Hey everyone!
This is a story for Chocoholic's murder contest. For the contest, she asked us to create three different parts: the before the murder, during the investigation, and after the investigation (the end result).
It was supposed to have a villain in the end that you didn't expect so I would really like to know if you expected the murderer or not. I would really appreciate your feedback! The story is attached below.
Thanks!
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.
Hey scasha! Here's your review. ^^ It's somewhat of a line-by-line, but without the quotes. I'm trying to cut down on quote boxes because then it makes the actual critque hard to read. I'll simply refer to the parts I'm talking about withing my comments (don't worry, it will still make sense) I've split up my comments according to topic for your reading pleasure.
Hopefully my comments are of use to you, and I'll be glad to read again if you ever rewrite.
Now, before I get into that, I'd like to give you my overall opinion on this piece. It needs work. You've got an interesting set-up here, but there is so much more you could do with this that it's ridiculous. I love the idea of some arrogant fashion designer getting suddenly murdered, because it brings it up some incredibly intriguing questions. Because although some people may hate her, it really makes you wonder why someone would want to kill her, which is a good thing, since your reader should be wondering about these things. ^^ So kudos on that. So your story's premise is great. The thing is, though, it has a lot bogging it down. So let's wade through non-awesomness, and see if we can find where that great story is hiding, kay?
VIEWPOINTS
Generally, storys are mostly told through one main viewpoint. Now it's perfectly fine to have multiple viewpoints within a story, especially if you want to have a sort of omnisicent perspective for your novel. But these viewpoints are usually switched between scenes and chapters, and not within the chapters.
This is what you're doing. You are constantly switching between viewpoints within the same scene. This is huge no-no. What's wrong with doing this? First off, it's incredibly confusing. First you're inside the head of one character, and then you're suddenly in someone else's head? It's very, very jarring to the reader, and makes us feel very detached and disoriented the entire time. Imagine if this was a movie, and every five seconds the camera view would switch to a different character's perspective. That's what switching viewpoints mid-scene feels like.
My suggestion is to stick with one point of view only. Instead of starting with Ms. Clare, and then going to Andrea, just stick with Andrea the entire time for the first scene. Or, alternatively, you could stick with Ms. Clare. It's up to you. If you need any help on how to keep the perspective to one person, you can PM me.
CHARACTERS
Your characters need some work. Let's start with Andrea.
Andrea seems very stereotypical to me. We've all seen the overly nervous kiss-ass assistant countless time, and Andrea doesn't deviate from this mold. You need to make her a little more real, and a little less panicky. She may be an assistant, but can't she have at least a shred of self-respect? Also, the things she does seems very overly dramatic, such as the constant nervousness and the "my life's going to end" attitude. Overall, she doesn't seem very real to me, and therefore, I don't much care for her. I would try to give her a more unique personality, maybe even give hints that she may have a reason to kill Clare? I would head on over to the Character Development usergroup and see what you can learn in regards to making Andrea more real and unique.
Next is Ms. Clare. To be honest, she seems very pretentious and fake, especially when she says things llike "you never know when some big magazine will offer me a spread". I know she's a famous designer, but can she act like less of an idiot? Not to say she can't be mean. I'm just saying she could be mean without seeming like an airhead. Try giving her a bit more class, and less of "I'M MEAN BECAUSE I DESIGN THINGS".
Jennings seems the most stereotypical of them all. A hard-boiled cop who's mean to people. Please, please, please, if you're going to develop any of your character's let it be him, because as of now, he's as deep as cardboard cutout. Everything he does and thinks seems so cliche, and makes me care less and less as his clicheness goes on and on.
And franky, not only do your characters act cliche, their inner thoughts are simply ridiculous. Like for example, when Jennings thinks "Why are people so emotional". Someone freaking dropped dead in front of Andrea. I think it's perfectly acceptable that she started crying. You make it very hard to care at all about your character's when they act like this.
Also, some of Andrea's thoughts add to her over-dramatics, such as "My life is hanging by a thread". This is her job, and for some reason she acts like Ms. Clare has a bullet to her head. It's okay if she's worried about her job, but make her thoughts more realistica and less mellowdramatic.
And on a side note, I noticed that Heather never does anything, except get dissed at one point. Unless she's some statue, you better make sure to describe her like she's an actual person. She has wants, needs, hopes, and dreams and a personality just like everyone else in that room, so just because she's a minor character doesn't mean you forget about her. I can tell you did, because everytime you mentioned her I had to remind myself that she was there, since she never does anything. Each one of your characters is living and breathing and so they all need attention.
