-
Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.
Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.
Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?
Tarnished Scars {PREVIEW}
- Thread starter Falthor
- Start date
- Pronoun
- he/him
Well, at least it's not choppy any more.
Your problem is still, overwhelmingly, too many words. Take, for example, this sentence:
It reads like a grammar exercise for people taking English as a second language. You know what I mean, the flat, completely unrealistic sentences you get when you're learning a language? Yeah. "failed to manoeuvre with ease"? Why does this have to be so... wordy?
This is your problem in nearly all cases; there's also some thesaurus abuse going on. Tell you what, let's do this sentence by sentence.
Okay, this isn't too bad. Black of night annoys me, but I tend to not like flowery, melodramatic writing.
Here your problems begin. I'm not sure how a growl is meant to be obedient, for one thing; the "shortly thereafter" was detailed in someone else's post, I believe.
"Shrubbery" is pretty hilarious to anyone who has seen Holy Grail; connotations are something you seem to have trouble with. "Undergrowth" is probably a better word. Now, what I mentioned before: you don't need so many words. "without any hassle" could easily be replaced by a single word; say, "effortlessly". The second part, as well; in general, your writing is very mechanical, not natural at all. For example, I think this sentence would work much better if you reworded it completely, into something like "The beast dashed through the undergrowth effortlessly, its master stumbling in its wake." Doesn't that flow better?
This sentence is a bit of a train wreck. First off, thesaurus abuse. I had no idea "forestal" was a word until looking it up. Hell, arboreal would have been better (at least my spellcheck recognises it as a word). Second, "struck his face every step the person took"? Can you not feel how utterly flat and mechanical this is? You're already talking about him specifically, and then switching back to "the person" is really odd.
Wow this sentence has temporal issues. "After colliding with a tree trunk a second afterward". So, he's running, a second later he hits a tree trunk, and after that he groans. So why is this sentence in reverse? What's wrong with "He collided with a tree trunk a second later, and painful groans ..."? Again, this is very very mechanical. I don't know, are you trying for odd word order and sentence structure, or is your instinct for what's natural honestly that bad?
Shone, for one, not shined. Shined is correct in some cases, but definitely not for a flashlight.
I am repeating myself a lot, but it must be said: this is not natural. "through the bushes to the area where the figure was". First of all, the patrolman (where did he even come from? First we've got this beast, then a figure, and now all of a sudden we switch to a patrolman) doesn't know there's a figure there, so it seems odd mentioning the "area where the figure was", particularly as it seems hard to locate the precise location of someone hitting a tree in a forest at night. Again, rewording is necessary; "The light of a patrolman's flashlight shone through the bushes where the figure had been a moment before, but there was no one there." I'm just tossing examples out, here, of what I feel works better, feel free to do something else.
Wordiness! Again. First we have a leaf, which is tiny, and flying, but gently, through zephyrs what the hell is a zephyr (trust me, few people will know without looking up) and then it touches the ground, but softly. Okay, it's a leaf, we get that it's small. And yes, a leaf would generally fly gently; in fact, wouldn't it more float? Or drift? Again, you can easily replace two or more words with one. Or exotic words with simple ones. Out with zephyrs, in with breezes (also, a zephyr is a light breeze by definition; no need to specify that it's a light light breeze).
Now, another thing that seems quite common in your writing: sentences are not related in the slightest. First we've got a patrolman all confused, then we switch to a leaf floating in a breeze, and next sentence we're back to our figure. Seriously, this is just confusing readers. I have no clue what the point of this sentence even is, but trust me, it doesn't fit in here.
Oh, hey, was that last sentence insinuating the figure had climbed a tree? How the hell was I supposed to know that? Don't confuse readers with a non sequitur which is explained in the next sentence; it still confuses them.
Moving on. He stealthily slid down the tree. Okay, apart from word order (slid down the tree stealthily works better) that stealthily is not needed. You are attaching an adverb to every action, which gets tedious fast. The sentence is also clumsy, being divided into three parts as it is; I would suggest something like "... into, paused to regain his composure, then surveyed his surroundings". Also, "he had collided into".
