Hi everybody. I'm really rather loathe to post this here, as most of what goes into the critic's lounge is beautiful artwork, animations, or music, and anything that isn't is normally crap. Thus, by my own admission, I'm posting crap, since this is neither beautiful, nor artwork, nor audible.
I am a writer. I love to write. I would love to become a full-time writer, although this is one of the most difficult careers to have outside of as a hobby in the US. Only, I think it was somewhere around 15-20% of all writers in America live off what they make from writing.
But I'm a writer. I'm not an artist, or a musician. As such, this story is probably the best thing I will ever put on the Critic's Lounge, unless I post another story. I would REALLY like some nice, detailed responses, as I'm not just putting this here to find out what you guys think about it, but because I am going to try to have it published in a professional paying literary magazine.
Thus, I submit for your approval, "The Axe of Theseus," a short horror story.
http://www.geocities.com/espergame/axeoftheseus.doc
just to encourage people to read, it's 3 1/2 pages long. Not to big... It's worth a read...
I don't have time right now, but await comments from me...
I am not English, so I simply cannot say if your "flow" is good or what so ever.. but about the story;
Very exciting, it really made me think a bit at the end.. which i think is the best a writer can expect from his readers.
Spoiler
who the ... killed richard richard, the axe?, a ghost?
positive:
-good plot
-good characters
-not too difficult to read for an outsider like me
negative;
-sometimes you go to long on one subject.. like in the beginning with the axe.. it's a short story and you need all the space you can get.. don't ruin it with talking like 5 lines about the axe.. that kinda breaks the flow.
Spoiler
however.. i begin to think the axe killed richard, and it might be critical to describe it well, since i begin to think the only real love richard had wasn't for the girl, but for the axe
..so after reading that spoiler that point might not even be so negative..Ã, ;D
great job anyway!
Very gruesome. It works well. There are a few sloppy word choices, for example "suck", "target", "mush", but overall the voice is pretty consistent.
Spoiler
As is typical for a short horror (I'm reading some Thomas Ligotti right now) the main character is the only character with any semblance of personality, but I'm guessing that's deliberate.
All in all I would say it was an entertaining read. I did get lost a bit in some of the various, prolonged, descriptions.
I was a bit confused by the the quick transitions and wondered why the main character did not have a conscience. Was he demonically possessed? Why was the weapon so dear to him? Why couldn't he remember her name? She was his object of desire, but we, the readers, knew nothing about her.
There needs to be more of a build up on the characters and their relationships with one another. The reader needs instances of hatred-build-up... and there needs to be a breaking point. (Maybe use the girl as a seductress...in a young, innocent, nieve way...batting of the eye lashes, throwing of the hair, and innocent touches that cause more sexual tension.)
The girl needs more emphasis. She is, in fact, the reason for everything. We need to know what's going on inside his head... He was too professional, there needs to be a slip-up, sloppyness in execution, (no pun intended,) this is his first time. We need a show of mixed emotions.
Maybe it was your intent to leave the reader hanging... you did just that. I personally, love to get the answers at the very end. Giving the story closure.
It's a great start, and has some slight cliche undertones, but again, I love cliche because I can compare it with other things I've seen or read. :)
Good job, keep it up.
A few things...
Spoiler
The first paragraph. For several reasons it doesn't work.
* You give away the unbelieveable, horrendous act as something that has already happened (makes it less interesting) and even say it is expected and usual (which is hardly true). Works better if you build up tension through the story.
* Is Richard's name really the most important thing about him? It illustrates his loneliness, but in a way that makes the reader laugh and think "sucker", where, since he's the main character, you may actually want to have the reader sympathise with him (for starters at least).
* Should lonely people "expect" to become axe-murderers? Or is this a joke? And why should the reader be scared by the story, when the narrator is at such a safe distance from the events that he cracks jokes about them? Works better if the narrator mimics the reaction you want to provoke in the reader.
* Small thing, but Richard's life can have "felt" long, but not "been" long, when he's still only in his teens.
Quote from: esper on Sun 12/02/2006 09:13:20
But I'm a writer. I'm not an artist
Personally I think writers
are artists. ;)
I really enjoy your writing style (techniques, balanced paragraph- and sentence-lenghts etc)
I wish I could write like you, I really do.
There's one little thing I didn't quite like, though. I may be wrong (not being a native English speaker and having very little writing experience).
Spoiler
I didnt like your use of "therefore" in the 1st paragraph (it makes the flow somewhat artificial and "stiches" the sentences instead of connecting them). In [spit!] Academic Writing this word's a must but it's evil cause it puts people to sleep (especially in the beginning of the story) if it stands out like that. Like it's fellow leech-words, "however" and "furthermore", it stalks innocent narratives and ambushes them in dark alleys. I'd advise you to drop it and rewrite the paragraph.
Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the replies, everyone. I'm working on a rewrite, taking everyone's ideas and crits into consideration. Several things you guys said that I find interesting...
Weaver: I know... I tend to be a bit verbose and bombastic at times. "However" doesn't strike me as being quite as bad as some of the other words I might have used. However, if I do it this once, it would be cosmetic. Using words like that is a staple of my writing style. I've always loved and tried to emulate writers who, like Douglas Adams, could write long, preachy, surface-boring paragraphs which in context are hilarious and meaningful.
Fred: I find what you say slightly odd... I never felt as if I were mocking him, rather attempting to make him appear pitiful.
rharpe: hmmm... hanging you say? What did I leave you hanging on? It was my intention to cover all the bases. The reader is supposed to figure things out for themselves, but if I didn't give enough info for the reader to do that, I'd like to know.
Steve: suck and mush were intentional. "Target" was for lack of a better word. And I DID NOT mean to make it overly gruesome. That's not my style. Do you think it was too gruesome?
Nik: Thanks for the encouragement. Now are ya gonna read it or not?
Quote from: esper on Tue 14/02/2006 02:56:31
Do you think it was too gruesome?
No, not at all.
I'm curious to know why you spelt "axe" the British way.
Thats the british way? Thats how I've always spelled it...
(And getting to reading here soon, I'll let you know my worthless opinion tomorrow.)
Yes, I read it.
Ok
Comments:
* I like it and I can see that the form is well thought and laid out.
* I find though that I would like a little mroe knowledge of Richards lonely life. btw loney life is fine with me (not a native speaker though)
* The language is fine by me also, but I'm not really to judge as my English can be por.
* The whole idea with axe-Richard relationship works for me.
And generally, I don't know, if it is me or how I know you, or what I know, but I find that kind of writting and the way that you say things, and most importangly the things that you say and you mean, with the final twist (note weak but never the less predictable) a nice and again well thought out.
What I would suggest is having the reader 'meet' the characters a little more.
Now all we know is Dave, the only guy to be nice top Richard (although we don't know how or why, or why Richard is so unpleasent to be with...), the girl we don't know anything about. I would think that another page spread along the whole text, with descriptions of the characters would benefit this story.
Then again I do know that oyur aim are not the characters them selfes...
Well, anyway I like it a lot (and could also visualise it, which is good for a story).
I read your story fairly quickly, so most of my crits deal with the writing itself rather than the story. Here are some suggestions on how to improve:
(big issues)
- SHOW don't TELL! It's easy to say that "Richard led a lonely life," or some shit, but it doesn't impact the reader as much as if they can reach that conclusion on their own. Your job as a fiction writer is to paint a story with words. Again, the beauty of writing lies with the specifics you add to the story. What clues can you give the reader to develop Richard's personality and depict his emotions? For instance, look at this short paragraph I wrote:
"Jenny swept down the hall past Richard, trailing girlish laughter and perfume borrowed from her mother's boudoir. Richard turned to watch her, absently tonguing the chip in his front tooth. Her cheerful step and the summer breeze from open windows made her hair bounce dreamily. Those auburn tangles -- the color of the cat his neighbor's owned when he was in grade school. He remembered it lying at the base of the driveway, its ribcage deflated. When he nudged it with the tip of his boot, the blood rippled around the tire."
Notice that I give a little backstory, while both developing Richard's character and progressing the narrative. Richard seems like a creepy stalker, but in adolescent way. When he turns murderer, it will be a shock to the reader, but not a totally unfair one from the storytelling aspect. It introduces the cat as a possible parallel to Jenny, and demonstrates how Richard longs for things that belong to others.
- Developing the setting is very important for any story. Coupled with a implied backstory, you can weave realism into your plot. How old is Richard? Where does he live? What does it look like? Neglecting description is a neophyte mistake. I'm not saying you have to make it obvious, like "His name had been Richard for all 16 years of his life, and no one at his middle-class, predominantly Caucasian public school had called him Rich, ever." Maybe just drop more clues, like "During junior year, he noticed Dave and Jenny had moved their desks closer together."
- Pace: resist the urge to speed up the narrative until the parts you wanted to write about more. Keep in mind that the reader, unlike you, knows nothing about the story or the characters. It's easy to forget that a lot of this background information is only in YOUR head.
"Richard was a creepy kid, especially after he killed the person closest to being a friend. Now on to the grisly parts, where he used a wood axe for the murder, which involved lots of mutilation especially around the sternocleidomastoid muscle..."
