Hey! It looks like you're new here. You might want to check out the introduction.
The first part of the story feels very dream-like--objects do not appear to exist until they are observed, and the narrator asks himself many rhetorical questions.
As the reader, we know nothing of the main character in terms of physical description except that he's wearing some yellow briefs and nothing else. (They are referred to as "his usual yellow briefs", which makes me wonder if he never changes out of them, and why they are yellow.) We don't really get a sense of his age until after he moves around and digs a hole on the beach. It'd seem reasonable that Ashur is a child, but he "chuckled" at "another one of dad’s proverbial fancy stories", which sounds like a grown man remembering his childhood through rose-tinted lenses.
By the end of the second paragraph, there have been three rhetorical questions. Rhetorical questions are meant to make some point instead of getting an answer, as the one being asked is expected to already know the answer. But without any background, these questions don't really have a point to make. "Had he ever been to a beach anyway?" We, the reader, don't know--we only met Ashur two sentences ago. "Had he ever known anything else than scorchers since he’d been born anyway?" "Wasn’t that another one of dad’s proverbial fancy stories?" No one's better suited to answer these questions than the narrator himself. The middle of the story eases up on them, but at the end, Gianfranco asks himself how many dead kids he'd seen so far. I think it'd be easier and better--for both author and reader--to state the number outright (with the incidental bonus of conserving word count).
The first part of the story, for the most part, sets a stage--there's a beach, there's a kid, he plays in the sand and water and takes a nap with his parents. These are, however, mostly normal things that I'd imagine a kid to do on a beach. As such, this account of his actions on the beach doesn't seem to meaningfully contribute towards the story, so it makes me wonder what purpose the first scene serves. (Of course, this is my own opinion, and it may be based on missing information.)
What happened to his parents at the end of part one? Did they just ditch him? Granted, all I know about tsunamis comes from that one time I watched Ponyo years ago, but tsunamis seem difficult to sleep through and don't really happen suddenly. It's also hard to imagine his parents getting swept away without the tsunami taking him too.
The connection between the first and second scenes also seems missing. I imagine the tsunami swept him into another ship's wreckage?
For a story under 900 words, it feels like there are two distinct stories being told--one about Ashur's day on the beach, and one about Gianfranco's recovery efforts. Given the events at the end of the first part, it's difficult to tell this story without a sudden perspective shift--but still, the shift is too sudden and throws the story off balance.
Agreed with >>Baal Bunny on the second scene's dialog.
As the reader, we know nothing of the main character in terms of physical description except that he's wearing some yellow briefs and nothing else. (They are referred to as "his usual yellow briefs", which makes me wonder if he never changes out of them, and why they are yellow.) We don't really get a sense of his age until after he moves around and digs a hole on the beach. It'd seem reasonable that Ashur is a child, but he "chuckled" at "another one of dad’s proverbial fancy stories", which sounds like a grown man remembering his childhood through rose-tinted lenses.
By the end of the second paragraph, there have been three rhetorical questions. Rhetorical questions are meant to make some point instead of getting an answer, as the one being asked is expected to already know the answer. But without any background, these questions don't really have a point to make. "Had he ever been to a beach anyway?" We, the reader, don't know--we only met Ashur two sentences ago. "Had he ever known anything else than scorchers since he’d been born anyway?" "Wasn’t that another one of dad’s proverbial fancy stories?" No one's better suited to answer these questions than the narrator himself. The middle of the story eases up on them, but at the end, Gianfranco asks himself how many dead kids he'd seen so far. I think it'd be easier and better--for both author and reader--to state the number outright (with the incidental bonus of conserving word count).
The first part of the story, for the most part, sets a stage--there's a beach, there's a kid, he plays in the sand and water and takes a nap with his parents. These are, however, mostly normal things that I'd imagine a kid to do on a beach. As such, this account of his actions on the beach doesn't seem to meaningfully contribute towards the story, so it makes me wonder what purpose the first scene serves. (Of course, this is my own opinion, and it may be based on missing information.)
