Young Writers Society

My dear Snoink, really, there is no need to lecture. I said it sounds very Biblical; not that it was. By which I mean, it sounds very sententious and important. As though it ought to be used in a proclamation, LOL. It is, actually, a very odd word. And as for the "s" "z" thing, it is actually technically correct both ways - I looked it up

Dear All,

I am grateful to you all for commenting on the writing piece. I am surprised to see that although I provided you with the critical rationale behind the extensive use of descriptive words, only two of you managed to discuss the ideas presented professionally enough. Nearly all of you gave their subjective evaluation, which is hardly commendable in literary criticism. In other words, I notice that nearly all of you harp on the same idea: the "unnecessary" use of descriptive words. You assume that this "overuse" hinders communication between the writer and reader. Fine? In order not to fall in the grips of each other's judgmental appreciation of Mermaid's Merman and in order not to enter into sophistic argument about the nature of the rapport between a writer and his eligible readers, here's the deal: remove all adjectives from the writing piece, then post your take of it in terms of theme and tone. You can also enlighten me more on what renders certain works of art, such as Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea, Kafka's The Trial, Camus's The Outsider, etc; readable across times and places.

The Other

ENOUGH.

To everyone who has critiqued this story... You all put in very good efforts, and I saw nothing wrong with most of them. However, when you start to criticize a writer's argument, that's pretty much off-limits. You can explain yourself and disagree, but do it respectfully, please. Writers are entitled to their opinions. If they disagree with your views, let it be. Don't try to force your point on them. That being said...

The Other... Here's the deal. We all try to fully appreciate a writer's style - after all, who are we to say how a person should or should not write? However, I do think that everyone here has a good point. Now, I know you aspire to be remembered for your genius and whatnot - but so do we all. And while many of us may indeed make it to the status of "Professional Author" and gain a little bit of profit from our writings, I highly doubt any of us will write the next timeless classic. Why? Think about it. You seem to have an extensive knowledge of famous authors from all different time periods. How many writers lived during those times? How many wrote as a profitable hobby? And yet only a slight handful of those writers were able to break the bonds and be amazing. Now, I'm not trying to say you can't do it - I'd like to be there myself someday - but I'm just trying to show you a realistic side of things. But I digress.

You see... while I've always admired sophistication (and I wasn't all that bothered by your story), not everyone appreciates long, complex phrases. Apparently those who have critiqued are among those people. You have to remember that this is the YOUNG Writers Society. It's unlikely that you'll find the Great American (or British or whatever) novel posted here. Sure, maybe the beginnings of it, or rough drafts or trails of ideas, but multiple Shakespeares and Tolkiens aren't going to show up here. I suggest you check out JustGoat.com, the "older" sister site, and see what people closer to your age think of it.

Also, you sound just a bit defensive. Of course writers are protective of their work and could easily argue a point to their death. But on this site, one posts one's work to get feedback and constructive criticism. Granted, several people here have not been the most respectful in their posts *glares*, but all the same it would be nice if you would at least acknowledge what they're saying before you immediately shut them out and give them a form answer. Think about it - we're readers as well as writers. The majority of your audiences aren't going to be philosophers and such - and if that's what you're going for, then your story won't be as well-read as you assume it will be. My suggestion is to write to both the intelligent and the unintelligent. Complicated words don't show sophistication - they show that you know how to refer to a dictionary. A good writer could use the simplest of words and yet still write a complex story only few will fully understand. What do I mean by that? Add foreshadowing, subplots, allusions, and metaphors. Don't overdo them, of course, but if you include those, the readers will either get them or they won't, but they won't get lost in the main plot. Someone mentioned Tolkien. Sure, you could summarize it easily by saying Frodo acquired the One Ring from his uncle and embarked on a dangerous mission (along with his friends) to destroy the Ring, which he ultimately does. That's all some people ever get out of the trilogy, and that's enough to keep them interested. Some people will pick up on the subplots and their importance to the story. Some will catch clever allusions and parallels. All this without having to grab a dictionary and look up words.

