Young Writers Society

Removed.

The stars were bright. The sky, a liquid jet black color, that made me kind of twitch at its perfection, crashed in on us and smothered us in her cloying brilliance. I swallowed the spit in my mouth, and wiped my hand across my nose.

Ok, this whole sentence, starting with 'the sky' and ending with 'brilliance' sounds strange. Unclear. Take out the 'kind of'. The metephor here is a bit weak. Maybe change the word 'color'

The first few songs they played were soul rap, or something entirely ridiculous. Although, I must admit, I did enjoy the Cha-Cha Slide, but that’s beside the point. Right foot left stomp…They played a slow song, finally, and Jeniffer and I danced, and it was nice, her perfume was next to me and we liked it, because the dance floor made us come alive.

'entirely' isan odd word to use here, it sounds funny. Too many 'ands', add a period in there somewhere. Maybe after 'Jeniffer and I danced'.

And we danced and drank and danced some more, until the people started leaving and the lights began to dim. You were standing there, slicked up in your tux like you were too much for us, but we knew better. As the clock neared midnight, the song came on. There weren’t many people left, but that was okay, because we don’t need no audience when we dance.

Looking back, at all of the memories of
The Dance we shared
beneath the stars above
for a moment, all the world was right
how could I have known,
that you’d ever say goodbye?

I let my fingers spark as they hit your skin, and I quaked under your breath. I rested my other hand on your shoulder, and your hand slipped around my side, and we moved. Swaying back and forth, one step right, two steps left, one step back, two steps forward, and the stars in the sky were our only observers.

Ok, now who are you talking to when you say 'you'? it seems like you are alternating 'you' between Jeniffer and someone else, the guy in the tux. Jumping around confuses readers.

And I, I’m glad I didn’t know
the way it all would end
the way it all would go
our lives, are better left to chance
I could have missed the pain
but I’d of had to miss
The Dance

We were like an ocean, and the lights were dimmed, now. Only you existed in my temporal realm of perception, and that was all that mattered. You had nice cologne that made me want to lick you up like dr. pepper and savor your smooth sweetness. And I spun and we laughed and everything was beautiful and nothing hurt.

ok, hold up, did the girl you were dancing with just become a man?

Holding you,
I held everything
for a moment,
wasn’t I a king?
If I’d only known
how the king would fall…
yeah, who’s to say,
I might have changed it all?

Suddenly our breath was combined, and your lips were at my ear, whispering things I cannot repeat aloud, for fear that someone might sue me. It doesn’t matter though, they don’t need to know, because what they don’t know won’t hurt them. Our eyes met for a brief instant and your hand slipped up my shoulder.

And I, I’m glad I didn’t know
the way it all would end
the way it all would go
our lives, are better left to chance
I could have missed the pain
but I’d of had to miss
The Dance

Nothing matter anymore, because I was with you, I was near you, we were one. I couldn’t see anything, because whenever I looked up there were only blinding lights in my eyes. Cameras, fucking cameras. You must have noticed my disgust, because you soon put your face in front of mine and said, “Shhh…”

Yes my life, it’s better left to chance
I could have missed the pain
But I’d of had to miss
The Dance

As the song came to a close, the lights seemed to get brighter and your eyes seemed to be closer and soon there was a fucking orgy going on in my mouth, but the stars were out, and it was beautiful and nothing hurt and for once, I didn’t wake up.[/quote]

ok, This was a great piece, but it was rather unclear. Are you a man or a woman? who do you mean by 'you', and so forth. The style of writing seems to change from eligant to vulgar off and on, but that isn't an issue, it even makes it better.

"you" = Grant (the person for whom this was written)
"Jeniffer" = "Jeniffer"

that was easy

I'm going to have to go with Tara on this one. You really are very gifted, Brad. Great piece.

I must say, your love of the comma is readily apparent. one question, though.

The stars were bright. The sky, a liquid jet black color, that made me kind of twitch at its perfection, crashed in on us and smothered us in her cloying brilliance. I swallowed the spit in my mouth, and wiped my hand across my nose.

second sentence, don't need the comma before that. When read with it, the sentence sounds akward.

And we danced and drank and danced some more, until the people started leaving and the lights began to dim. You were standing there, slicked up in your tux like you were too much for us, but we knew better. As the clock neared midnight, the song came on. There weren’t many people left, but that was okay, because we don’t need no audience when we dance

you said this was written for grant, so is that who you end up dancing with? that wasn't clear. Also, the phrase "we don't need no audience" doesn't sound like your writing, but I like it here, oddly enough.

