Did someone light the Peach Signal for writing critique?
I'm going to ignore the typos---I assume those would get cleaned up later.
PraiseThere's a lot more good than bad!
I
do like this. We don't really know what's going on, but Lindsey is clearly being brainwashed and we're ping-ponging between her brainwashing sessions and the results of them. I like the premise. I'm going to assume Lindsey is at least one of the women in the news articles, if not both. Like, for real, I like the premise and I would love to see more. I think the length of time spent between the two time periods works, especially if this is only destined to be maybe two to three times longer than what we've seen so far. And I'm intrigued by the water droplet thing, and why it being out of rhythm so upset her, and how that will play into the brainwashing. So overall, I think it's a cool concept to start!
OK, critique time. I don't know how technical you are with writing, so I'm going to be pretty basic, and I hope I'm not insulting with explaining some things too simply. I'm sorry this part is going to be longer. That's the thing about critiques. There's not much to say when something is good, there's a lot more to say about things that could use improvement. Don't take this as an indication I think there was more bad than good. Quite the opposite!
Clunky DialogueWhen someone says something, write it how they would say it, not how they would write it. Fuck the grammar check when something is in quotation marks.
“Couldn’t be better, today is perfect. I was just missing you Lindsey and wanted to hear your voice.” Zaida replied.
"I was just missing you" is a mouth full. And if I called up a friend, would I say their name to them? They know who I'm talking to. I mean, I
might do that for emphasis but it feels weird in a casual conversation.
Lindsey stops walking. “Yes of course I want to hear.”
Most people would just say "Of course!'
Unnatural dialogue is definitely the #1 area you could improve on. I think just cleaning this up would go a long way to improving the flow.
POVYou're writing in Third Person Omniscient. The tone is set right off the bat when the narrator gets into the head of the guard and how he noticed the young woman with red hair, and how she lingers in his mind. We then cut to Lindsay and we're now immediately in her head without a scene break.
This is a fucking
hard voice to get right. Part of that is because almost no one writes in that style anymore, so it seems a little alien to readers. Neil Gaiman does it specifically to make his works feel "old" like a fairy-tale. Terry Pratchett does it, where the narrator is basically another character, leaving footnotes and making snide comments about things that the characters don't know. JRR Tolkien did it with the framing device that Lord of the Rings is a translation of some ancient tome into English. Those are all very specific use-cases.
I strongly,
strongly recommend avoiding Third Person Omniscient (TPO) unless you really know what you're doing. In the hands of very skilled writers, TPO is an amazing tool that can be used to achieve very specific styles. In most cases, it's just a mistake someone made, and then we call it head-hopping. I think I'm a pretty decent writer, but I'm not Jane Austen or Terry Pratchett, so I'm very scared to use it. I may write something in TPO one day, but I don't have the confidence yet.
Part of that is because it's really hard to get into the head of a character in TPO. When the narrator jumps around like that, you feel less connected to your protagonist. This works if it's Lord of the Rings and you're writing a grand epic from a 20,000 foot view. When you're doing erotica, I think it's almost always a hindrance. Again, unless you're Jane Austen or Terry Pratchett. They pulled it off somehow (not the erotica part, but feeling close to the protagonist in spite of using TPO
1).
I strongly recommend sticking in Third Person Limited, unless you have a good reason not to. Zoom in on one character, and only narrate their thoughts. It makes the reader feel a lot closer to them. Otherwise we get confusion...
***L is sitting at a table performing an important task. On her right is a large container of marbles. On her left is a similar container, though it only contains a few marbles… so far.
OK, so
is moving the marbles an important task? The narrator says it is, so do I take this at face value? Or does she just
think it's important? If that's the case, this would be an example of FID (Free Indirect Discourse) where the thoughts of the protagonist "infects" the narration without any filter words. I love FID. I use it all the time. But you can
only use it in Third Person Limited
2 (or, I guess, some people might say in First Person, but I'd disagree because First Person is already just the thoughts of the narrator).
Minor NitpicksShe thinks to herself, ”why would she be calling me today?”, “Hi Zaida! How’s my BFF today.”
Italics or quotation marks for direct discourse, not both. And the modern standard is italics.
The woman screams unnerved by the pattern, the rhythm is off.
There's a few bad comma splices like this (I should know, I do those a lot too 🤣). They should probably just be two sentences.
1. Look, people have written entire books deconstructing Austen's voice. But we'll say she wrote in TPO for the sake of brevity.
2. This is a lie, of course, because there are no hard and fast rules for writing. You could do it if the narrator has a very distinct voice and is saying something sarcastically, for instance. But you're just heaping difficult-to-pull-off decisions on top of each other when you do this.