Again, work on your characterization. Go to Character Development, like I said, and really work on molding these stereotype into more believable character's that your reader will actually end up caring about. Because if we don't care about your character's we certainly won't care if one of them gets murdered.
DIALOGUE
Remember to always start a new paragraph whenever someone new speaks. In the beginning of the story you keep Ms. Clare's dialogue within the same paragraph when she starts talking to Stu. I got really confused, because I couldn't tell who was speaking. Make sure you fix that part, and look through and make sure that you have a new paragraph whenever someone else starts talking.
Don't use dialogue tags if it's not necessary. For example, at one point you write. " 'Carl', he said, 'fill me in'". The "he said" part, is really an uneccessary pause. Just have him say the whole thing without the tag, and it will flow a lot better.
SHOW DON'T TELL
One of the biggest problems with this is that you have too much exposition (telling) and not enough showing. When you tell, the reader doesn't feel anything. When you show, the reader can react, and will actually feel something when they "witness" the events unfolding, instead of simply being "told" what happened. This is a huge difference, and you should avoid telling as much as possible.
For example, when Millicent comes in, you don't describe it at all. You simply state that she rushed over there and came in. Why don't you actually describe that happening? Show her knocking at the door, Clare's reaction to her arrival, some dialogue between her and Andrea (gosh, you really saved me), etc. When you simply tell us that she arrived and began doing her thing, it's like you randomly hit fast forward in the middle of the story. We want to see all the parts.
At another point, when Ms. Clare complains about Heather's body, you tell us that Stu convinces her to fit her anyway. This is more exposition. Show us how he convinces her, and showcase their conversation through dialogue. When you do this, you pass up chances to develop your characters. If you had taken the time to show this part, we would have got more insight into Stu's character (by realizing he's a good negotiator) as well as Ms. Clare's (she can be worn down by the right people). This makes your story richer, and all the more better.
You also don't do that great at describing your character's reactions. In one part you say Heather was horrified. By having her drop her mouth, you've already told us she's horrified. So in this way, you're actually being redundant. See, the key is to show her emotions without actually having to name those emotions in the narrative. If you show us she's scared, we'll know she's scared without ever being told.
Another example: You tell us that Andrea has nervous habits. You don't need to tell us that, because you already do a good job of showing us those habits, through her nailbiting and such. Simply showing us the habits is enough to let us know she has nervous habits.
The same thing applies when you tell us that Ms. Clare is about to "break into hysterics". What does taht mean exactly? Show us her facial expressions, and her physical reaction to having a bunch of people barge in on her. Simply saying she was on the verge of hysterics doesn't give us much of an image. Also, hysterics seems too strong a word anyway, as it really doesn't connotate anger or annoyance.
Another nasty part of exposition is the first paragraph starting "The Investigation" scene of the piece. You tell us that he's tired from arson the night before, but we don't get real sense of how tired he is or even how dramatic last night's events must have been. Describe his tiredness. Are there dark rings under his eyes? Are parts of his body fitigued? Is he haunted by images? Also, instead of just saying "there was arson", describe that as well. Maybe you could say "demonic flames flashed across his mind's eyes". This would tell us that the arson happened in the past, but in a much more vivid, emotional way. You don't have to copy my example, so get creative with ways you could bring this information into light in meaningful ways.
DESCRIPTION
There are plenty of spots where your description could use some augmenting.
Some of your description is really awkward (i.e 'jolting everyone up') so get more creative and less general with your description, especially when it comes to describing character reactions. "Jolting everyone up" doesn't really create an especially nice image, and it doesn't convey much emotion. Always try to describe reactions specific to each character, as I'm sure they don't all react the same way. That doesn't mean you have to take time to describe each person in his turn, but make sure that if you are going to describe something, make it specific.
A lot of Andrea's reactions are very bland and repeptive. She either shoots someone a "nervous look" or an "anxious look" or a "[insert adjective here] look". For your reader's sake, try to be more varied and specific with your descriptions when it comes to this type of stuff. Describe her look. Imagine you're looking at a snapshot of her expression. Describe it as if that photo was right in front of you.
Again, being specific is key. Saying "something sharp pricked her" isn't as vivid as saying "a pin pricked her". The more specific you are, the more clearer the image becomes in the reader's head.
