|Reviews for Finding Comfort|
| BrokenRain chapter 1 . 5/6/2005
Great imagery! I love how you've made me wonder about the girl and her past.
| Maxwell K chapter 1 . 4/9/2005
Wonderful imagrey, the kind we all strive for! Wonderfully written!1
| DementedOracle chapter 1 . 4/8/2005
Wow, someone who actually WANTS her work looked over for quality. I can be picky without feeling bad about it. This feels like a whole week of birthdays, for some reason. *shrugs* I bask in simple pleasures. . . .*rubs hands together eagerly*
Be warned, I'm going to totally pick apart your writing and analyze it. This will be VERY long and VERY detailed. If you feel I'm harsh, feel free to get me back; I have plenty of writing on this site, and I'm sure you could find a ton of problems with it that you are surely welcome to shove in my face _.
Okay, first things first, this semi-colon should be a comma:". . .danced through the midnight air[;] lending it’s yellow light as guidance. . ." Generally, semi colons should only be used if you have something more to say in a sentence that isn't a complete thought in itself (and, therefore, can't be made into its own sentence), but you can't add any more to that sentence using commas and conjunctions without making it into a run-on; sort of like an appended half-thought.
Next:". . .full of youth [such as] the new spring leaves. . ."There is actually, technically, nothing wrong with this, and it sounds pretty good when read, too. However, I would warn you to avoid using the word "as" as much as possible in descriptions. Though very simple, it's an incredibly useful word, and in a lengthy work you'll be using it so often out of necessity that to use it as a flashy way to say "like" might cause it to quickly become over-used ("like" would have worked quite well in this sentence, btw).
Next:"Her [barren] white feet made no noise. . ."'Kay, as far as I know, "barren" means, primarily: incapable of producing offspring. Alternatively, in decending order of usage, it can mean:1. To be lacking of useful vegitation, or 2. unproductive,or3. unlively and any case, it's not a very complimentary thing to call her feet :(.
Next:"Her shimmering snow white hair flew up behind her [due to] the soft breeze her body [had] created as she ran"Again, there's nothing wrong technically with this description. The problem I find is that the words "due to" clash with the whole surreal image you're painting with your words. What you need is an action verb to really make it riveting. Consider:"Her shimmering snow white hair flew up behind her, [lifted by] the soft breeze her body created as she ran"Also note that I took out "had." you want the verb "created" to be the same tense as the verb "flew." Only in very, very exceptional cases should you use two tenses in one sentence.
Next:"In her arms was nested a small kit. The baby fox was a great contrast. . ."Okay, this is not criticism, rather I would like to commend you on a very good descriptive style. I comment on it to explain WHY it's so good (though you might already know), since I'm trying to improve your descriptions, and also I feel like an ogre if I only mention a bunch of bad stuff in a review. What you did very right here is some something called "defining your terms." In the first sentence you introduced an extremely obscure wording:"Kit," meaning a furry baby animal. Now, many people do this in amatuer writing. They want to use obscure words like this to spice up their writing, to show off their vocabulary, and make themselves seem smart (I do it all the time, it's awesome :-D). What you did that sets you apart from them in this case is to define the obscure term in the very next sentence by calling it a baby fox. If you watch for it, you'll notice that most of the time a beginning writer will insert complex terms like this into their writing, but will leave their audience gaping and move on with their description without revealing what the heck they're talking about, thereby interrupting their reader by forcing them to go find a dictionary. Good work, and kudos to you for it.
Next:"[([whom] [hadpale] hair, eyes, and clothes to match)]"Three things in this one. "Whom" should be "who". There are some pretty complex grammar rules associated with the usage of "whom," but you can generally get it right by simply reading the portion aloud to see if it sounds right. If you read this clause aloud, and it's obviously unnatural. Second, "hadpale" needs a space between the two words. Just a typo, I know, but the first time my eyes glanced over it I thought it said "tadpole". Thirdly, you should try not to rely on parenthesis much in prose fiction. They're not wrong, exactly, but they don't flow very well in fiction. It's better if you can arrange a place where you can describe the character in a standard sentence.
Next:"The tiny red [fox] had fallen asleep. . .""Fox" here is repetitive so soon after using fox to describe the creature in the last sentence. Consider using a generic term, like so:"The tiny red animal had fallen asleep. . ."
Next:"The [young girl] had rescued the poor [baby]"First, "young girl" is repetitive. This can be remedied, again, by reducing it to a generic term. Simply drop "young," and it sounds much , you did good using "baby" here, because it's a deferent term for the creature than you'd used before. The problem is that the word "baby" used as a noun causes the reader's mind immediately to jump to a human child. It was okay the first time you used it, because it was only modifying the noun "fox." Generic terms like "animal", unlike defining terms such as "fox," can be safely repeted to a degree. Simply use "animal" again here, and it flows fairly well. Alternatively, you could use "creature," which I personally think would sound pretty good.
Next:"She’d come across the [baby]"Again, repetitive, but this is an easy fix. Since you already announced what you were refering to in the last sentence, you're safe to call it only "it" for this one, since your reader will know exactly what you're refering to.
Next:"before the entire limb was [removed]"Once again, this is techinically quite correct, since the fox was in fact removing its limb from its body. But a better word would have been "severed," because removed implies that the limb is extracted from something, and is therefore still intact.
Next:"with a wisdom that was beyond [the youth she had]"It's hard to explain WHY this is wrong, so I fear I can't be as constructive in my critisicm here. Suffice to say that the proper wording for this is:"with a wisdom that was beyond her youth"or, perhaps, to add mystery:"with a wisdom that was beyond her apparent youth"This is one of those things you just have to hear in your head and decide if it sounds right. "Had" is a really bad way to end the clause, for one thing.
Next:"She understood what it meant to cause one’s self pain. She understood what it was to risk death by causing yourself harm, and that is why she pitied the creature."This is one I struggle with a lot. Just a bit of repitition here; it's barely noticable. To begin two sentences in a row with the personal pronoun "she" is perfectly okay, but it's better if you can avoid it, which in this case you can. Simple pull the thoughts of the two sentences apart, and recombine them, like so:"She understood what it meant to cause one’s self pain, and what it was to risk death by causing yourself harm. That is why she pitied the creature."
Next:"She looked down at the [kit],"Since it's a rare term, you might want to only use "kit" once. "Fox" would work better in this sentence.
Next:"giving a hopeful smile [to it]"Now, for this one I can quote a common grammar rule "Never end a sentence (or in this case a clause) with a preposition." There's always a way to avoid making "it" the last word. Here, just move it around a bit:"giving it a hopeful smile"
Next:"For[,] she was well aware"No need of this comma _.Incidentally, if you want, you can actually attach this sentence onto the one before using a semi-colon. It would have a good flow to it that way. It would appear like this:". . .speaking the words; for she was well aware. . ."
Next:"[and so] she did her best to explain"Never use "and so" together next to each other in a sentence, it's redundant. One or the other is sufficient.
Next:"[those pale blue eyes] catching sight of a trail of smoke"I would just point out that this is a great oportunity to subtly insert a description of her appearance in place of the one from the parenthesis earlier. All you have to do is take out the word "those."
The rest is pretty good. And good writing. Are you sure this won't continue to shape this story? It's pretty imaginative "practice."
This is easily the longest review I've ever written, and probably the most in-depth. I hope it helps you grow in your talent. I like the imagination you display in your writing. Just keep polishing the little quirks of diction and grammar, and you'll be a fabulous writer in no time.