wrong with long words (used in moderation). And, well, I dont know. It has a peculiarly appealing rhythm, I suppose. But as with any piece, there are improvements to be made, so although most of the critiquing has already been done, I'll give it a go anyway.
Even though the cruel winds of the spring-tide have subsided, the merciless waves of the angered sea have not yet receded. The outcrops of rocky shores are still suffering, empathising with Mermaid after having been marooned on this remote island. Mermaid can not catch sight of her Merman.
OK, there are some weird bits in here. Firstly, the first sentence is kind of top-heavy with adjectives. You might want to tone down on all the "cruel" and "merciless" stuff, if only for the sake of not seeming redundant. Secondly, while I like the idea of the sea "empathising" with Mermaid, the part where you say "after having been marooned on this remote island" seems...wrong, somehow. I think it needs a bit of tweaking to make sure we know you're actually talking about Mermaid having been marooned, rather than the sea! I also like that last line. Succinct.
“May he have been engulfed by the furious waves?” she melancholically wonders.
Eh...not fond of this part. First, as I think Snoink said, she is making absolutely no sense. Perhaps a restructuring is in order? Even just "Has he been engulfed by the furious waves?" would help the reader comprehend better. Also, while "melancholically wonders" does make for a wonderful tongue-twister, it seems a wee bit...over-the-top. While I get that you're trying to express the way Mermaid feels, and the fact that she doesn't know what has happened to her beloved, "melancholically wonders" is a bloody awkward phrase with which to do so, LOL! You do, of course, have the right to use whatever words you wish, but it may be better for your purposes to use an expression more conducive to the emotional climate which you are attempting to convey.
The last thing Mermaid remembers are Merman’s hands pushing her up to the surface. He was holding her wounded tail away from the salty water; he didn’t want her to suffer more. Mermaid still keeps in mind the dusky path along the labyrinths of the deep which Merman used to merrily lead her through. She still recalls his giggles and sighs. Now, the tragic shades of the night have fallen, studded by the whines of bereaved insomniac night-watchers and by the vigils of occulted lovers.
There are some oddities here too. How can Merman hold Mermaid's tail away from the salty water if, as the sentence implies, they are still underwater? But maybe that's just me being obtuse. May I ask why you opted for "keeps in mind" rather than a single word, such as "remembers"? It seems contrary to your previous style. Also, the entire last line of the paragraph made me laugh. I dont think that's the effect you're going for here, so I just thought I ought to warn you. You are using some lovely imagery - I think the "tragic shades" part was particularly pretty, if (again) rather overdone - but the "whines...occulted lovers" section agitated my funny bone. It seems to me that you're trying to cram in adjectives wherever possible. Perhaps you could tone it down a little? As it is, I have to agree - its a bit cheesy.
“Will the new day be ever born?” Mermaid apostrophises.
Do you mean, "will the new day ever be born?" Because otherwise, I dont think it's really viable. Or are you trying to give the impression of, say, 16th century speech? The word "apostrophises" seems very Biblical somehow, lol. I'm not sure if it really fits, but I guess it goes with the overall tone of the piece.
Merman and Mermaid were only collecting conches for their upcoming wedding. They swam and swam; but the sea was too tumultuous. The deafening roaring of the waves overwhelmed them.
“But why?” Mermaid abruptly asks, wistfully begging for an answer from the all-beleaguering waters of sea. A moment of silence ensues. She passes her fingers on her blue-green scales. At that moment, Mermaid conjures up Merman’s touch when he tried an olive-green conch on her lobe prior to consummation. What a touch! It catapulted her towards the twilit skyline where only the warbles of nightingales could dissipate the eloquent dumbness of the boundless horizon.
Not to be rude, but again, I find this more amusing than impressive. While you do not, of course, need to accomodate quirks such as myself into your writing style, you may want to give serious thought to the fact that anyone could find this funny if you do not intend it as such. Perhaps modification is in order.
