Short Horror Story for Publication

[Grapefruitologist]

But I live in the smallest town imaginable, right by the forests and mountains... and we don't just have axes lying around.
But what time is Rich in? Modern day, or before the invention of heaters and stoves? It would make sense if he was, like, a cowboy from the 1800's.
It definately needs more work. I was impressed by most of it, but some of it was rather confusing. So, yes... You need to write it differently.

[Nikolas]

No, it might need some freshen up to do, but honestly, after checking your spoilers, I saw that indeed this was what I had in mind.

I thing that it is pretty obvious.

If you are going to rework on it, do it not for this reason. I could easily folllow what's going on.

[esper]

http://www.geocities.com/espergame/richard.doc

This is the rework. I think the original might be better, but this one explains alot more, and gives a bit of backstory I originally left out because of the length restrictions for publication in a magazine.

Grapefruit, I'll have you know that I have four spare axe handles in my shed, and out here in Arizona alot of us cut our own wood and have our own fires just because it's a pain in the left bittick to go through all the trouble of turning the heat on once a friggin' year, and then only at night. Most people who live nearby also have many spare axes and axe parts, and a big bundle of firewood in their back yard.

As far as I know, no one has bodies in their back yard, either, but that's a matter of speculation.

[fred]

Wow, I like the new version a lot more - the tone is more consistent, the tension builds up slowly, along with the character description, and basically everything that happens makes sense to the reader.

Perhaps the question of whether the ghost can use the repaired axe is a bit confusing, but it works in terms of Richard clinging to some desperate hope that his cleverness prevents him from being punished. Which I guess it doesn't.

There's just one sentence where I think the narrator gets in the way of the story, by claiming to know what a ghost might say.

While this wasn't exactly what a ghost might say, it was close to what Richard, a fan of old B-movies, expected it to say.

It leaves the reader wondering who the narrator is, since he knows about ghosts for facts, which breaks the fictional suspense.

Better, in my opinion, to have Richard reflect on the matter himself. Like if he wasn't certain whether the apparition was speaking to him, or whether he made up its words in his own mind.

Good job

[esper]

Heh. I guess that makes sense, since I've been studying the paranormal for twelve years...

I guess it should read "That wasn't exactly what one might expect a ghost to say, but Richard, a fan of old B-movies, found it the most likely arrangement of words to be used by such an entity."

[fred]

Better, but you're still supposing that one has certain expectations towards the rethorics of ghosts, which may fit on your intended reader, but strikes me ass odd  :o

[big brother]

Big Brother: Thanks for the in-depth crit. Most of what you said was obvious, as anyone who reads books on how to write would know (active not passive, show not tell, etc.)...

I'm glad you know this. I never said you didn't, just that I'd like to see more of it in your story.

My problem is the four-thousand word limit I have going on. I wish I could spend more time on these things, but in most of the short stories I've read, the descriptions are left to the reader as the meat of the story is dealt with in the limited word count allotted.

I wouldn't worry about the word limit. You have a good 1500 more before you're around 4000. Usually writers will go over their limit by 1000-2000 words, then revise. A story that's too short is a bigger problem than one that's too long.

When I talk about description, I really mean specificity more than purple prose. Your job is to evoke an image in the reader's imagination. For example, "car" is a very open ended noun, while "Mustang convertible" is more specific. The latter provides extra information. It might illustrate something about the character who drives it. Maybe he's a little flashy. Now I no longer have to say "So-and-so was a flashy guy". I can tell the reader this by the details.

Perhaps instead of "He wanted her" there would be a more powerful image to describe exactly how he wants her or what he wants about her. If we're going to be inside Richard's head, you might as well dwell on his obsession more (since he obviously does).

I think some of your analogies ("He burned in his lust for her, secretly brewing inside him like the endless cups of steaming coffee he made all day", "his soul burned away a bit more like the tip of a cigarette being puffed on by some cosmic force urging him to join the ranks of the other sickly uniform members of society") are far too melodramatic. They stand out from the rest of the narrative, trite and overdone. Remember, short and powerful comparisons can be far more impressive than something drawn out and unnecessarily emo.

Dean Koontz is a horrible writer (all around), but especially when it comes to analogies. A few of them in his literary travesty, "The Face", made me laugh out loud. One was something like "The skeletal branches scratched at the grey sky, which lay over the horizon like a bruised and battered boxer's body."

I noticed a bit of ambiguity around the first murder. It describes his emotion when he decided to kill Dave, then continues to describe the deed. Was this how he imagined to do it, or how he really did do it? It's unclear if his decision to kill occurred on the same night he did kill.

I suggest you find a good local writer's circle and perhaps see if your local community college offers a fiction writing class (with group critiques). It's important to get a lot of input on your work. As Faulkner said, "Kill your darlings." I highly recommend Janet Burroway's "Writing Fiction" as a reference.

[vict0r]

But I live in the smallest town imaginable, right by the forests and mountains... and we don't just have axes lying around.
But what time is Rich in? Modern day, or before the invention of heaters and stoves? It would make sense if he was, like, a cowboy from the 1800's.
It definately needs more work. I was impressed by most of it, but some of it was rather confusing. So, yes... You need to write it differently.

You dont have an axe? I live in the city, and i have an axe Most people i know own axes... And i promise you that you will find an axe in a local store, if you went looking.

