Hey! You wrote a stand-alone story that's not directly tied to the contest topic. I approve. Not that I didn't like your works that worked directly within the parameters in a clever fashion, but I definitely prefer your stories that can breathe outside of it. As always, the imagination is here. To me, I typically feel (personal view) that you improve each time out. This should probably happen on reading and writing again and again and again and again (AND AGAIN UNTIL YOUR FINGERS BLEED)! Lol. Okay, maybe a bit extreme but you get the point.

You started off strong. Dropped us into the world, it didn't feel as you overly assaulted us with descriptive language. I wouldn't mind if you did because I like to do that. Felt more or less a good balance, we didn't dwell on it too much and forget that a story is about to be happening. Dead world, then we got the smoke that ultimately brought life back to the planet. Life returns, the original species has a second chance and the humans leave. We have life reborn from the death of a planet. A new hope if you will. All good things.

Onto the cons. The strength of the beginning fizzled out from the middle towards the ending. For me, at least. First, a thing about showing vs telling in the beginning. You said 'the city was entirely deserted' after you said there was no soul to be seen. Then, you said it was a 'rather bleak place, indeed'. We already got those two things from previous descriptions. Those bits felt like repetition that was unneeded, and it was also told. We already see that with the death and barren nature of the ruinous planet. Also, with the greens and blues, I was cool with that. But, there was a three line paragraph that used the word blue three times. A single word in close proximity can be jarring and irritating to a reader. Try to find a different way to get the point across, perhaps there was something else we could focus on. Think metaphors, or whatever you choose that fits. It was important that the sky was becoming blue again, but I feel like we missed out on a better way to express it.

My one big con is the lack of conflict. Dead world, things come to life, species returns, humans leave. Done. Happy ending, at least, maybe a happy ending depending on what the superiors think of those aliens returning from the supposed dead. It was too easy for me. I felt cheated out of a victory. In any story, I usually feel like I can pinpoint a conflict. With this lack of one, it didn't have the effect I would have desired. We should all feel rejuvenated, but I didn't. I felt like I achieved something through a loophole, and didn't harvest the fruits of my labor. That's just me. I did enjoy where you were going with this and your imaginative worlds are enjoyable for me to spend some time in. Conflict, improved dialogue which would benefit from building your characters a bit more, and minor stylistic changes. I did enjoy reading this, and I will continue to read your entries happily!

I have the same problem here as I did with the above story. Lack of conflict. Get to that in a moment. Some stylistic questions first. The quotation marks over "kids" can be justified because we can probably assume they are not as young as kids, and probably no longer kids. Around "husband", however... It feels strange, it reads strange, and I don't understand it. I'd wonder why you put it there. What was the reasoning? As of now, I can't see any reason for it and it draws my attention as though it's meant to be focused on and dissected. However, I don't really know what I should be dissecting. This all seems rather straight forward, and drawing my attention to that drags me away from the other important things within this piece. I feel other readers may feel the same.

What this is, is a portrayal of family life in the winter. Inside, away from the cold, sharing hot cocoa. It's a nice feeling, it's warm. I like that. But, lack of conflict. Didn't get a sense of it, didn't feel like I read anything that came to a conclusion. Cliffhangers are cool, depending the context. This just, faded out. Just another day with the family. No resolution, it just was and because it simply existed it didn't feel meaningful as this should be. This is just me speaking, others may disagree. I feel like you need some string of conflict floating throughout in any story.

You have the talent, fixing a few structure, stylistic choices, and grammatical issues... And you've got something real good. If you can capture that sense of family life, people will stick around to read. Thanks for entering the contest, and I hope you keep coming on in.

I like reading your poetry. Always tends to be a little bit more than meets the eye at a first glance. I can see how people could see this as a seasonal poem, and could pass off as one as well. But, the title of Rising Embers is more than fitting. Sentinel was a rather wonderful choice of wording. Standing tall, these trees, they are the guardians of these forests at their posts. Watching over the life of the planet. The wolf being the fire that devours the green and the wood, I love that. You also fit within the scheme of the topic with ease here. A child being the seed of the tree, lost in the destruction and finding a home under the dirt to grow again. Life after death, indeed. Your metaphors and imagery are subtle and understated, but very effective. No real rhyme, meter, etc., but I don't care too much about that unless you're intending to go for that. I quite like free verse (when it's well done), and I write it frequently myself. 'They Soon Meet' was out of place. It was. Compared to your other language it was unremarkable and didn't do anything to add to the poem, it simply acted as a throw in to get into the next stanza. Target those, eliminate them, and change them. Otherwise, this was very good, and deserves recognition as being one of the better entries this contest.