“Will the neap-tide ever be there again?” “Will Mermaid ever experience Merman’s touch anew?” “Will Mermaid and Merman ever float together and tease the anxious sailors?” “Will I embrace Merman again?” “Oh, I would if I could. Yes, I would if I could.”
I, too, have trouble understanding why these sentences are all in separate quotes. Also, the switch from third to first person seems...well, it would work if it werent for the weird quotes, which are telling us one thing while the dialogue says another. It seems as though you may intend for the author to be revealed as "Mermaid". At least, that is one way of looking at it. Perhaps an explanation or clearer structure would help convey your meaning.
While there were some obvious errors and I will admit I found the adjectives a tad too prolific for my tastes, I do (as I said) appreciate the rhythm of this piece. With regards to your assertion that style justifies superfluity, however, I cannot help but disagree. Not only is it the writer's job to convey their meaning clearly, the simple fact is that over-use of adjectives makes you sound silly. This piece, for example, strikes me as more of a spoof than a serious piece because of the superfluity of adjectives. Please be aware that I am not criticising your writing ability - it is clear you have a wide vocabulary and a love of words - but I would advise you to tone down your use of descriptive words, if not for the sake of the reader, then at least for the sake of your work. I agree with Griffinkeeper - writing is about communication, not about long words. And while I did enjoy this piece as a literary exercise, as a story it is not engaging. You did not have developed characters - there was no real plot or action, no movement whatever. While I'm not saying you need to add a few explosions and a raunchy love scene, I do think that you need to explore Mermaid's character a bit more if you truly want your readers to be immersed in your work.
Just my two cents.
I can not see how you can think that we are misinterpreting the story, especially after Snoink took it apart practically by sentence.
Writing isn't about making puzzles. It's about communicating to one another through words and grammar. Stories are great because they always make us ask questions. How will the story end? What is the character going to do? If we're asking ourselves "What the heck is the writer thinking," then we are being distracted from the story. For a writer to distract his readers from the story is to commit literary suicide.
To be a good writer, you must be a good communicator; there is simply no way around this.
Take a second look at your story and then at the suggestions of your critiquers. Ask yourself who has the better perspective as an outsider: you or an impartial observer?
This is the best advice I can give you.
Shakespeare is difficult because he wrote in a time that we don't understand very well anymore. His writing is actually fairly straightforward if you understand the phrases that he used. If you're holding him up as an example of why you should continue in the vien that you have carved out for yourself, then please, allow me to suggest that you count the number of adjectives that appear in his work and compare it to your own.
And then, just because it slightly ammuses me that you brought him up, I'd like to point out that Shakespeare wrote plays. These plays were widely seen (and enjoyed) by the lower and middle class as well as the upper class. Shakespeare wrote to be heard and understood by his audience, by the masses, and coincidentally by the layman.
I understand the idea of trying to make your reader work for it. Yes, it is a good thing to have people wanting to read your story over again. But look at Tolkien. There are people who reliegiously read his trilogy once a year, and I'm fairly certain that they pick up something new from it every time they read it. This is not because they did not understand it the first time and had to dig for the meaning of every sentence (which is why I needed to reread your piece), but because there are so many minute details in the plotline and the chracters. Everytime I read the trilogy the story deepens because I catch more of the foreshadowing and the parallels in the story and things like that. I believe that that is what you really want people to see in your writing, not a jumble of adjectives and a flowery passages.
And just by the by, those "average people" that you talk about writers lowering thier standards to write for, actually have pretty high standards most of the time. Maybe some of them don't have the vocabulary that you strive for in your writing, but I'm sure a lot of them do, and I know that they know enough to see a good plot and believable characters when they see them. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because they didn't seem to "get" your writing, that they are the ones at fault.
