Points:
Time spent:
IP address:
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.
139,638 Literary Works • 672,637 Reviews
There were a number of things I gave the benefit of doubt because it was a dream sequence; those items I pointed out were those elements that stuck out as particularly jarring. With the glowing mountains, for example, aside from "coruscating" being a word that is often misused, everything else was described as being very much the way they are in real life. Now, if it was mentioned that everything else was also slightly unusual (say, the trees all had purple leaves), then a glowing mountain wouldn't feel as out of place. Also, with the images in mist bit, normal mist doesn't contain clear images, so comparing something to the images found in mist is difficult to visualize.
As for Socrates' speech pattern, aside from being inconsistent, it's very pseudo-intellectual. To put it bluntly, he talks like a person who thinks he's smart but, in reality, isn't, and to someone who knows what he's talking about, he sounds like a pretentious idiot. This impression runs counter to what contemporary accounts we have of Socrates' life.
On a side note, you might consider including a brief overview of the Orphic mysteries so that those not familiar with them won't be put off by the reference.
I don't believe it needs clarifying for that was obvious to me, at least.
Regardless, throwing the word "clandestine" into the narrative when there are no other such words incorporated throughout causes the word to stick out like a sore thumb. There are other more common words with the same connotations that could have been used to the same effect in that context.
And as a person who is acutely aware of their subconscious, I hold little but disdain for psychoanalysis in general. While the concepts are certainly fascinating and can be applied in stories to great effect, I find their application in real life to be questionable at best.
deleted
When you are stealing through shadows, it's a given that you are being stealthy and silent. Redundancies not only bog down the flow of your prose, but can also irritate your readers.
His thought isn't very clear or easy to understand. It would be clearer if your got rid of his thought and replaced it with something like: "He could just see himself dying of a heart attack one uneventful day."
"Whom" really strikes me as a strange word to use here. Patches are not people.
Whose feet? Harry's or Eldern's?
Try being more concise; it helps keeps the flow of your writing up to speed. If one word would work as well or better than two or more, use the one word. Also, watch your verb tenses.
Who is "he"?
I suggest merging these two sentences to vary the sentence structure. Right now, you have a couple of sentences with the same structure, and it makes the flow choppy.
Also, "it's" means "it is" while "its" is the possessive form of "it".
Long, rambling sentences make for difficult reading and unclear meanings.
Too much "plastic" in one paragraph.
Watch your tenses and comma placement.
Why the exclamation point?
Again, vary your sentence structure a bit. Right now, the flow in this paragraph is very choppy.
Way too wordy.
TVs have no faces.
Having characters just know things is a cop out. I suggest having all the characters who mention Belir as calling him "the great Belir" and for Belir to respond to Harry's question with something like, "Is the great Belir not good enough for you?" Then it would make more sense for Harry to get the feeling that Belir is more a title than a name.
So much cliche in such a small paragraph. X_x The "you are (insert adjective), (main character's name)," the main character being the first ever to ask, and the dramatic pause (though that's a bit more forgivable since it could be a character trait)...
Last sentence is way too wordy and obscure in its meaning. "Harry's dream body shook with sudden laughter," is so much easier to understand.
What is with the "man"? It comes out of nowhere.
Another long and rambling sentence whose meaning has been obfuscated. And since when do mountains or battlements emit light?
XD
Vague explanations are vague. I would think Socrates would have at least a few theories on why he was able to communicate with the hunter.
Realistically, would Socrates use the word "data"? The word is Latin in origin, not Greek. There's a lot of terms Socrates is using that strike me as far too modern, come to think of it.
Very wordy and redundant the last sentence is. Try rephrasing it more concisely.
"Slimy organic things" feels very awkward. I can't think of any slimy substances that aren't organic, and "things" is a very vague word. What sort of things? Are they creatures? Plants? Unknown structures?
Tense shift. Also, there's no need to create a word form when there is already one in existence.
Lots of short sentences with the same structure make for very choppy reading. Try combining some of the sentences and varying their structure.
Overall, learn how to punctuate properly. There were a lot of punctuation errors, most of which I didn't point out simply because if I had, it would take me even longer to finish this critique, and I've already spent four hours doing this much. Another thing you need to watch is your spelling. Some of them were silly mistakes that I'm sure you would catch if you proofread your work more carefully. Others, especially the it's/its and then/than, are basic grammar -- review the difference. In addition, you misused a number of words; dictionaries exist and contain usage examples for a reason.
Basic writing skills aside, in general, you had a lot of unnecessary words that bloated the prose and hindered the flow. Your descriptions also tended to rely too heavily on adverbs and strings of adjectives, and yet, in spite of the amount of space you devote to them, your descriptions often wound up quite vague and unclear. I pointed out the most egregious examples.
In addition, the dialogue was very inconsistent. One moment, your characters are talking in a stilted, formal manner; the next, they're using slang, contractions, and other informalities. Pick one way for each character and stick with it, please. Also, were you trying to make Socrates sound super intelligent? If you were, it didn't work. Cut down on the "intelligent" words and just get his point across as clearly as possible. Socrates was a master communicator; his dialogue should reflect this.
Nest time you post something this long for critique, I suggest breaking it up into several parts; that way, it's more manageable to give an in-depth critique, people will be more willing to look at your work, and so you'll recieve more feedback.