What happened to his parents at the end of part one? Did they just ditch him? Granted, all I know about tsunamis comes from that one time I watched Ponyo years ago, but tsunamis seem difficult to sleep through and don't really happen suddenly. It's also hard to imagine his parents getting swept away without the tsunami taking him too.
The connection between the first and second scenes also seems missing. I imagine the tsunami swept him into another ship's wreckage?
For a story under 900 words, it feels like there are two distinct stories being told--one about Ashur's day on the beach, and one about Gianfranco's recovery efforts. Given the events at the end of the first part, it's difficult to tell this story without a sudden perspective shift--but still, the shift is too sudden and throws the story off balance.
Agreed with >>Baal Bunny on the second scene's dialog.
Mostly echoing what the other comments have said--this feels like the beginning of a story. It's ambitious, but unfortunately, our 900-word cap isn't well suited for it.
Stories told through letters/diary entries/other documents are awkward for the writer in that they need to both convey information to the reader and sound natural for whatever format they're being written in. Who is Bree's message addressed to, in this case? The laptop owner? A mall passerby? With the second-to-last paragraph, it feels like neither--both of them would immediately know where the laptop is and that the laptop isn't plugged in, since they can see it. This information is only pertinent to us, the readers of the story. HiTime said it quite well in their Verdict section--this story can benefit greatly with more measured execution.
(I'm assuming the laptop isn't connected to the internet, or else she'd just post something on Facemessage or Snapgram or whatever it is kids use these days.)
Laptop in a left food court also feels like it's highly unlikely to stick around. If the owner doesn't come back for it, it might just get stolen.
>>Monokeras
That's not quite what Occam's Razor is, is it? Also, her being ignored seems to be the plot itself. ^^ But yes, I agree that her response to her new condition seems too calm, even if some time has passed between when it started and when she wrote her message.
Stories told through letters/diary entries/other documents are awkward for the writer in that they need to both convey information to the reader and sound natural for whatever format they're being written in. Who is Bree's message addressed to, in this case? The laptop owner? A mall passerby? With the second-to-last paragraph, it feels like neither--both of them would immediately know where the laptop is and that the laptop isn't plugged in, since they can see it. This information is only pertinent to us, the readers of the story. HiTime said it quite well in their Verdict section--this story can benefit greatly with more measured execution.
(I'm assuming the laptop isn't connected to the internet, or else she'd just post something on Facemessage or Snapgram or whatever it is kids use these days.)
Laptop in a left food court also feels like it's highly unlikely to stick around. If the owner doesn't come back for it, it might just get stolen.
>>Monokeras
That's not quite what Occam's Razor is, is it? Also, her being ignored seems to be the plot itself. ^^ But yes, I agree that her response to her new condition seems too calm, even if some time has passed between when it started and when she wrote her message.
I'm sure there's lots of symbolism here, but as I have little to no knowledge on Greco-Roman mythology past watching Disney's Hercules nearly twenty years ago and what I read on Wikipedia just now, it flies over my head. It's a bit odd to see Hercule(s?) and the Grim Reaper together, though.
The story feels pretty fantastic, in the fantasy sense of the word--rooted in realism, but with touches of myth and magic. I liked that quite a bit. Felt kind of like Fables.
Hercule steals the crown of the King of Death, but it feels like the crown is merely there to give Death a reason to come after Hercule. Without giving it any inherent importance, the crown seems a bit played up--it was "less convincingly shiny and bejeweled" than the fake crowns, after all. Not that there's anything wrong with MacGuffins, but it could use some fleshing out, I think.
On that note, Hercule's motive for stealing the crown in the first place feels rather hand-waved.
The phrase "robbed the King of Death blind" appears twice, but the "blind" part of it doesn't seem to come into play during the story.
> Grimly, the figure turned.
This was cute.
The story feels pretty fantastic, in the fantasy sense of the word--rooted in realism, but with touches of myth and magic. I liked that quite a bit. Felt kind of like Fables.