First, I appreciate your taking the time to read the thread. I must agree with you on at least one point: the need to separate the piece into paragraphs and to set off speech lines. However, I cann't agree with you on the need to rewrite things in a more straightforward manner. Every "writer" has a style of his own; and so, he must not be evaluated against the styles of others. You may prefer to put things in a casual way, to expand ideas by adding more explanatory sentences, or to use "simplified" words. In so doing, you apparently assume that the ideas presented are more important than the means of introducing them. I, however, tend to believe that words have "magic" and that they "treasure" thoughts. Thus, in order for the perseverant reader to decipher the "intended" meaning and to dig out the writer's presumed messages, he ought to learn how to puzzle out the ideas treasured in the piece of writing he happens to read. When that does happen, the reader is exceptionally gratified that his efforts are rewarded. In other words, the piece may be wrought with descriptive words, but these ones, in my view, qualify specific text references and SUCCINCTLY carry the writer's intended meanings. In so doing, the concerned reader is given much room for manoeuvre, much to work on for meaning, and hence much gratification. I tend to believe that it is the responsibility of the writer to engage the reader as much as possible by constantly challenging his intellectual powers and rewarding him ultimately according to the measure of participation he allows for himself in the writing piece. Sophistication in writing is a style; simplification is another. I assure you that honey tastes sweeter when you put up with the stings of its guard-bees.
Please allow me to say that your statement, "A writer writes to be understood" does not hold much water. If you mean by this sentence those substandard "writers" who strive to convey their "message" to average people, then you may be right. And I agree with you that such writers are very popular and "well-read" by their targeted audience. Popularity is not, and will never be, a criterion for measuring the quality of writing. If you look around you, you will surely find people; singers, politicians, rubble-rousers, journalists, etc. Such people might well enjoy much popularity in their respective circles, but is this necessarily suggestive of their high quality? Hardly. In our heritage, we have a group of writers called "mono-writers:" men-of-letters who wrote one piece of writing in their lifetime and hence earned considerable respect from their eligible audience. By contrast, a myriad of "writers" have been targeting "low" audience in their frothy writings and have hence ended up with little respect from eligible audience. When one writes too straightforwardly, his "writing" will be rendered worthless soon; when one writes less straightforwardly, his writing will continue to generate growing literary appreciation. The point here is that sophisticated writing elicits more patient readers' participation, which bears positively on their and the writer's collective consciousness; simplified writing elicits less readers' participation, which bears hard on their and the writer's objective correlation. After all, the readers' task should not be limited to tracking a sequence of events a writing piece presents; otherwise, they would be bored prematurely once the piece is "consumed." Readers are expected to work out the meaning in order to earn their gratification eventually, and it is the responsibility of the writer to continually challenge his deserved readers for the good of both sides. Have you ever wondered why Shakespeare and many others have been read for centuries?" It is because of the "challenge" they have posed for consecutive generations of readers from various fields of knowledge, save laymen of course.
The Other
Aha! I have a little bit of time...
First of all, since I haven't really seen you around, I'm Snoink! Welcome to YWS. If you like writing, you'll love it here. No, scratch that; if you like writing and are a perfectionist, you will love it here. Ah... much better.
With that said, I'm one of the harsher critiquers on YWS (or at least that's what I'm told). I'm also told that I have a very belittling way of writing critiques, but I don't mean it that way. Honest. It's just my style. Overexplaining is better than underexplaining, no?
On Paragraphing
The first thing I noticed in this story was the lack of paragraphs. Usually, that would turn me off at once and I wouldn't bother to critique it. Why?
Because it doesn't look pretty.
Okay, I know that sounds like a really stupid explanation, but think about it for a second. When you orally tell stories, you can shape the words in whatever you want, your voice flucuating in and out as your story goes. Like waves. If you're any good oral storyteller, this will come natural to you.
Now, for writing, that's another story altogether. Usually, it doesn't come naturally to us. Why? Because the way we shape our writing is not with the flucuation of our voices, but rather the shaping of our story. So, if we want to give a short action scene, we're probably going to write short, jerky sentences to heighten the effect plus we're probably going to break up the paragraphs in a short jerky style.
