Young Writers Society

.

How am I supposed to comment if I can't read it?
: Shrugs :
Anyhow, I'm assuming this is from a journal or something.
And if it was, it was written in a very interesting way.
I can't explain it, really...I haven't been able to explain a lot of things lately.

That's really.. profound. Really thought-provoking.

I kind of got lost in the conversation between Jordan and his ex.. I guess it's a little over my head tonight. It looks like something I'd love to decipher in the morning though.

Aside from a few spelling errors (which I'm sure you'll catch), there were two problems I had with this. One, when his brother asks, “But if every year is gone, do I have a life?” it seems a little too intelligent for him.

Ok, scratch that. I just reread it, and I think that's fine. And I forget what the other part was anyway.

My favorite part (I actually stopped to read it a few more times) was when he thought, "He’ll figure out, eventually, that changing the world to produce a better one (utopia), generally results in an unhappy subject; besides, truly changing the world around you is a kind of meaningless, tedious task, anyway. And it’s better to just be invisible." That part is really thought-provoking to me. In fact, I might use a thread of that to inspire the direction for my own story.

And now I remember the other part I wasn't sure about. The "(utopia)" part doesn't flow with that lovely paragraph. Either omit it or change that part to "produce a better one - utopia - generally results" or something like that. Parentheses don't work well in stories, in my opinion.

Other than that, great job hon. Keep up the good work.

Reviews, people, reviews!

:taps foot impatiently:

I'm afraid to. :S

Heehee. Don't worry. I don't bite...too hard.

Actually, this was more or less written for someone with your [cape]abilities.

I'll slaught-- critique this and you can slaughter my story! The freaky one, that is...

Where should I start?

I'm not a big fan of fragments, and I especially don't like constant fragments. Sometimes writers use them to have an edgy tone. Other times they believe that fragment will help people read their work in a different way. If you think about it, words mean nothing; what matters is the way the readers interpret it. Therefore, some writers believe that short fragmented sentences are the way to go.

Fragments can be useful, but you must be very careful about using them. In dialogue, they can perfect. I have one character who doesn't speak a lot. Actually, I have several who don't speak in complete sentences (sometimes because they think that too many words clutters up the meaning, and sometimes because they are absolute morons). Therefore, sometimes I would rather have this character say, "No" rather than "No, of course I wouldn't kill your stuffed elephant." You get the point.

But how do you know if you're overusing fragments? Read the story. Every period, stop your tongue from moving and take a breath. If the story sounds wrong, you are overusing fragments. Fragments are intended to be quick and short, like a pin prick. However, if you keep on pricking someone, they are likely to slap you away or get used to the pin prick. Do not overuse fragments.

Also, there is another danger of using fragments. Fragments are often used in action scenes where it is necessary to draw the writer into the action quickly. This is because fragments stick out and readers tend to read fragments more than long sentences. So your dialogue, however smart it might be, is overshadowed by the fragments you insist on putting after it.

Your characters are also not well developed in this story either. It's strange... your stories read like Asimov's without the scientific intrique. I'm not sure why this is, but I think it's a result of a number of things. For one, there's the fragments. For another there's not enough description going on to tell the reader who these people are. There's the dialogue, yes, but it's not supported by any description other than the fragments, which overshadow the dialogue.

There is one problem which is more problematic than these though.

There was a guy named Charlie Chaplin. You've probably heard of him. He made a film, my favorite film of all time, called "City Lights." The film was strange but simple and eloquently woven. The plot? The Tramp is walking along and sees a lovely blind girl selling flowers. He promptly falls in love with her and buys her a flower. The problem? Before she can give him the right amount of change back, she hears a car door slam and then she assumes he's gone. She thinks he's rich. In the meantime, the tramp is rushing to get a $1000 for the girl to be able to see again. Chaos ensues. Eventually, the tramp gets the money for the blind girl, gets it to her, and is promptly thrown in jail. She becomes prosperous; he serves his time.

Some parts of the movie were funny and clever, and I liked that. The part that makes me say that this is my No. 1 favorite movie of all time was the end when she finally sees him. She has a horrified look on her face, and it is all he could do but give a silly smile. He has finally been revealed to him as who he is. It is strangely tragic and made my stomach knotted up. There was hope, yes, but now that she was able to see, she would never accept him with love again.

In this silent movie, there were some very powerful imagery brought up, but it was preaching. Preaching is a very ineffective way to knot people's stomachs up. And boy, did you preach!

Some writers are in the opinion that the only way they can let out their opinion is to start preaching. The only way they can move people, stir up their emotions is to preach. Let me tell you this: even in the bible, the preaching of Jesus doesn't move me much. When he goes to die on the cross, that's when I get choked up. That's when the story moves me to tears. Preaching is just a rant. You can rant about anything! Imagery, in contrast, is setting up certain pictures that can be looked upon as not meaning anything, but end up meaning so much more. The look of horror on the formerly blind girl's face twisted me more than any words could do.

"Now," you ask me, "this isn't the movies. How am I supposed to show this imagery?" That's the hard part of writing. Anyone can just write a rant. Not everyone can create a vivid picture in a person's mind and make it so powerful that it is unforgetable. Yet it can be done. And yes, it is very very hard.

Don't preach. Instead, use vivid imagery to stun your readers.

Heehee. Journal entries are so much fun to post...

But uhm, yeah, in the way of fragmentation, there is a line that says that nothing ever ends. Hence the little fractals of thought.

The other point, with the dialogue, I mean, was to show the reader that all we really do is throw around cliches and people view it as "profound" or "prophetic." But I guess that just means that in my daily speak, I preach a lot and other people preach back.