[Grapefruitologist]

Hmmm...
I guess we're just freaks then. xD
One thing that still doesn't make more sense. It says he went to the funeral...
If he hid the body, how could their be a funeral? Wouldn't people notice that Dave was missing, but not necessarily dead yet? After awhile, I would suppose they'd assume he'd died, but they'd do some sort of search for him first. You should go into more detail about how they came to the conclusion that he was dead.

[Nikolas]

That is a good point actually...

Moreover once I started reading in the second paragraph, second row or something there was Dave, who went to work blah blah... who is this Dave? Do introduce him to us... At least this is how I felt while reading it (the second version, cause inthe first you did explain that Dave was the only man who spoke to Richard, who was his friend and so on...)

[esper]

Ah. Wake, not funeral. Good point.

Big Bro: didn't mean to come off like a jerk there. What I kinda meant to say was, it's one thing to know something, but another entirely to put it into practice. Thanks, seriously, or your critiquing. I wanted to run this by you... I don't normally use such whacky analogies, but this story is supposed to be more from the perspective of Richard, and I thought those were things he might think himself, specifically, and both ideas (the fact that all he did was pour coffee all day long and his desire to do something other than be a cog in the wheel of society) were motivational to him. Are you still saying that they're too much, or is that just not a good idea period?

Nik: I was honestly of the opinion that readers didn't like to be told every little detail. Besides, it's obvious from the first paragraph wherein we meet Dave that he's a student at the local school, he has money, that he's more popular than Richard, and that he's dating Richard's dream girl... then, throughout the story until his death we learn more about him. What more would you have liked to know (note that this is not a sarcastic comment, I'm honestly looking to see what readers want to know).

[Grapefruitologist]

I would acctually agree. I usually stop reading any stories if they dwell too much on details... it gets too monotonous after awhile.
I do think it would be better to know about his personality though. Usually rich popular people are seen as being snooty, so it would be easy to sympathize with Rich when he killed him. I don't know if that's what you were going for or not, though, since in the first one he seemed like somebody who likes to do good and be nice to outcasts. So you might want to add that part in the second version, to show what his personality was like.

[Nikolas]

I'm not sure...

I agree that I don't want all the details thrown in, but as I was reading it (and this still applies after more than a couple of times I've read it), the way that Dave comes into play seems a little weird.

"watching with a keen sense of loathing as Dave drove by on his way..."

Of course the reader will read the whole story and will know who Dave is/was, no doubt about that. But while reading it, honestly I went a little back to check if actually Richard was the name or Dave and there is some confusion there...

It could be just me... You know that I'm not native speaker...

[esper]

Here. I hope this is the final draft.

http://www.geocities.com/espergame/richard.doc

I'm interested in submitting it to a magazine. If anyone cares to give me a hand, www.spicygreeniguana.com is the best compilation of such markets I can find. I was very interested in www.darkrecesses.com, as it is a newer magazine, maybe with a smaller fanbase but also with less competing entrants.

[Grapefruitologist]

That is really good. But I don't know, you might want to get somebody else's opinion, who hasn't read all about it yet, because it might still be confusing to people who haven't read it like 3 times... I wouldn't know; since I've read it... well, three times (and heard all the comments about it, so I know what it's about.)
But good, anyway.

[Nikolas]

You know what? I like it!

Now tha you gave Dave a last name, I don't mind anymore at all. You corrected the wake (and the funerall)... One thing I do mind just a tad is the parenthesis you use once for the fertiliser... I would prefere it not to be there. I don't like parenthesis in stories, while I don't midn generall. I'm sure thast there is a better way to say this.

I have a ltitle confussion at the part where:

Spoiler

Jenny killed Rich! It is not exactly clear...

[close]

. But as my aboe poster said, I already know the story so it does makes it difficult to judge it...

Go for it, I say!

[ManicMatt]

Okay then , I've read it for the first time. Let me just say that I like the words used and there's a lot of good stuff here, but I did have to read certain paragraphs twice to try to understand it. (Although I'm rather tired and it's late) So recap here, I liked it, but I'm probably going to sound harsh and mean here! So apologies in advance.

Spoiler

Did Jenny kill Rich as a ghost, 'cos the axe is still there? I thought the Dave ghost thing was just Richard's own insanity?

Mostly I was confused by things like:

Dave had always been rather unimaginative in real life, as was proven by his eagerness to go off to a place where old men would sit around in sweater vests and tell him how to think. Therefore, when he heard the exact same phrase uttered as it had been one year ago, it didn't much surprise him. This time, he sat in the kind of cool, collected thought that had led to his decision to kill Dave in the first place, and realized the quandary in which the spirit wallowed.

Here is how that looks to me when I read that:

Ok, Dave was unimaginative. Therefore when Dave heard that exact phrase uttered it didn't surprose him. ..the thought that had made Dave decide to kill Dave- Eh? When did we switch back to Richard?

Also, I was confused because I wasn't sure who was driving to work and who wasn't. Then I didn't realise Dave was walking into the shop as well. And then you start off with "Her hips.." sorry who? Bit odd to start it off like that! Perhaps it's my own fault for not knowing what a strumpet is then. Hang on, you mean Rich is already behind the counter? Since when?

Oh and the capital letters bit looks unprofessional in my opinion.

[close]

[Grapefruitologist]

I was going to mention that, too.