You see, this is what style is. It's telling a story as if it was oral on words. It's really really hard. For a story to last any amount of time, it not only has to sound good but it has to look good as well. Because this is romantic fiction, the style allows you to have long flowy descriptive sentences, which is what you've done. Unfortunately, because it's one blob of text, it automatically tells the writer one thing:
It's not moving.
Remember when I said for action stories we would probably heighten the effect of the action by shortening the sentences and the paragraphs? That is because things are constantly changing. To give the reader the illusion of lots of action happening over a quick time space, we shorten the sentences and paragraphs.
Even if you're writing a romance, you're not allowed to be totally stagnant. For example, there should be some brief instances of joy, grief, emotion, whatever, that pop up and should stand out from the rest of the text.
Now, I paragraphed the story for you in my previous entry. Let's see why I chose the breaks I did:
In this case, you're setting up the scene. This is a very important paragraph, and you pulled it off tolerably well. What we learn within this paragraph is that the sea is pounding furiously on the rocky shores and the mermaid is the main character. So, within the first two sentences, we know our location and we know our main character. This is important.
This is her first thought. The other two sentences above were just setting up the scene for us. With this sentence, the amazing dialogue should shock us into wanting to read the story more. Because you're going for the shock effect, you're going to want to seperate this sentence onto its own.
More background information.
Aha! Another shocking piece of dialogue! Let it stand on its own. Let it be proud!
The last sentence is what makes this split apart. It provides a mini-cliffhanger. We love cliffhangers. Cliffhangers are too often thought of as being ends of chapters. They usually aren't thought of a being at ends of paragraphs, but in this case it is. It's a pretty good cliffhanger at that.
Notice how I don't separate the dialogue here. If we do it again, it'll be expected. At the moment, it would provide more of a jerk by being part of the larger paragraph by being off on its own. And besides, it basically leads into the next paragraph anyway. It wants to flow there.
And this dialogue is off on its own. Yay!
On dialogue…
First of all, I’m going to address dialogue grammar. Why? Because it’s my major nitpick.
For the last paragraph (at least, I’m assuming it’s going to be the last paragraph) you do something rather… er… weird with the grammar. Let’s see what you do…
Okay. Now, look at every single sentence. Why is every sentence in quotes?
For example, normally if I saw a paragraph like such which had been smushed together, I would write it as this:
]“Will the neap-tide ever be there again?”
“Will Mermaid ever experience Merman’s touch anew?”
“Will Mermaid and Merman ever float together and tease the anxious sailors?”
“Will I embrace Merman again?”
“Oh, I would if I could. Yes, I would if I could.”
This indicates that every one of the sentences is said by somebody different. Is this the case? I don’t know. I’m assuming it isn’t, because you don’t tell us who says those different lines. If my assumption is wrong and it is indeed said by a multiple of characters, then please describe to us who these characters are.
If my assumption is correct and the mermaid is talking to herself, then you shouldn’t put every sentence in quotes. It’s absolutely grammatically correct in every shape and form.
So it would look like this:
“Will the neap-tide ever be there again? Will Mermaid ever experience Merman’s touch anew? Will Mermaid and Merman ever float together and tease the anxious sailors? Will I embrace Merman again? Oh, I would if I could. Yes, I would if I could.”
Though that…
No. We’ll go in order.
Dialogue is the hardest thing to write for. Why? When you are writing narratives, you are writing in one way of speaking only. I think you would call it style, but style is the way you shape your paragraphs and sentences to achieve an overall effect. The proper term is voice. So with narratives you have one voice, but with dialogue you have more. For instance, in a character-driven story I’m writing for right now, the characters each have a distinct way of speaking. A distinct voice, if you will. And that’s what makes the dialogue so good.
For this there’s only one other speaker (I think) so that makes your job a little easier.