Dangit, Plat, I don't know if its because your entry drew me into the setting too much or if I've just read so many of your entries by now that I pick up on every little detail, but I just couldn't stop analyzing the hell out of it on a technical level. It wasn't even a bad entry.

The first two paragraphs that follow are what count, here. The rest is details.

---

There is a lack of things happening that makes it difficult for the reader to become invested. After the initial 'event', the bulk of the entry follows the crew, none of whom are given any characterization. (It seems as though this lack of characterization was intentional, as with the sole exception of the leader, it is impossible to distinguish even if the same crewman spoke twice.) This makes them simple tools of exposition, much like the rest seem to be. With little more to its plot than the resolution, this entry relies significantly on its description and overall concept to stand out.

The concept itself is good, and despite its limited focus, allows for a great deal of extrapolation to other aspects of the setting.

The description, however, could use some work. Snippets generally worked great, but when brought together as a whole, there were too many repetitions and inconsistencies to ignore.

The first two paragraphs demonstrate the repetition nicely. The first that comes to mind is the sky, which we are told is orange twice. (In relatively close proximity, there is no need to reuse adjectives and adverbs for the same object, unless it is to distinguish it from similar objects. In this case, there is only ever one sky.) More notably, however, is the repeated use of the same descriptors for different objects: the grey pyramids and the grey roads; the "machines [...] all empty" and "the roads were empty"; the "death of a city" and "the hills were dead". It could be said that the first was intentional and that the latter two were imperfect matches. but had the "sun gazed over" or the "sky gazed down"? These are only some of the many repetitions in this entry, all close together. And worry not, for they won't be the last to be addressed.

Another issue that arises in the first two paragraphs is one of inconsistency. An explicit contradiction, actually! The very first sentences tells of blowing dust, but the second paragraph notes that "not even wind was present to stir some motion into the dust".

There is also an inconsistency of narration in the first paragraph—it is conventional that after the first time an object is referred to, it be designated with a the. Therefore, the pyramid buildings. (The opposite is done later, when "smoke had appeared from the blast", which didn't exist until that moment.)

Moving on, the third paragraph had a jumbled timeline that made it very confusing to read. the first sentence happened last, the second first, and the third in the middle! Immediately thereafter, the fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences to repeat these events in the correct order, which only adds to the confusion. The easiest remedy would be to remove either the second or the third sentence—alternatively, a well-placed semi-colon could have linked them as one, making it clear that together they formed the explanation for the first.

In the third paragraph is also a thematic inconsistency of minor note, but one that repeats itself throughout the entry. "Could be heard". "All one could see". "As far as could be seen". "A sharp eye would be able to catch". These all imply that there are observers to the scene. While just a normal narrative tool, this goes directly against the theme of desertion present in the description. That there are, in fact, inhabitants below is supposed to be a shocking reveal, and therefore should not be reflected in the narrative style.

Later, there is another inconsistency, though not an outright contradiction like before. The smoke spreads "instead of eventually fading", but in the same paragraph is said "then, it started fading". This means the smoke did eventually fade, but can be easily rectified by simply saying "only then, it started fading". (Faded into nothingness is used at the start of the next paragraph. With the same word being repeated so much, the synonym dissipated is strongly advised at this point.)

A final note on repetition. Many paragraphs end in a way very similar to the way the paragraph that follows starts. "Then, it started fading", is followed by "Starting with the origin, the smoke faded". Similarly, "to give the area life" is followed by "The area was now [...]". While it is good to have paragraphs flow into one another, it is helpful to be more subtle when doing so. (Okay, not the final note, here's another. As before, green is used way too much, and both the road and the city are overgrown.)

At this point, it is safe to move on from the description to the dialogue-based exposition, which suffers from far fewer issues. In fact, there is but one of significance: "This was the case." Because these characters exist only to provide exposition, having the narration itself feel the need to corroborate their statements is both jarring and redundant. Everywhere else, the narration accepts their speech as fact implicitly, providing supplementary details for the reader when needed. That's good. This little bit is not.

There is a distinct lack of definition in the goings-on that make it difficult to interpret any of the context. Evidently, the core of this entry is built around the concept of family, but the way the family is presented is too confusing.

The general assumption made is that the father-figures are a homosexual couple. However, this is continuously undermined by other details. To say he is the second father implies that either the "first" is dead or removed, and therefore he would be the step-father, second in line. Later, it is understood that perhaps the "second" father is called such because he came into the picture later in the kids' life, perhaps after their biological father divorced their mother. This can be assumed by the age gap, and the labelling of the "first" father as their true father. And yet, while the kids continue to call this man "Dad", they also ask about his family, not theirs, which again implies a separation.