Some of your description is very good though. For example, when you said "color rose in Milicent's cheeks" I was like YES. This is EXACTLY the type of vivid description I was talking about. We get a clear image of Milicent getting embarrassed, without you ever having to tell us she's embarassed. This is the type of description you should be utilizing.
But then again, there are times when your description is forced, like when you say the fed-ex man "walk in toward Ms. Clare" Since he's a fed-ex guy, and he has a package for Ms. Clare, it should be obvious that he's going to walk toward her. You don't need to tell us what we already know. Commetn on something new when he's coming in, and make it relevant to the story.
Also, some of the things you describe the characters doing makes little sense. Like when Ms. Clare calls Anrea "inadequate" when she's simply looking for a pen. If that isn't bad enough, you sat that it take within "minutes" for Ms. Clare herself to find one. Even one minute would be an extremely long amount of time to find a pen in an office
Some tidbits like saying the fed-ex guy was "just inside the doorway" and his truck was "just outside the door" draw unnecessary attention to the door, even though it has nothing to do with the story. You don't have to describe everything in relation to one object. Be varied.
Okay, this might not fall under "description" exactly, but I'd like to stress that you NEVER EVER NEVER say "little did she know" *dies* That has got to be one of the most annoyingly cliched phrases in existence. It sounds ridiculous. Please remove the sentence involving it, because it's utterly useless.
You seem not to understand what gazing is. When someon gazes, it's almost like they're staring into space, like they're deep in thought or something. It's also connotative of staring at someone you're in love in, since "gaze" is sort of a soft, longing look. So saying Ms. Clare "gazed hard" or that Jennings had a "calculated gaze" makes little sense when you think about what the word actually means. I'd suggest looking through a thesaurus if you want better synonyms for "stare" that actually fit the situation better.
There are also times when you are being redundant, like when Jennings looks as someone and you say he "took in her appearance". Obviously, if he's looking at her he'll automatically take in her appearance. There is no need to mention that.
Stop saying "with that". Like "with that" he did this. It's not needed, and is another one of those horribly overused phrases. You'll find that if you simply delete them, and leave the rest of the sentence as is, it sounds LOADS better.
I also noticed that sometimes, objects just seem to come out of nowhere (the vial for the coffee, Drenner's camera) This is pretty jarring, because it makes me say "wait, where did that come from?" The part when he steps on the glasses is especially bad. If he has such good observational skills couldn't he have noticed a pair of glass lying in the middle of floor when he came in? Again, don't surprise us with random objects.
UNNESCESSARY INFORMATION/INFO-DUMPS
You do some infodumping, and describe things to us that sometimes are not really necessary.
When Stu Denner comes in, you into exposition and start tellin us that he's shot most of Ms. Clare's photos for Vogue, and that he's a good friend, etc. This is a huge infodump, and you need to get rid of it. Have us figure all this out by the way Ms. Clare reacts to him. Since she obviously treats him like a friend, you won't have to tell us he is one.
You can delete the part when you describe Stu's palm as being warm. Why do we need to know that?
Also, stop adding useless parts, like when Jennings goes to Dunkin Donuts to get coffee. This affects the story how?
Avoid trying to sound deep with weird phrases, such as "some days, coffee was never meant to be drunk" Honestly, that sounds ridiculous, and it seems like you're trying too hard.
The part when Jennings says Ms. Clare was injected is weird. Why does the forensics guy get so shocked when he suggests that, as if Jennings impossibly predicted it. There are only so many ways that poison can enter the body, and injection would probably be anyone's second guess.
ENDING
Phew! The ending. I thought it was actually quite the twist; I never expected Stu to be the murderer, so nicely done on that. ^^ It would have been nice to actually see Jennings figure out the crime, and have that moment of "Aha!" that is always the high point of most mysteries, but wrapping up with the newspaper article is a decent way to go. It was an intriguing ending, to say the least.
Happy writing!
[s]BlackGhost[/s]
All right, you have a nice piece here. There are several little quirks in it that make it humorous and have that sort of cheesy fifties feeling to it. I think the explanation for the murder was a bit far-fetched and was also confusing. I guess I wasn't really surprised because I didn't quite understand who it had been at first. I think you'll need some clarity here.
The plot made sense, since it was obviously a murder mystery. I think it was a bit short and almost hurried near the end. To fix this, I think you could cut down on the beginning or add more to the end. Also, the thing with the coffee was kind of sudden. Where did he get it and why didn't he trust it?
Best of luck on the contest!