I understand your point about keeping a reader challenged, but sometimes readers are easily frustrated by huge words and won't want to suffer through it if they can't understand it. Their fault? Sure. If they want to read the story, they should grab a dictionary.

But writers do indeed write to be understood. That's why books sell - people understand at least the main plot. The actual message of the piece may fly right over their heads, but at least they can enjoy a story. I can't tell you how to write. If you want to continue using large words to challenge readers, go right ahead. I have no problem with it. If you get published, I may even pick up a copy at the library and check it out. I'm just trying to convey the point others are making, because I somewhat believe in it too, and I'm hoping you won't just shut me out and explain that you're trying to be sophisticated.

At the very least, you could edit your original post with spacing and such. You've agreed with that point, and it would make this story a bit more manageable (although again, I didn't have much of a problem with it).

*takes breath* Now, so this will be somewhat relevant to the topic...

I actually liked this piece. Some of the dialogue tags could be simpler (*cringes* honestly, I'm not critiquing your style, it's just that simpler and shorter tags won't overshadow the actual quote), but other than that I had no problem with the adjectives. In fact, the detail interested me. I could see the storm and feel the underlying tension. My problems are simply with logic and such.

The Other wrote:The last thing Mermaid remembers are Merman’s hands pushing her up to the surface. He was holding her wounded tail away from the salty water; he didn’t want her to suffer more.

This part confused me, although I'm an easily confused person. I assumed Merman was pushing her to the surface through the water. But then you said the part about holding her tail away from the salty water... After reading it again, I'm guessing he held her tail out of the water? I never thought about the salt water hurting wounds on marine creatures, but that makes sense. Anyway, you might want to add a word or two to explain he held her tail out of the water AFTER they reached the surface. Otherwise, it seems like he held it away from the water while he pushed her, and that doesn't make sense.

“Will the neap-tide ever be there again?” “Will Mermaid ever experience Merman’s touch anew?” “Will Mermaid and Merman ever float together and tease the anxious sailors?” “Will I embrace Merman again?” “Oh, I would if I could. Yes, I would if I could.”

I didn't read this as a Dudley Do-Right ending (although once I read it through with that mindset, I had to laugh). Because I'm unsure of the general IQ of mercreatures in your story (I've read some where mermaids were stupid creatures and others where they had human intelligence), I was a bit confused at the sudden reference to third person. It's not consistant with previous lines and with the last two lines. I think it could work if you changed the second to last quote to third person... I could still see her talking to herself and pondering the future. I'm not sure what effect you're going for. Perhaps you're trying to convey the fact that she's not quite stable after her loss, but even that wouldn't make sense. If I lost my boyfriend, I wouldn't suddenly switch into third person, would you? Still, I have to take her possible lack of intelligence into consideration. If mermaids are simple creatures in your story, then yes, this could work. I don't know, it's just a little awkward, I think.

Anyway, I like the storyline. It's hard to really expand on a short story and keep it short, so I'm not expecting subplots or anything, but neither am I expecting great works like Tolkien. It's just hard to pull off a great short story. As far as I know, all those whom you've mentioned are famous for novels (and plays for Shakespeare), not short stories. Still, this is a start, and if you decided to expand it into a novel, I think it could work very well. I liked the mystery and the way you slowly revealed details. I think you could develop Mermaid a little more, but it's not completely necessary in a short story, unless you want it to be completely outstanding. It's difficult to do, so it's your call.

I'd like to see more of your work in the future. Just try to keep an open mind about what we're suggesting (you're a much better writer than some of the critiques have made you out to be) and use our criticisms to better yourself and your story. Good luck!

This was an...interesting prologue type thingy, but way too many adjectives and definitely a lot of words used that weren't needed. Write what you need. It's better to have one word that is concrete than ten words that are mumble-jumble. Keep working and please take into consideration these crits. These people on here give excellent advice and it's highly suggested to use it.