Other subtle points of confusion like this appear. For example, the kids are said to be older, one even going so far as to be called a man; and yet they are described as wanting above all to play in the snow? At the same time, the narration refers to the now older "kids" after describing their adventures in the snow, which was beforehand used as the distinguishing factor separating them from their youth, when they merely watched. Either three stages of age are being compared, or the narration is simply contradicting itself. Either way, it is very jumbled in presentation.

On a related but more technical level, there are some sentences that are internally inconsistent due to structural limitations. The most notable such case is "If anything, it made him realize what he had; however, it made him miss what he once kept close to his heart." Generally "if anything" is used to say either that the only possibility other than having no effect is the listed effect. Following that with a however to contradict it makes no sense, as it undoes the inherent binary of the previous phrasing. A more logically consistent and widely used version would read as such: "If anything, it should have made him realize what he had; however, it made him miss what he once kept close to his heart instead." If the intention was to have both occur and not be mutually exclusive, an alternative to however would be required.

Finally, the entry is simply too short and too confusing to foster the emotional connection readers are likely intended to have with the characters. In fact, there isn't even any indication as to why the "first" father need be worried about, save that it is only a cause for concern during winter.

A very strong entry, so much so that it is difficult to find fault in either its composition or its plot. Both of the characters were well developed. Admittedly, the switches in narrative point of view—both limited, but sometimes focusing on Jennifer's and sometimes Jeremy's internal perspective—were a little jarring, but tying it to whichever of the two was speaking in a given paragraph more than made up for it. The description, narration, and sentence structure were great, with details being thrown in unnoticed but sticking nonetheless—such as when warm tears forming in her pale blue eyes was mentioned, and despite not drawing focus to the description of her eyes, it was still clear that from that point onwards the comparison to the blue-eyed Estonian implied she would be a similar, but more attractive version of Jennifer. Subtle, but effective.

It seems, then, that if there is anything technical to discuss at all, it must then be primarily positive in nature.

As is often the case, the juxtaposition of long and short paragraphs is used effectively to create and maintain tension, but perhaps more so here then in other entries for the short sentences in question are on point. The way that they tie back to the just finished paragraph in so succinct a way is fantastic.

A more odd choice is the regular switching of verb tense throughout the entry. For the most part, the narration maintains a present tense. However—and this usually occurs when Jennifer starts to lose focus—it treads into the past, evoking the typical storytelling tense that matches perfectly with her internal escapades into personal fantasy. Unfortunately, this tendency is used in a few cases that are not so thematically appropriate, and therefore most likely in error. For example, most of the paragraph starting with "I'm here for you" is in present tense, but it ends with he concluded. This past tense continues into the next paragraph, but is reverted in the one after that. Not a mistake that is easily noticed, and it is used well more often then not, but something to keep in mind.

but here it was [+]

@platinumskink
Hey check it out – it’s a stand-on-its-own story! Nice. It’s not, per se, a conventional story – by which I mean, it doesn’t really follow a normal plot arc – and I’m fine with that. You started out with really good descriptive paragraphs, setting a very clear and bleak scene. Plenty of room to do MORE of that, but plenty of room to do LESS, too – not sweating those options, this was a good level. Then, we had the white smoke – a pretty interesting device that’s literally changing the world in an instant, and you described all that pretty well – more on that later – to good effect. Then we have, I’m just going to say Captain Crrrck, and his team arriving and briefly meeting the aliens before departing in peace, with a few hints that this discovery might cause some conflict later.

We didn’t have any conflict in the story itself. and this is certainly not normal for writing, but I’m okay with that. Almost all stories need conflict; this isn’t one of those stories. Anyway the purpose of conflict is usually to bring about change, and you skipped that step in a way that works just fine. Style-wise, this was a little inconsistent, in that I felt like it went from “Pretty outstanding” to “Well, okay” from one part to the next. You started, I think, very strong, and sort of tapered off – like if that super-descriptive treatment you gave the dead city were applied to the Close Encounter of the Crrrrrrrck Kind, it would’ve been….. Idunno, I would’ve liked that. But there were definitely some extremely bright spots here.

Things that didn’t quite work for me: Captain Crrrck and his team don’t really exhibit much character. Their conversation doesn’t really come across as a conversation – it sounds more like an author trying to pass some information to the reader. There’s a hundred ways to skin that cat, and I know you’ve read some of mine – I just leave the reader high and dry and if they can’t figure out what’s going on, that’s their problem. That’s……. probably not the best solution, but I feel like the characters and the conversations are more genuine that way. There’s a balance to be struck and you can find it.