Okay, this sentence is fine. Although how there is forest within five hundred metres of a skyscraper is beyond me.
Ouch, some grammatical errors here. "he had managed", "he had not come here to fail". Otherwise, decent. Although I might replace that last bit with "he did not intend to fail" or similar to avoid repetition.
Fine, but like Ruby said, you may want to lighten up on the colons.
Here you have a problem with description. It's very in your face, with everything described in a sentence "here this is what he looks like, moving on". Not a good idea. Also, I doubt it is coated in skulls and devil's horns. Instead, what you want to do is be reasonably subtle; talk about the master stroking the hound's black fur, etc. Or cutting of one of its horns in a sadistic rage, whatever. Don't dump all the description on as at once (nearly as annoying as an infodump), basically.
Wait what. Who is "it"? The hound, looking at the figure? Okay then, what is "this beast"? The sentence is otherwise okay (colons!) but it's rather confusing when the reader isn't sure what you're talking about.
Thesaurus abuse! Gesticulating (apart from sounding hilarious) is not a very common word. "motioning the dog to follow" or similar sounds much better.
ahhhh so many colons.
Apart from that, word order is off slightly. "they had studied every precise movement ..." is better. Also, "possible event that could occur" not would.
Failure to do what? This sentence just makes no sense. The first bit doesn't mention doing anything, so "failure to do so" is wrong. "Failure to complete it" is what you're looking for. Also I would replace "prime" with "utmost" but that is just me.
I'm sure I could beat their record at a sprint! That figure of speech sounds rather out of place here. Also, "nimbly moving about" is very clumsy. Replace with "moving nimbly". Probably something along the lines of "sidewalk, reaching the fire escape ..." etc., too.
okay hyperbole is annoying in situations like this. I seem to recall you had nanoseconds mentioned in your initial extract, too; why? What's wrong with good ol' seconds, particularly as it would be impossible for a human to calculate every nanosecond? Also why does he need to calculate if he has a watch.
dun dun dun
okay so, in short:
wordiness!
word choice!
word order!
Your problem is still, overwhelmingly, too many words. Take, for example, this sentence:
It reads like a grammar exercise for people taking English as a second language. You know what I mean, the flat, completely unrealistic sentences you get when you're learning a language? Yeah. "failed to manoeuvre with ease"? Why does this have to be so... wordy?
This is your problem in nearly all cases; there's also some thesaurus abuse going on. Tell you what, let's do this sentence by sentence.
Okay, this isn't too bad. Black of night annoys me, but I tend to not like flowery, melodramatic writing.
Here your problems begin. I'm not sure how a growl is meant to be obedient, for one thing; the "shortly thereafter" was detailed in someone else's post, I believe.
"Shrubbery" is pretty hilarious to anyone who has seen Holy Grail; connotations are something you seem to have trouble with. "Undergrowth" is probably a better word. Now, what I mentioned before: you don't need so many words. "without any hassle" could easily be replaced by a single word; say, "effortlessly". The second part, as well; in general, your writing is very mechanical, not natural at all. For example, I think this sentence would work much better if you reworded it completely, into something like "The beast dashed through the undergrowth effortlessly, its master stumbling in its wake." Doesn't that flow better?
This sentence is a bit of a train wreck. First off, thesaurus abuse. I had no idea "forestal" was a word until looking it up. Hell, arboreal would have been better (at least my spellcheck recognises it as a word). Second, "struck his face every step the person took"? Can you not feel how utterly flat and mechanical this is? You're already talking about him specifically, and then switching back to "the person" is really odd.
Wow this sentence has temporal issues. "After colliding with a tree trunk a second afterward". So, he's running, a second later he hits a tree trunk, and after that he groans. So why is this sentence in reverse? What's wrong with "He collided with a tree trunk a second later, and painful groans ..."? Again, this is very very mechanical. I don't know, are you trying for odd word order and sentence structure, or is your instinct for what's natural honestly that bad?