What Tara said about the changing reference points of "you" would be cleared up if we knew who you were dancing with, and when.

Nothing matter anymore, because I was with you, I was near you, we were one. I couldn’t see anything, because whenever I looked up there were only blinding lights in my eyes. Cameras, fucking cameras. You must have noticed my disgust, because you soon put your face in front of mine and said, “Shhh…”

I'm not a huge fan of cusing in stories, but again, I don't have any complaints about it here.

And you give anyone trying to critque something a hard time, I must say. I agree with Tara that the change in writing style makes this better, not worse. Kudos to you, Brad.

Everytime you see a "you" it refers to Grant; "Jeniffer," on the the other hand, is referenced to once.

As soon as you read the word, "you," it is safe to assume Jeniffer is no longer being referenced.

I love you Brad. This is so beautiful and it's really cute. It makes me smile.

Oh dear! You wanted me to critique a romance? Not just a romance, but a romance with poetry? You don't know me very well...

Nevertheless, I will try to critique it anyway. Before I begin, know that I am terrile at critiquing poetry and worse at critiquing romance. If you don't want to follow my suggestions, feel free to throw them away.

Incandescence wrote:The sky, a liquid jet black color, that made me kind of twitch at its perfection, crashed in on us and smothered us in her cloying brilliance. I swallowed the spit in my mouth, and wiped my hand across my nose.

The second sentence is annoying me. For one, "jet-black" is way too overused cliche. For another, it isn't clear what's happening. It slightly reminds me of "Chicken Little." So what are you saying? Let's look:

The sky was a black color. The main character was twitching at the perfection of the sky. The sky crashed on the characters and smothered the two in a brilliance. This brilliance caused distaste or disgust by supplying with too much of something originally pleasant.

Which makes me wonder if you knew what the word "cloy" meant.

Now, remember something. The purpose of writing is to convey something to the reader in a clear way they can understand. That doesn't mean you can't use metaphors or similes or symbolism. What that does mean is that you have to be clear about it. Even if you want people to be unsure of the meaning, you want them to be certain what you're trying to say.

Read Orwell's article: http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/comp ... orwell.htm
The article is about political speech, but can be applied to all writing in particular. What comes to mind as I read this sentence is this portion of the essay:

Meaningless words. In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning. Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so by the reader. When one critic writes, "The outstanding feature of Mr. X's work is its living quality," while another writes, "The immediately striking thing about Mr. X's work is its peculiar deadness," the reader accepts this as a simple difference opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way.

There are some writers here who would argue that just because the sentence sounds pretty, it's okay. That's not true. It must be meaningful. Pretty and meaningful make the piece that much more powerful. Don't go into the habit of putting random pretty words in sentence just to make it sound better. Make the sentence concrete and the sentence will instantly become better.

Besides this, you did something rather bad. You called the sky it and then referred to the sky as a her in the same sentence.

As for the rest of the story? There are some parts that look like you are not sure of what to say, but they are not as bad as the second sentence in the story. Remember to capitalize Dr. Pepper, and, if at all possible, don't refer to any brand names. When you are published, it always looks annoying when there is a little (R) following the name. Besides this, the "fucking orgy" comment didn't do anything besides make the sentence unclear. Find a better metaphor.

Also, and this bugged me, I didn't know who the main character was. I've read a lot of writing, and I can tell who is male or female just by looking at the story. With that said, your character sounds as if she is a male. Why? Because you are a guy. Though you are trying to write for a girl (sometimes), you are failing miserably because you are describing as a guy describes. Confusing? Yes. Worst yet, I'm not quite sure why you make her sound like a guy, but you do.

Switching back from character to character only makes the effect worse.

Then you do something very much like that Gollum figure in the Lord of the Rings.

And we danced and drank and danced some more, until the people started leaving and the lights began to dim. You were standing there, slicked up in your tux like you were too much for us, but we knew better.

Us? We? This is either a schizophrenic person or a threesome dancing together?

*sighs*

I looked this over once; I thought the main character was a guy. I looked it over twice; I thought it was a girl. I looked it over three times; I thought you were alternating between characters. I looked it over four times; I hadn't a clue as to who was who.

When a reader gets confused like this, it's really bad. And no, your explanation doesn't help. Whether your character is a girl, guy, transexual, schisoprenic person, or whether you are transitioning character, nobody knows because you don't describe it well enough.

It sounds pretty, but it's not clear enough to be meaningful. Work on the main character and it'll instantly be much better.

Um...I'm a guy. This "story" is written from my perspective. Furthermore, it is not a "fiction" piece, as it follows actual events.

The ambiguity and seemingly random phrases inserted into paragraphs are expressed as a means of postmodernist technique. There are fractals of existence that only come to mind. Furthermore, when we think in our heads, and specifically when we think to someone, we donot use names; rather, pronouns. Your lack of understanding the story only stems from the authoritative severity with which it was written. Or, you have to know me, understand what's going on with me, in order to understand this, or even remotely grasp the disparaging technique employed.

The world "cloying," by the way, means an overabundance to the extreme. "Cloying brilliance," then, means that the sky smothered us in her brilliance, as I said. No one would consider being "smothered" a good thing, would they?

The "main character" is myself. It is a guy speaking, not a girl, which is probably why you thought character development (and therefore the entirety of the story) was bad.

"Besides this, you did something rather bad. You called the sky it and then referred to the sky as a her in the same sentence. "

You understood it, though, didn't you? Obviously, you did.

-------------

In conclusion, I think your reading of this piece is that from a structuralist/essayist perspective, which always does, of course, serve a purpose. However, capitalizing "dr. pepper"? You must think I am a stupid, stupid person. Now, if I were to intend to get this published, I would certainly capitalize things like that, but as of now, no, this is just a short, autiobographical entry. Furthermore, I really do appreciate your comments, as structure does play a major role in poetry and prose, BUT, I think if you go back and read the piece as a postmodernist renditioning of a past event, it will become evident that I did, in fact, succeed with my goal (I only say this because it has been verified by several of my english professors, which still does not constitute a job well done, but I'll take what I can get ).

Incandescence wrote:Um...I'm a guy. This "story" is written from my perspective. Furthermore, it is not a "fiction" piece, as it follows actual events.

That may be very well and good, but if the reader doesn't understand who is telling the story, then its lacking something. You're right; I am an essayist, but I can appreciate good fiction, even if it's post-modernist. But when it is written so that the characters are ambiguous at best, the story suffers.

Your lack of understanding the story only stems from the authoritative severity with which it was written. Or, you have to know me, understand what's going on with me, in order to understand this, or even remotely grasp the disparaging technique employed.

I am a stranger to you and I don't know you personally. That being said, I think you could have done better with this work. The main point in writing is to uncover your soul to the reader and to enlighten them in a powerful way. That is what makes poetry, post-modernist fiction (;)), and writing in general great. If a feeling is spread to the reader, if a reader feels enlightened, then the writer has done his job properly. I remember when reading Jane Austen that I was hooked totally to the book. The book bacame my life, the characters became mine. Not because I have no life, quite the contrary, but I felt so enriched that I would allow myself to share my soul with the author's soul.

I cried and laughed for joy at the ending of "Pride and Prejudice" (all through the book actually) and my heart was filled with joy and exhilleration.

I shivered and reflected on my own sins as I read "The Screwtape Letters" and I remember sometimes being overwhelmed with hopelessness as I read it, because I knew I shared the very temptations which were being talked about in the book so frankly.

And I remember when I read "1984" I screamed and threw the book down when the Thought Police came, so overwhelmed with loss and fury and unjustice, that I could barely do anything but quaver. It was all I could do but to open the page and look at the words in incomprehensible horror.

Powerful writing does this to you. It stirs up emotions and it drives you insane. You want to laugh, cry, dance, whimper, scream, all at once. It doesn't matter whether it is post-modern, poetic, classical, or anything. If it is written wonderfully, then it will stand up on its own. It will not need a label, in fact, a label will not fit it. That is how good a piece of writing should be.

Besides this, you did something rather bad. You called the sky it and then referred to the sky as a her in the same sentence.

You understood it, though, didn't you? Obviously, you did.

However, capitalizing "dr. pepper"? You must think I am a stupid, stupid person. Now, if I were to intend to get this published...

You must forgive me. I am in the publishing biz, therefore I see things as a publisher/editor sees them.

LOL! I'm probably the youngest editor around.

I think it is one of the most beautiful pieces i have ever read bravo

I have to admit the first time I read it I was a little confused. But after reading your post about who was who, I really enjoyed it. It is a beautiful piece and the poetry throughout is really effective.

If I even get close to wreiting anything like that I wuold be lucky.

Loved it, loved it, and did I say loved it? This wasn't your best, but it was still great! Everyone took care of crits already...