Then there’s the other part of dialogue which is, unfortunately, not as highlighted as the actual speech by the character. This is the supporting detail and just as important as the actual dialogue. Does the character click her tongue impatiently as she speaks? Tap her fingernails? Smirk?
Any actions that your characters do will help reveal them as, not just characters, but actual people. This is what dialogue sets out to do and by working on dialogue and supporting details as, not separate entities but as close partners, it becomes even more rewarding.
With that said, when I say “let’s look over dialogue” I don’t mean “let’s look over the words the characters say.” Instead, I look at the dialogue and surrounding detail supports this dialogue.
Let’s go over the dialogue line by line.
First thing I noticed is that the words she says make absolutely no sense. Whatsoever. Not only that, but I can’t decipher the meaning. Does he want to him to be engulfed by the furious waves? If so, the proper sentence is, “May he be engulfed by the furious waves!”
The other guess I have (I can’t be totally sure) is that she is wondering whether he was engulfed by the furious waves. This, I think, is a lot more likely since the supporting detail seems to go with that idea. If this is the case, then what the dialogue would be, “Maybe he has been engulfed by the furious waves.”
I have no idea why there is a question mark. This is a very confusing sentence. All in all, my impression is that the mermaid cannot speak logically. Maybe she hit herself on the rock too hard?
But wait! She melancholically wonders about it, so she must be lucid in some form. Hmm…
Which goes to the next point… word choice.
Melancholy and wonder do not go hand in hand together. At all. Wonder gives the impression of something being absolutely wonderful. Of joy. Of happiness. Melancholy is of depression. Of being overwhelmed, but in a bad way. True, melancholy can be about reflection, but all in all, it’s more of a somber reflection.
Therefore, when you say “she melancholically wonders” it doesn’t fit. At all. The images contrast, but in such a different way that it seems to be more of a puzzle piece trying to lock together with something that doesn’t fit rather than a revelation.
Mind you, I’m not saying contrasting images are bad. In Willian Blake’s “The Chimney Sweeper” he does it quite well. Look at this stanza:
The coffins of black, being the chimneys these poor boys have to clean to survive, are suddenly unlocked and a wild image of a brilliant angel bringing them back from death into life… wow. What imagery! The contrast between the two (death and life) are so different that the overall effect is amazing.
In this case, that one line doesn’t quite cut it. The contrast, combined with the dialogue, is confusing and gives a sketchy, unclear image of what’s going on. At best.
The general rule of thumb is to make everything that is concrete a little bit more fanciful and describe whatever is mostly symbolic and intangible a little bit more concretely. This is so the reader doesn’t drift off into a fog when reading a story or poem.
…
a•pos•tro•phize
tr. & intr.v. a•pos•tro•phized, a•pos•tro•phiz•ing, a•pos•tro•phiz•es
To address by or speak or write in apostrophe.
I cannot begin to say how much I loath that word. It tells nothing of the dialogue, so it supports nothing.
I love wonderful description, but this is doing nothing to help it out. If anything, you are hindering the story. It’s one thing to use vocabulary, but to use it like this and improperly is not so good.
What can you do? Come up with better description. What is she doing while she’s saying this? Maybe her forehead is scrunched in a particular way. Whatever is happening, that would be much better description than what you have now.
The dialogue indicates that it is night time. Fun stuff.
Ooh… I like the way it begins. I mean, this is music to my ears:
“But why?” Mermaid abruptly asks.
Look at it… the simplicity… the beauty. As soon as the word abrupt is uttered, the sentence goes to a halt. Ah… lovely stuff.
Except… it goes on.
Once more, remember what I said about action stories being full of shortened sentences and paragraphs? That style for those action stories is used because it helps move things along. It’s really neat in that regard.
Now, I understand that you’re writing a romance story, but at the same time, the story has to move. The dialogue you introduced begs to be written in a short, almost fragmented way. It wants to move.