Shone, for one, not shined. Shined is correct in some cases, but definitely not for a flashlight.
I am repeating myself a lot, but it must be said: this is not natural. "through the bushes to the area where the figure was". First of all, the patrolman (where did he even come from? First we've got this beast, then a figure, and now all of a sudden we switch to a patrolman) doesn't know there's a figure there, so it seems odd mentioning the "area where the figure was", particularly as it seems hard to locate the precise location of someone hitting a tree in a forest at night. Again, rewording is necessary; "The light of a patrolman's flashlight shone through the bushes where the figure had been a moment before, but there was no one there." I'm just tossing examples out, here, of what I feel works better, feel free to do something else.
Wordiness! Again. First we have a leaf, which is tiny, and flying, but gently, through zephyrs what the hell is a zephyr (trust me, few people will know without looking up) and then it touches the ground, but softly. Okay, it's a leaf, we get that it's small. And yes, a leaf would generally fly gently; in fact, wouldn't it more float? Or drift? Again, you can easily replace two or more words with one. Or exotic words with simple ones. Out with zephyrs, in with breezes (also, a zephyr is a light breeze by definition; no need to specify that it's a light light breeze).
Now, another thing that seems quite common in your writing: sentences are not related in the slightest. First we've got a patrolman all confused, then we switch to a leaf floating in a breeze, and next sentence we're back to our figure. Seriously, this is just confusing readers. I have no clue what the point of this sentence even is, but trust me, it doesn't fit in here.
Oh, hey, was that last sentence insinuating the figure had climbed a tree? How the hell was I supposed to know that? Don't confuse readers with a non sequitur which is explained in the next sentence; it still confuses them.
Moving on. He stealthily slid down the tree. Okay, apart from word order (slid down the tree stealthily works better) that stealthily is not needed. You are attaching an adverb to every action, which gets tedious fast. The sentence is also clumsy, being divided into three parts as it is; I would suggest something like "... into, paused to regain his composure, then surveyed his surroundings". Also, "he had collided into".
Okay, this sentence is fine. Although how there is forest within five hundred metres of a skyscraper is beyond me.
Ouch, some grammatical errors here. "he had managed", "he had not come here to fail". Otherwise, decent. Although I might replace that last bit with "he did not intend to fail" or similar to avoid repetition.
Fine, but like Ruby said, you may want to lighten up on the colons.
Here you have a problem with description. It's very in your face, with everything described in a sentence "here this is what he looks like, moving on". Not a good idea. Also, I doubt it is coated in skulls and devil's horns. Instead, what you want to do is be reasonably subtle; talk about the master stroking the hound's black fur, etc. Or cutting of one of its horns in a sadistic rage, whatever. Don't dump all the description on as at once (nearly as annoying as an infodump), basically.
Wait what. Who is "it"? The hound, looking at the figure? Okay then, what is "this beast"? The sentence is otherwise okay (colons!) but it's rather confusing when the reader isn't sure what you're talking about.
Thesaurus abuse! Gesticulating (apart from sounding hilarious) is not a very common word. "motioning the dog to follow" or similar sounds much better.
ahhhh so many colons.
Apart from that, word order is off slightly. "they had studied every precise movement ..." is better. Also, "possible event that could occur" not would.
Failure to do what? This sentence just makes no sense. The first bit doesn't mention doing anything, so "failure to do so" is wrong. "Failure to complete it" is what you're looking for. Also I would replace "prime" with "utmost" but that is just me.
I'm sure I could beat their record at a sprint! That figure of speech sounds rather out of place here. Also, "nimbly moving about" is very clumsy. Replace with "moving nimbly". Probably something along the lines of "sidewalk, reaching the fire escape ..." etc., too.
okay hyperbole is annoying in situations like this. I seem to recall you had nanoseconds mentioned in your initial extract, too; why? What's wrong with good ol' seconds, particularly as it would be impossible for a human to calculate every nanosecond? Also why does he need to calculate if he has a watch.
dun dun dun
okay so, in short:
wordiness!
word choice!
word order!
Last edited:
