d(^_^)(^_^)d wrote...
The man had been sitting there for the past five hours straight, hadn’t eaten or drank in fifteen.
This sentence is grammatically wrong. Deleting the comma and putting an "and" in its place would fix it.
Looking at it again, I think it might benefit from an em dash.
d(^_^)(^_^)d wrote...
I'd also replace "The man" with Michale. Personally, I like to get my characters' names out as soon as possible unless there's a reason to hold them back.
Ah, I usually hold onto them until they're spoken in dialogue, unless of course I plan to be sparse with speech. I usually think "Why would they know his name? They wouldn't, so I won't mention it until it becomes necessary or needed." I sort of imagine scenes like a movie. If the shot begins with a man in the room, you wouldn't know his name. However, I think I need to sway away from that line of thought and remember that this is literature.
d(^_^)(^_^)d wrote...
A knocking came to the door responded by silence, yet the door opened regardless.
Regarding the "to": Wouldn't it be better to say "from" instead?
Regarding "responded": I'd replace it with "followed"
It feels like more should be added to this sentence as well. It jumps from the silence to the door opening. "Yet the door opened regardless" kind of implies that the silence in uninviting in someway.
I'm inclined to agree with "from," as sometimes I word actions awkwardly like that. However, it was responded to by silence because no one answered the knock, not because he was silent after he knocked. So yes, the silence was uninviting.
d(^_^)(^_^)d wrote...
An awkward silence ensued; the man was uncertain if he should approach, but he shut the door behind him.
You've already used the word "silence" two sentences ago. Not to sound like an ass, but most people don't like repetition of the same word in such close proximity.
Now you've used "the man" to refer to two different characters. It's not too difficult to distinguish who's who in this case, but it would still be better to come up with unique ways to identify them. You don't even have to use names. You could do something like Blanket Man and Door Man.
I would agree, I should diversify my language. Haha, I don't think I shall call them Blanket Man and Door Man. That sounds like a couple of lame and unfortunately misguided super hero wanna-bes. However, you are correct, and this troubled me slightly while writing it, but I pushed on after tossing it aside. I will make a note to learn how to deal with this when it comes up in a writing I want to take further.
d(^_^)(^_^)d wrote...
He fiddled with his gloves for a bit, then put them in his pockets.
Why would any sane man store his gloves in different pockets!?
Er...I do. I guess some don't then? If I'm not sane, I suppose I can write for leonard now. Funny how you find out about these things. I keep the right in my right and the left in my left. Come to think of it, I guess I should reverse that for logical purposes, since the hand puts the glove onto its opposite. Oh, my OCD will be killing me if I switch.
d(^_^)(^_^)d wrote...
“Thanks for being here, John.” The man’s . . .
Again, it's easy enough to figure out who's who, but it would be even better if readers didn't have to make any guess at all. You've used "the man" again, and that could be referring to either of the characters.
True, true. All true.
d(^_^)(^_^)d wrote...
The man’s voice was raspy and strained, however his gaze stayed straight. It could barely be seen in such poor light, but his face was a wreck, his eyes red and swollen.
This description could use a little rearranging. First, you describe his voice, then eyes. Then you go to the lighting of the room, next to his face and then back to his eyes. You see where I'm going with this? Keep both points that describe his eyes together to make it read better and feel less cluttered.
Also consider that this description can essentially be broken down into two senses: hearing and sight. Also, you can't have sight without light so I'd mention the lighting of the room first.
Ahh, very interesting. I honestly didn't think about this when I wrote it, nor did it occur to me. I should certainly pay more attention in the future. Thanks for the tip.
d(^_^)(^_^)d wrote...
He took a few more steps closer, unsure if he should sit next to or near his friend, or even sit at all.
Delete the second comma, I think.
Why exactly is John not sure where to sit? Obviously, he doesn't know how to act in the situation, but is he a shy person? Does the sight of his friend breaking down in tears unhinge him? Is he worried that saying or doing the wrong thing might set his friend off?
I considered its removal, but left it in because it would have made "sit next to or near his friend or even sit at all" sound a tad novice with two "or"s used repetitively, so I opted for the comma to be used as a verbal break. I know I can't speak it to give the auditory example, but perhaps you can imagine. It must be weird, I know. That's why I added it in the end, though I should find a way around it.
About your questions, I'd say spot on, which ironically enough inspired the title. However, I could have mentioned those things and they would have been more obvious, that's for certain.
d(^_^)(^_^)d wrote...
His words were firm and confident, as if he had rehearsed that line repeatedly in his mind constantly.
I think you can do away with this comma as well. I think. I hate commas.
I'm not too crazy about describing the line of dialogue as a rehearsed line. Yeah, it helps illustrate that it's firm and confident, but I would call to attention the fact that Michale would know so much more precisely how long his daughter lived because, well, she was his daughter.
Actually, you are correct. See what I did there? I think that comma's unnecessary too. Sometimes I overuse commas to signify an auditory break, which is for artistic purposes, but it does cause me to harass the comma key a bit too much. This is why I want to perfect the em dash.
About the sentence with the rehearsed line, I think my use of "constantly" is redundant because of the use of "repeatedly." Although they do both represent quantity and time separately, I don't think that matters much enough to have included.
d(^_^)(^_^)d wrote...
His friend turned sullen and looked downward.
He's pretty damn sullen already, isn't he?
You're right, I should have strengthened it.
d(^_^)(^_^)d wrote...
He started sobbing harder.
I think it would be better if this sentence were changed to, "His sobbing grew harder." Why? Break the original sentence down. It reads fine all together, but if you look at a smaller piece like "started sobbing," the first thing to come to mind is that Miachale already started sobbing.
Yes, a sentence which is a victim to my bad habit of writing passively.
d(^_^)(^_^)d wrote...
Screw it. I had intended to analyze the whole thing, but it's past midnight and I'm tired. Sorry.
I know exactly what you mean. Imagine, I was about to wonder off to bed now that it's turned into the later AMs, but I simply had to refresh the W&F page and find a new notification that you posted here, and I just
had to respond immediately, didn't I? Nope, couldn't wait until the morning like a normal person. Ah well, it's my turn to be off. I'll look forward to any future remarks you make. Thanks for this, though. You're a big help.