My Photo

Sites to See

July 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Blog powered by TypePad

.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    « Flogometer for Richard: would you keep reading? | Main | Flogometer for Glenda: would you keep reading? »

    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83453034869e200e5520758778834

    Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Flogometer for Rob: would you keep reading?:

    Comments

    Sheila

    I liked the image of a person thinking they see something through a steamed-up window - it's ominous and creates a bit of tension. The description of the forest adds to this feel. I agree with Ray that you could just keep these two elements for your beginning.

    Like Ray, I don't think "heave" is the right word for the pot. And she ambles to the doorstep to breath in the air and look at the forest - does she have a door? Did she open it?

    Good luck!

    Jessica

    When I'm reading, the difference between descriptive writing and overwriting comes down to the significance of the details being treated.

    I thought the writing was clean, and the descriptions evocative, but I didn't think that much of what was being described merited the attention it was being given.

    For me, the point that grabbed my interest was the flash of --what?-- in the window. IMO, *that* was what should have been front and center, with much description, both of it, and of the protagonist's reactions (internal and external) to it.

    Nice, evocative writing, though. I'm curious what happens next.

    Jessica

    When I'm reading, the difference between descriptive writing and overwriting comes down to the significance of the details being treated.

    I thought the writing was clean, and the descriptions evocative, but I didn't think that much of what was being described merited the attention it was being given.

    For me, the point that grabbed my interest was the flash of --what?-- in the window. IMO, *that* was what should have been front and center, with much description, both of it, and of the protagonist's reactions (internal and external) to it.

    Nice, evocative writing, though. I'm curious what happens next.

    Mai

    Overwriting sometimes has to do with the author unconsciously teaching the reader.

    If this were the opening of an illustrated book for a younger audience, with minor some changes, it would do extremely well because of that teaching quality. And the writing is, as others have said, very evocative -- so much so that it would probably thrill any illustrator assigned to the book. The teaching aspect of the writing could be a little more straightforward; for example: "...infusing the air with the bergamot fragrance of Earl Grey Tea..."

    I was really taken with the curved edges in the images -- "wrapped a towel around the handle," "Wispy curls of steam rose," "the dark tangled trees of Bracken Wood," "moon sat there behind wispy clouds," "ancient oaks and sycamores," and "twist their trunks and boughs into evermore bizarre shapes."

    I can see her heaving that teapot -- it tells something about how delicate she is.

    Danie

    "When something caught her eye and she automatically looked up," and then the question comes: "Did something just past the window?" That's when I knew I'd give it a pass. Grammatically-speaking, there's nothing wrong with this opening, but until the last paragraph, it struck me as amateurish in execution, especially the above-mentioned part.

    I sensed that the writer was finally comfortable with his scene when he started describing the night, the moon, the sycamores. It was as though the words were coming from somewhere else. This is smooth, evocative, and as Ray said, much more interesting.

    I must say that I have a problem with the verb "sat" for almost any situation that doesn't involve a butt hitting a chair. I can't picture a moon sitting; it's hanging up there in the firmament, maybe sitting on a heavy cloud, but even then, the moon is heavier than the cloud so it wouldn't sit for long in my mind's eye, which tries to picture the scene.

    Kamila Miller

    I loved the details, but there were simply too many of them. I'd thought at first that I would get a glimpse of what's out there, and that came nice and quick, but then it got shrugged off and the story returned to description.

    About the description--what is it doing? Some things, like the hefting, serve to inform the reader about the frailness of the character (although that may have been a misleading detail.) The rest--if this was theater, the play would mostly be backdrop so far. I would have turned the page simply because the prose was so lovely, but if nothing more of interest happened on page two, I'd definitely put the book down. There's too little time in the world, alas, for me to wait for the story to begin or for flickers of things to return on their own.

    Which leads me to another point--since the pov character dismissed the flicker of something, I assume the flicker returns on its own. That's a bad, telling design flaw in that the pov character isn't protagging. Like the reader is forced to do, she waits for things to happen to her. That's not a promising start and is another reason why I'd only read on a tiny bit further before giving up on this story, lush as it promises to be.

    L.L. Abbott

    I liked much of what I read, though as various statements above, that would seem to indicate I'm am amateur reader.

    Changing "runaway steam train" to 'runaway steam engine' -- train implies everything from the engine to the caboose. The common vernacular is 'runaway train.' It's the old steam enginees that you want your young readers to envision.

    As for heaving -- When I read "kettle" I think of cast iron. If your FMC is somewhat slight, "heaved" worked for me. As does the rest of the finely worded paragraph. It sets a scene and tone.

    I'd delete: "and she automatically looked up." as it slows the tension you are trying to instigate. I'd also change a few ing words to ed-- "She wiped the condensation from the glass and peered through the window; out past the garden to the dark tangled trees of Bracken Wood beyond." making it more active. "Satified it was nothing, she turned and poured the Earl Grey into a fine china cup."

    I agree with the rest of Ray's suggested corrections. But understand your use of wince and wood. Though, you may want to better define the scent you wish to arouse.

    You could avoid the whole 'sat/hung' issue [though most would know what you are saying] by rewording to something like: Wispy clouds shrouded the moon, bathing ...

    The "fairy dust" adds a whole other element to the story. With a little rework, I would turn the page!


    Verify your Comment

    Previewing your Comment

    This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

    Working...
    Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
    Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

    The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

    As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

    Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

    Working...

    Post a comment