See what I mean? You want the character to look like the weird one, not the writer.
(smaller issues)
- Try to employ the active voice. Reworking your sentences to feature interesting verbs instead of helping verbs will inject vigor into your writing.
- Eliminate unecessary words. Very, quite, even, just....
- Pay close attention to the beginning and ending of your sentences. Typically, the last word determines the emphasis of the statement. For instance:
"It wasn't altogether unusual or unexpected when he hacked someone up with a wood axe one day." This is a startling revelation, but you downplay it.
“One day, quite expectedly, he took a wood axe from the toolshed and beheaded Dave.†This sentence better captures your reader's interest.
- Many of your transitions seem awkward and choppy. Try reading aloud to streamline the writing.
- The analogy about the maggots and ice cream struck me as totally unecessary. It seemed like you thought you came up with something clever and broke the style just to fit it in.
- The omniscience of your narrative voice detracts from any mysterious element that could otherwise be developed. Mystery is a good way to accentuate the horror of the situation. This story just wasn't scary. It read very matter-of-fact.
- Title: I'm not sure why you would reference Greek lore in the title, since nothing in the theme coincides, other than the axe (which is present in the title also, negated the novelty).
Good stuff. The only thing that bothered me was the maggoty ice cream cone line....just struck me as weird.
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.)... 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'm paying close attention to the majority of your critiques, and the critiques of others, however, as I'm rewriting.
Squinky: Maggots...
Oh, by the way, has anyone figured out what's going on yet? I didn't think I'd made it altogether too obscure, but Big Brother's comment on the title makes me wonder.
Spoiler
In Greek mythology, Theseus was a hero whose ship was getting old and it had to be replaced plank by plank. Once the entire ship had been replaced, was it the same ship, or was it an entirely new ship? The entire idea of the story is:
Spoiler
He killed the boy with the axe, but the handle broke, and he had to replace it. When he went to go bury him, the head broke, and he had to replace it. When the ghost came back to kil him, bound by the laws of the spirit world, he could only do so with the very axe that killed him. Unfortunately for the ghost, it was not the same ax. The girl saw what had occurred, however, and knew Richard's secret. So Richard killed her, but the axe remained undamaged. Thus, the following year, the boy still could not kill him, but the girl got her revenge. The axe was completely splintered, head and handle both, to indicate that it was over.
Wow, that's subtle! ...and way over my head.
Seriously??? Oh, dear. That does not bode well.
...for my classical education :)
I'd never heard of "the Ship of Theseus."
You say Theseus, I think "...and the Minotaur."
The whole thing was quite confusing to me. Was that Dave's ghost or just Rich's imagination? If it was his imagination, then how could he get chopped to piece by something that didn't exist?
It was really all quite confusing... it didn't make sense. I couldn't understand it. One minute; Dave was a figment of Rich's imagination, the next, he chops Rich to pieces? Or did Rich chop himself to pieces? Or was it Jenny? Did Jenny see Dave, did Dave or Rich kill Jenny? Did Dave come back twice, or once?
I'm not sure if this confused anyone else, but it confused me...
This reminds me of "the Portrait of Dorian Gray". Much like it in the sense that, they were young (I'm assuming), and you would never suspect them, because they seem innocent. They also were greedy about a certain object; like, the axe in your story, and the portrait (or his youth) in Dorian Gray.
Add some description about how he really felt about things, if he was guilty, or if he felt no guilt, and why he felt no guilt; or if he feared being discovered or was he just a crazy guy or did he really feel emotions? What was going through his head? If he loved this girl so much, and killed Dave to get her, what was he thinking about her? Go into more detail about how he felt. Also-more detail about where he's from, etc., as mentioned before.
Also-if this is the first time he murdered somebody, why does he have spare axes lying around? He's not a serial killer yet, is he?
Or did I misunderstand that sentance?
No, but he lives in a small town where you assumedly can't just go to the store and pick up a bundle of firewoord as easily as you might just chop it yourself.
Honestly, could everyone do me a favor and just tell me whether or not it's that hard to follow? I think I might need to do quite a bit more rewriting than was originally intended.
Quote from: esperHonestly, could everyone do me a favor and just tell me whether or not it's that hard to follow? I think I might need to do quite a bit more rewriting than was originally intended.
Definitely needs a rework!
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.
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.
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.
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.
QuoteWhile 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
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."
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
Quote from: esper on Wed 15/02/2006 02:12:59
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: Grapefruitologist on Wed 15/02/2006 07:01:07
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 ;D Most people i know own axes... And i promise you that you will find an axe in a local store, if you went looking.
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.
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...)
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).
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.
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...
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.
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.
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...
. 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!
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.
I was going to mention that, too.