The wistful stuff about the sea doesn’t really matter. It’s filler. You’ve given us quite enough description as it is, so we already guess that. You’ve provided us with enough description to get on, and now we must get on. Action! Remember that. Action is frowned upon in romantic fiction, but action is the only way the story moves. Otherwise, the story dies. Or worse, falls flat on its face.
If this is from the mermaid’s POV, then you’re in trouble. Even Tom Bombadil never totally got away with it. Speaking to yourself in third person is just not cool, and this is what this dialogue is indicating.
This part seems like a cliffhanger of a Dudley Doo-Right cartoon:
“Will the neap-tide ever be there again? Will Mermaid ever experience Merman’s touch anew? Will Mermaid and Merman ever float together and tease the anxious sailors?”
I can just hear it right now… “Stay tuned for the next episode to find out!”
The only decent part of this dialogue is this part, and that’s mostly because of its moving simplicity and first person reflection:
“Will I embrace Merman again? Oh, I would if I could. Yes, I would if I could.”
Though I would put an “ever” between ‘I’ and ‘embrace.’
You see, in romances, it’s not the long flowy narrative that makes it great. It’s not the lush description. It’s not even the interaction between the main characters! What makes it romances great is the ability to connect with the main character, to live through the trials and tribulations of being in love. And sometimes the simple things get to you the most.
For instance, in Orwell’s 1984, which is a very showy work with many adjectives and verbose descriptions, etc., the last four words are these:
“He loved Big Brother.”
And that hits you right in the face.
Simplistic stuff does that to you. If you need further proof, just think of Robert Frost or Hemingway. Sure, their stuff is easy to read. Except it isn’t. It’s so simplistic that when it finally hits you, it strikes you in the face.
Well… seeing that this critique has now just past eight pages, I suppose that’s enough material for now. I suppose your eyes are just about to glaze over, LMAO. Mind you, I could go on forever (I haven't even covered description yet!
Anyway, for the good stuff. This isn’t bad. Yes, I just ripped into it completely and probably have traumatized your life, but I’ve seen much worse. I loved the metaphors you used in the first sentence which, although verbose, transported us directly in the scene. It was nice, to be honest.
So work on paragraph and dialogue, and you’re set for life!
Hello, The Other.
I see some people have commented but I haven't read them. This way, I'm not influenced in any shape or form when I critique your piece. So, if I mention something twice, forgive me.
)
Hmm... Though, I have an idea what you've attempted to describe, this first sentence should be revised or at least considered. In a single sentence, it has always been my opinion to use two adjectives and one verb, if I can help it.(OK, I lied. I did read 1 comment about spacing your story. But that's all.
From a reader's prospective (and I am a very fussy reader for an author to hold my interest), this story was confusing to understand. You possess an imaginative mind and it's clear you're trying to captivate what you 'see' in your head. Unfortunately, you're using an abundance of adjectives in one sentence. This clutters the structure of the story, thus confusing and turning away potential (and future) readers of your work.
But we're all here for a common purpose; to share our literary minds and improve upon doing so.
Ready?
First, before I break down the paragraphs where editing should be considered, I noticed right away that the dialogue in the story is formatted incorrectly. Every time a new character speaks, there should be a new line. This is one of the cardinal rules of writing.
In writing, believe it or not, there is such a thing called 'over-description,' which is what the first sentence has become. This sentence, in a sense, has removed the right to a reader to envision their own prospective of the intense storm (I'm assuming) taken fold.
I am also, guilty as charged. Behold - My over-description of clothing, lol.
My overkill on clothing. *cringes*
Or you could simply state Mermaid is grieving; she's sad and forlorn. Sometimes by writing in the simplest terms is the best course of action, but it also depends on plot of the story and the writer themselves.
Crying is one of the strongest emotions a person will experience and in doing so, other emotions may arise, depending on the conflict in the story such as depression (an extreme emotion, if I might add.