Also, there’s a thing in the middle of the story (small thing) that I’ve seen you do a bunch before and it always bothers me. It’s this:
<Snipped quote>

A paragraph break in the middle of a sentence. Look – I play fast and loose with sentence structure and grammar and all that, so I’m maybe not the best person to talk about this! But that bugs me. Not so much because it’s wrong, but because it’s really not accomplishing anything. Do wrong stuff as much as you like, but do it for a reason, I say.

ANYWAY – I like it. I’m happy to read….. well not a GENERIC story, I mean, hardly that, but a story that could work just as well outside the contest setting. So I’ve rambled on about it for a while. YIKES this got long….. Look, I enjoyed it. I genuinely like this entry.

What, don't I usually write stand-on-its-own stories? XD

Mid-sentence thing noted. I'll avoid that.

Noted on the part that it seems to start out strong and then fade away. I'm not entirely sure what I could have done against that. I agree, by the way. But I really, REALLY wanted to somehow get the story across, which I really couldn't without having them actually tell what's going on and have this little encounter that they were definitely destined to have. Maybe I could have somehow written it entirely word-lessly? Not even sure how that would have worked. The image I had in my mind when I started writing was definitely the first part. The second part came along when I needed to sew things together to make sense. So, yeah, they were never meant to have much character. There isn't much room in such a small entry to have character. Hm. Oh, well.

I'm happy you liked the entry. I will continue writing, and see what more crazy things I can write up in the future. Hahaha. Thanks for the review~

But Here It Was [+]

Hey! You wrote a stand-alone story that's not directly tied to the contest topic. I approve. Not that I didn't like your works that worked directly within the parameters in a clever fashion, but I definitely prefer your stories that can breathe outside of it. As always, the imagination is here. To me, I typically feel (personal view) that you improve each time out. This should probably happen on reading and writing again and again and again and again (AND AGAIN UNTIL YOUR FINGERS BLEED)! Lol. Okay, maybe a bit extreme but you get the point.

You started off strong. Dropped us into the world, it didn't feel as you overly assaulted us with descriptive language. I wouldn't mind if you did because I like to do that. Felt more or less a good balance, we didn't dwell on it too much and forget that a story is about to be happening. Dead world, then we got the smoke that ultimately brought life back to the planet. Life returns, the original species has a second chance and the humans leave. We have life reborn from the death of a planet. A new hope if you will. All good things.

Onto the cons. The strength of the beginning fizzled out from the middle towards the ending. For me, at least. First, a thing about showing vs telling in the beginning. You said 'the city was entirely deserted' after you said there was no soul to be seen. Then, you said it was a 'rather bleak place, indeed'. We already got those two things from previous descriptions. Those bits felt like repetition that was unneeded, and it was also told. We already see that with the death and barren nature of the ruinous planet. Also, with the greens and blues, I was cool with that. But, there was a three line paragraph that used the word blue three times. A single word in close proximity can be jarring and irritating to a reader. Try to find a different way to get the point across, perhaps there was something else we could focus on. Think metaphors, or whatever you choose that fits. It was important that the sky was becoming blue again, but I feel like we missed out on a better way to express it.

My one big con is the lack of conflict. Dead world, things come to life, species returns, humans leave. Done. Happy ending, at least, maybe a happy ending depending on what the superiors think of those aliens returning from the supposed dead. It was too easy for me. I felt cheated out of a victory. In any story, I usually feel like I can pinpoint a conflict. With this lack of one, it didn't have the effect I would have desired. We should all feel rejuvenated, but I didn't. I felt like I achieved something through a loophole, and didn't harvest the fruits of my labor. That's just me. I did enjoy where you were going with this and your imaginative worlds are enjoyable for me to spend some time in. Conflict, improved dialogue which would benefit from building your characters a bit more, and minor stylistic changes. I did enjoy reading this, and I will continue to read your entries happily!

Teh-heh. I'm happy you approve. Personally, I don't really feel like I am improving particularly with every entry I write, but maybe I am? Would be wonderful if I am. Would mean I've been writing all these stories for some other reason than just personal achievement and to feel sentimental about in forty years. Haha.

Though, yes. I repeat myself. I've noted that happens a lot when I'm describing things. It's a point I can improve on. This has been noted. Hm.