Hercule steals the crown of the King of Death, but it feels like the crown is merely there to give Death a reason to come after Hercule. Without giving it any inherent importance, the crown seems a bit played up--it was "less convincingly shiny and bejeweled" than the fake crowns, after all. Not that there's anything wrong with MacGuffins, but it could use some fleshing out, I think.
On that note, Hercule's motive for stealing the crown in the first place feels rather hand-waved.
The phrase "robbed the King of Death blind" appears twice, but the "blind" part of it doesn't seem to come into play during the story.
> Grimly, the figure turned.
This was cute.
"Ronald Baloney" is a pretty interesting name, though I feel like its inclusion here detracts more than it adds to the story.
The story itself is solid, though I didn't know the source material without HiTime providing its name. And after reading its Wikipedia summary, it feels uncomfortably close to that--I feel like the author is going for homage, with the "Baloney" reference, but with little difference in story progression, it also feels more like... well, more than that. In addition, these days, the spouse is always the first suspect--this is a kind of story from the days before DNA evidence and cell phones.
Other Dahlia's dialog blocks feel sort of... well, blocky. They feel more like their own thing than speech that's integrated with the normal flow of narration. It might be good to break it up with actions or other narration, like normal dialog. In addition, Other Dahlia's voice feels kind of chuuni and cartoonish, like in Paracompact's review.
Some minor quibbles:
- Why "Little" Dahlia? For a while, I thought the main character was some kind of abused child bride.
- When she "filled a bucket from the pump", I thought this was referring to gasoline and she was going to torch the house.
- Pouring rain seems like a setting detail that's better introduced earlier in the scene. Also, it sounds like the bucket was also outside since it's mentioned after she leaves the house, so wouldn't it be full of rain water?
- Dahlia's romantic interest in the policeman seems to be brought up and then immediately brushed aside, which feels like it also detracts more than it adds to the story.
The story itself is solid, though I didn't know the source material without HiTime providing its name. And after reading its Wikipedia summary, it feels uncomfortably close to that--I feel like the author is going for homage, with the "Baloney" reference, but with little difference in story progression, it also feels more like... well, more than that. In addition, these days, the spouse is always the first suspect--this is a kind of story from the days before DNA evidence and cell phones.
Other Dahlia's dialog blocks feel sort of... well, blocky. They feel more like their own thing than speech that's integrated with the normal flow of narration. It might be good to break it up with actions or other narration, like normal dialog. In addition, Other Dahlia's voice feels kind of chuuni and cartoonish, like in Paracompact's review.
Some minor quibbles:
- Why "Little" Dahlia? For a while, I thought the main character was some kind of abused child bride.
- When she "filled a bucket from the pump", I thought this was referring to gasoline and she was going to torch the house.
- Pouring rain seems like a setting detail that's better introduced earlier in the scene. Also, it sounds like the bucket was also outside since it's mentioned after she leaves the house, so wouldn't it be full of rain water?
- Dahlia's romantic interest in the policeman seems to be brought up and then immediately brushed aside, which feels like it also detracts more than it adds to the story.
Was this meant to be "Bulls-eye"? If not, whatever it was going for has gone over my head. Wiktionary defines "seye" as an obsolete form of "say", and I can't imagine what "Bull-say" could mean in the context of this story.
The opening starts off with a lot of tension--the main character is staring down the barrel of a gu--err, crossbow. But from there, it goes onto conversation, a bit of light-heartedness, and then some more conversation. So I agree with Mono's sentiment that "the opening line is like a promise you never keep"--with a story this short, the opening sets the tone for the rest of the story, and the tones here and later are quite different.
Near the end of the story, it's revealed that the crossbow's sight is actually the ring of a king, but without any build up to this reveal, it comes off less as a dramatic reveal and more like new information in an introduction. It raises questions in the second act--Was the main character the one who put it there? If so, what is his goal? With the story ending immediately after, this makes the story feel incomplete--instead of tying up loose ends, it introduces some. I want to say that someone else put it there after stealing it and he's picking it up, with the guard as an unknowing middleman, but then he puts the ring back in the crossbow, which seems to shoot down that theory.
I feel like I'm missing some important clues. (I also have no idea what "will" means at the very end.)
11th hour edit: Addendum to previous theory; the ring thief is the duke that the guard is setting out with, and the guard is in on it. (Thanks to Paracompact's review for some information I'd missed before.) In light of that, I like this story more now, but I stand by what I said before about tension and tone.
The opening starts off with a lot of tension--the main character is staring down the barrel of a gu--err, crossbow. But from there, it goes onto conversation, a bit of light-heartedness, and then some more conversation. So I agree with Mono's sentiment that "the opening line is like a promise you never keep"--with a story this short, the opening sets the tone for the rest of the story, and the tones here and later are quite different.
Near the end of the story, it's revealed that the crossbow's sight is actually the ring of a king, but without any build up to this reveal, it comes off less as a dramatic reveal and more like new information in an introduction. It raises questions in the second act--Was the main character the one who put it there? If so, what is his goal? With the story ending immediately after, this makes the story feel incomplete--instead of tying up loose ends, it introduces some. I want to say that someone else put it there after stealing it and he's picking it up, with the guard as an unknowing middleman, but then he puts the ring back in the crossbow, which seems to shoot down that theory.
I feel like I'm missing some important clues. (I also have no idea what "will" means at the very end.)
11th hour edit: Addendum to previous theory; the ring thief is the duke that the guard is setting out with, and the guard is in on it. (Thanks to Paracompact's review for some information I'd missed before.) In light of that, I like this story more now, but I stand by what I said before about tension and tone.
>>Not_A_Hat
I didn't understand it at all either, so I looked it up--looks like James Ray assassinated MLK on April 4, 1968.
I didn't understand it at all either, so I looked it up--looks like James Ray assassinated MLK on April 4, 1968.
Congratulations to Haze, Haze, Haze, and GroaningGreyAgony for their medals! There were a lot of creative and amazing entries.
>>GroaningGreyAgony
>>Not_A_Hat
>>Fenton
>>The_Letter_J
>>wYvern
>>Kritten
>>Exuno
>>RogerDodger
>>Cold in Gardez
>>FairyRave
>>Monokeras
>>horizon
Thank you all for your feedback!
As Roger pointed out, this was done in GIMP. I was surprised to see MS Paint brought up so much--Cold in Gardez's Rem video and FairyRave's Santa video are amazing, but my MS-Paint-fu isn't anywhere close to that level. The picture was hard enough with layers.
The picture was done entirely with mouse, though--lines were either free-handed or shift-clicked for straightness. (I don't have a tablet.)
I tried looking for a reference that had this camera angle looking up at the inside of a building, but I couldn't find one, so I made my own by taking a picture of the inside of a cardboard box. This made the flower a lot bigger than I expected it to be.
>>GroaningGreyAgony
>>Not_A_Hat
>>Fenton
>>The_Letter_J
>>wYvern
>>Kritten
>>Exuno
>>RogerDodger
>>Cold in Gardez
>>FairyRave
>>Monokeras
>>horizon
Thank you all for your feedback!
As Roger pointed out, this was done in GIMP. I was surprised to see MS Paint brought up so much--Cold in Gardez's Rem video and FairyRave's Santa video are amazing, but my MS-Paint-fu isn't anywhere close to that level. The picture was hard enough with layers.
The picture was done entirely with mouse, though--lines were either free-handed or shift-clicked for straightness. (I don't have a tablet.)
I tried looking for a reference that had this camera angle looking up at the inside of a building, but I couldn't find one, so I made my own by taking a picture of the inside of a cardboard box. This made the flower a lot bigger than I expected it to be.
According to French Wiktionary, it is Ancient Greek for "Hail," like the greeting. It looks like it can be used both for hello and goodbye.
Paging WIP