May I make a suggestion and it's a very useful tip, if you're willing to literally 'place yourself in your character's shoes?' To strengthen the loss of Merman, think back to a time when you experienced sadness. By recollecting those emotions and memories, use your personal experience to capture what Mermaid is experiencing here. No, this isn't an easy task and it can be difficult to use examples within yourself but I think you'll find by doing so, the characters will become alive. Why? You are writing from personal experiences, thus readers more than likely will connect because they are inclined to relate to something that is realistic, not a "the tragic shades of the night have fallen, studded by the whines of bereaved insomniac night-watchers and by the vigils of occulted lovers."
Do you mean apostrophized? A rather unusual choice of words for dialogue. It's clear you have a suburb vocabulary and I admire that wholly.
In this piece of dialogue alone, Mermaid is sad and more than likely anxious to see Merman again? So, why not describe that in some manner? Instead of using 'apostrophises' try something along the lines like this:
"Will the new day be ever born?" Mermaid mourns.
Of course, it is only an example and you might want to play around until it meets your satisfaction.
I know you're probably ready to strangle me, lol, but I would not be doing my job as a critiquer if I didn't mention this final piece of dialogue.
Question first. Is Mermaid talking aloud or to herself? I ask, because if I understood correctly, she's still alone and most people I've met don't talk aloud but to them self. It's more of a curious question, that is all.
If Mermaid is meant to speak aloud, you need to correct grammatical problems with the dialogue. Since she's the only one talking, you only need to quote her once, meaning:
“Will the neap-tide ever be there again? Will Mermaid ever experience Merman’s touch anew? Will Mermaid and Merman ever float together and tease the anxious sailors? Will I embrace Merman again? Oh, I would if I could. Yes, I would if I could.”
If there was another character talking to Mermaid, then yes, you would need to make a new line for a new piece of dialogue and continue as followed.
I look foreword to see what your imaginative mind conjures up, if you decide to edit. I hope you do revise the story because, like me, I tend to have an overactive imagination and it's difficult to control it at times but it would be interesting what changes would take place from someone who shares a similar writing style as myself.
Best of luck!
-fishr
Copy and paste this onto your first entry:
Even though the cruel winds of the spring-tide have subsided, the merciless waves of the angered sea have not yet receded. The outcrops of rocky shores are still suffering, empathising with Mermaid after having been marooned on this remote island. Mermaid can not catch sight of her Merman.
“May he have been engulfed by the furious waves?” she melancholically wonders.
The last thing Mermaid remembers are Merman’s hands pushing her up to the surface. He was holding her wounded tail away from the salty water; he didn’t want her to suffer more. Mermaid still keeps in mind the dusky path along the labyrinths of the deep which Merman used to merrily lead her through. She still recalls his giggles and sighs. Now, the tragic shades of the night have fallen, studded by the whines of bereaved insomniac night-watchers and by the vigils of occulted lovers.
“Will the new day be ever born?” Mermaid apostrophises.
Merman and Mermaid were only collecting conches for their upcoming wedding. They swam and swam; but the sea was too tumultuous. The deafening roaring of the waves overwhelmed them.
“But why?” Mermaid abruptly asks, wistfully begging for an answer from the all-beleaguering waters of sea. A moment of silence ensues. She passes her fingers on her blue-green scales. At that moment, Mermaid conjures up Merman’s touch when he tried an olive-green conch on her lobe prior to consummation. What a touch! It catapulted her towards the twilit skyline where only the warbles of nightingales could dissipate the eloquent dumbness of the boundless horizon.
“Will the neap-tide ever be there again?” “Will Mermaid ever experience Merman’s touch anew?” “Will Mermaid and Merman ever float together and tease the anxious sailors?” “Will I embrace Merman again?” “Oh, I would if I could. Yes, I would if I could.”
Comments later.
I agree. Also, your latest post has he same problem. I couldn't even read it because it's so dense.