The lack of conflict was intentional. This was all a little coincidence. I very much intended this to just be a little experience. I was just creating this little story about a specific incident which didn't necessarily need conflict. Your opinion has been noted, so that's how the experiment resulted. Very well. Heh. Thank you very much for reviewing~

>C+

Entry #1: But Here It Was [+]

Dangit, Plat, I don't know if its because your entry drew me into the setting too much or if I've just read so many of your entries by now that I pick up on every little detail, but I just couldn't stop analyzing the hell out of it on a technical level. It wasn't even a bad entry.

The first two paragraphs that follow are what count, here. The rest is details.

---

There is a lack of things happening that makes it difficult for the reader to become invested. After the initial 'event', the bulk of the entry follows the crew, none of whom are given any characterization. (It seems as though this lack of characterization was intentional, as with the sole exception of the leader, it is impossible to distinguish even if the same crewman spoke twice.) This makes them simple tools of exposition, much like the rest seem to be. With little more to its plot than the resolution, this entry relies significantly on its description and overall concept to stand out.

The concept itself is good, and despite its limited focus, allows for a great deal of extrapolation to other aspects of the setting.

The description, however, could use some work. Snippets generally worked great, but when brought together as a whole, there were too many repetitions and inconsistencies to ignore.

The first two paragraphs demonstrate the repetition nicely. The first that comes to mind is the sky, which we are told is orange twice. (In relatively close proximity, there is no need to reuse adjectives and adverbs for the same object, unless it is to distinguish it from similar objects. In this case, there is only ever one sky.) More notably, however, is the repeated use of the same descriptors for different objects: the grey pyramids and the grey roads; the "machines [...] all empty" and "the roads were empty"; the "death of a city" and "the hills were dead". It could be said that the first was intentional and that the latter two were imperfect matches. but had the "sun gazed over" or the "sky gazed down"? These are only some of the many repetitions in this entry, all close together. And worry not, for they won't be the last to be addressed.

Another issue that arises in the first two paragraphs is one of inconsistency. An explicit contradiction, actually! The very first sentences tells of blowing dust, but the second paragraph notes that "not even wind was present to stir some motion into the dust".

There is also an inconsistency of narration in the first paragraph—it is conventional that after the first time an object is referred to, it be designated with a the. Therefore, the pyramid buildings. (The opposite is done later, when "smoke had appeared from the blast", which didn't exist until that moment.)

Moving on, the third paragraph had a jumbled timeline that made it very confusing to read. the first sentence happened last, the second first, and the third in the middle! Immediately thereafter, the fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences to repeat these events in the correct order, which only adds to the confusion. The easiest remedy would be to remove either the second or the third sentence—alternatively, a well-placed semi-colon could have linked them as one, making it clear that together they formed the explanation for the first.

In the third paragraph is also a thematic inconsistency of minor note, but one that repeats itself throughout the entry. "Could be heard". "All one could see". "As far as could be seen". "A sharp eye would be able to catch". These all imply that there are observers to the scene. While just a normal narrative tool, this goes directly against the theme of desertion present in the description. That there are, in fact, inhabitants below is supposed to be a shocking reveal, and therefore should not be reflected in the narrative style.

Later, there is another inconsistency, though not an outright contradiction like before. The smoke spreads "instead of eventually fading", but in the same paragraph is said "then, it started fading". This means the smoke did eventually fade, but can be easily rectified by simply saying "only then, it started fading". (Faded into nothingness is used at the start of the next paragraph. With the same word being repeated so much, the synonym dissipated is strongly advised at this point.)

A final note on repetition. Many paragraphs end in a way very similar to the way the paragraph that follows starts. "Then, it started fading", is followed by "Starting with the origin, the smoke faded". Similarly, "to give the area life" is followed by "The area was now [...]". While it is good to have paragraphs flow into one another, it is helpful to be more subtle when doing so. (Okay, not the final note, here's another. As before, green is used way too much, and both the road and the city are overgrown.)

At this point, it is safe to move on from the description to the dialogue-based exposition, which suffers from far fewer issues. In fact, there is but one of significance: "This was the case." Because these characters exist only to provide exposition, having the narration itself feel the need to corroborate their statements is both jarring and redundant. Everywhere else, the narration accepts their speech as fact implicitly, providing supplementary details for the reader when needed. That's good. This little bit is not.

XD

Thanks for the analysis. There may have been more inconsistencies in the text than I thought. I was rather aware that I might have been reusing words when I wrote, but at the time there was only a few days to go and I didn't feel like making an extreme effort to widen my vocabulary. Maybe I just need to get more clever with my descriptions, too. Hm. In any case, yes. Thank you very much. I'll keep this in mind for the future, and REALLY keep it in mind when I reread my next Labour entry. Because... descriptions is going to be important here... Haha...