|
Just at a brief start, I would delete the first two sentencesquote:The lack of light in the room, beyond a general even-cast hum had no help from the blue-white tiles reflecting nothing, due to their sheen as dim as time forgotten, or more accurately, time ignored. Most had forgotten to countenance this room except as a portal to some place they felt they needed to be. this is overlong and doesn't grab me really quote:This was a welcoming room, but there was no-one to welcome. This line is crisper and more interesting, and pulls me in way more EDIT: This is more a thing of taste, but I find it never helps to open by describing a location. Think of the great openings, almost none of them start with a description of place. There should be a reason for the reader to want to read the second paragraph, open on an idea, an event, a question, etc. Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Apr 12, 2019 |
#
¿
Apr 12, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:40 |
|
|
I want to ask what the mentality of describing simple things elaborately is For example in the bolded parts quote:He had the type of stubble that was well maintained, although with plausible deniability from fashion. It wasn’t that it was sculpted, it was trimmed with a clippers he’d made sure would save him money if money had ever mattered to him. Each stubby beard hair was long enough to be considered growth, but just beyond short enough to do more than touch his skin with a wash of colour. Donald was very sure of this. Sure enough to spend a good portion of half an hour in front of a mirror ensuring he could be sure. During this time he made sure to not be touching up the stubble, that would be vain. Instead he looked for long enough to ensure he was happy with its effect and that his smile was as effective as he was happy with himself. That was all guaranteed by half an hour, or so, in front of a mirror that was not for fashion, nor for vanity, just that this looking at himself was as much a part of Donald as his name. That’s all he knew he had. These are both descriptions that seem to be elaborate for no other reason than a certain desire for a lyrical tone to the writing. However, think about the path the reader takes. A meal loses flavor if every dish is elaborate but the same. An album is boring if every song is just as pronounced as all the others. etc. If every line is meant to be gorgeous, no lines end up being gorgeous. You should consider simpler, blunter sentences to convey simple ideas so that when you decide to elevate the language that choice stands out. Like, I like the lines I underlined, but their quality gets lost in the din of everything else. If you cut away at what surrounds them, they stand out better. For example, you could say something like quote:Each whisker was short. Not too short, he made sure of that, just enough so someone could notice it was there. Donald was very sure to maintain the length just right. Sure enough to spend a good portion of half an hour in front of a mirror ensuring he could be sure.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2019 04:57
|
|
|
I keep coming across the question of "Why?" I am not getting a propelling reason to read forward after every page. If your reader is picking up this book without reading a treatise on its existence, there doesn't seem anything to propel it forward I am not saying it needs action or a car chase or anything tedious like that, but it needs something as a drive. Like, read some Yasunari Kawabata. Many of his novels are sheltered playing with language devoid of action, but they still have a [i]drive/i] to their narrative.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
Exmond posted:"The building was on fire and it wasn't my fault." would beg to differ. Noted literary great.... Jim Butcher?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2019 02:11
|
|