First, I appreciate your taking the time to read the thread. I must agree with you on at least one point: the need to separate the piece into paragraphs and to set off speech lines. However, I cann't agree with you on the need to rewrite things in a more straightforward manner. Every "writer" has a style of his own; and so, he must not be evaluated against the styles of others. You may prefer to put things in a casual way, to expand ideas by adding more explanatory sentences, or to use "simplified" words. In so doing, you apparently assume that the ideas presented are more important than the means of introducing them. I, however, tend to believe that words have "magic" and that they "treasure" thoughts. Thus, in order for the perseverant reader to decipher the "intended" meaning and to dig out the writer's presumed messages, he ought to learn how to puzzle out the ideas treasured in the piece of writing he happens to read. When that does happen, the reader is exceptionally gratified that his efforts are rewarded. In other words, the piece may be wrought with adjectives, but these ones, in my view, qualify specific text references and SUCCINCTLY carry the writer's intended meanings. In so doing, the concerned reader is given much room for manoeuvre, much to work on for meaning, and hence much gratification. I tend to believe that it is the responsibility of the writer to engage the reader as much as possible by constantly challenging his intellectual powers and rewarding him ultimately according to the measure of participation he allows for himself in writing piece. Sophistication in writing is a style; simplification is another. I assure you that honey tastes sweeter when you put up with the stings of its guard-bees.
Reactions:
Initial: BACK DEMONS OF GLOB TEXT!
Second: Could she stuff any more adjectives in there if she tried?
Teritary: This is too confusing.
First off, I like to leave a space between each line of dialogue and each paragraph.
See? I just did it.
Second: You are using as many adjectives as possible. This may be because you are under the assumption that, by somehow adding more adjectives, you can hide any errors you make. This is an invalid assumption. The adjectives make your story into a puddle of angst, which detracts from any romantic or emotional value your story had in the first place.
Which brings me to my third reaction, what value did it have in the first place? It is hard to tell because there is so much in the way of useless words.
It is time to face the cold hard truth: less is more. Don't be superfluous with your writing, be blunt.
Just to start off, I'll second what TBR and Dammerung said: this needs to be formated. At the very least it needs to be seperated off into paragraphs and most people on here won't read something unless it has space between the paragraph. It just makes it more inviting and much easier to focus on.
Secondly, like Dammerung said, when you begin dialoge, it gets a whole new paragraph. So the opening should read something like:
Also, that first sentence is a little cumbersome. It's so weighted down with adjectives that it makes it awkward to read. Description is nice, but you've got cruel winds and the merciless waves of an angered sea. you could probably get away with cruel winds and merciless waves, but the angered sea really should be editted out.
Secondly, the way you describe Mermaid talking, both in the section above and here:
is just a little overdone. I think you were trying to get an other-worldly feel by using those kind of words (I see them alot through this entire piece), but you could just as easily settle for a simpler word, like "said" or "murmured" or just "wondered" without using "melancholically". The way you have it now just sounds a little cheesy.
And lastly, I don't understand this:
Maybe it's just the way it's formated right now, but I can't tell whether Mermaid is thinking to herself, whether two people are haveing a conversation and speaking about themselves in the third person or whether this is a slighty over-dramatic movie trailer for a chick flick expected out next summer. Some clarity would be nice.
Besides that, you're title could use some work, although the one you have now seems short and to the point and I'd like to see this improved and perhaps expanded upon. You've got me curious as to how she got hurt, how the two of them got seperated and why the sea was so "tumultuous".
It's a wall of words and almost impossible to read. Ever heard of paragraphing?
Also when you write speech, new line for each person saying something.
This all seemed a bit confusing, I don't know if that was the fact it is really hard to read or if it just needs a bit of remodeling.
Have a look at some other work on here if you haven't already and see how they write, it's one of the best ways to learn how to structure your work.
First off... punctuation
Second... proper title
Thirdly... didn't need to post it twice
I couldn't read it because it was a giant clump.