WWYP3 Scores and Comments

• Matt (5/5) – I’d say you were successful, all things considered. Kaden nearly kills his friend in a crime of passion, and his mind goes blank and he is blinded by rage but shame just as well. I believe it! Good job.

• Evil Eye (4.5/5) – I'm not sure I'm completely convinced in Kaden's motive, but I bought it for the most part, and you gave ample attention to the other aspects of the prompt. Nicely done.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (4/5) – There were occasional comma misuses, a couple of minor typos, and one incomplete sentence, but nothing majorly distracting. Those sorts of mistakes are common for writers and are most easily fixed by giving the story to a friend. Tell your friend to bring a red pen with him!

• Evil Eye (4/5) – Trouble with pastest tense. Don't worry, even bluezaft does it. A few typos. Comma errors. Nothing too bad.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (8/10) – As I was reading, I thought that this would be a great insight into the mind of one of the many school shooters who’ve made recent headlines. How topical! This story wasn’t exactly that, but it serves as a window into the mind of a teenager and how quickly their sensibilities can change if the opportunity presents itself. Perhaps Kaden’s shift was a bit too hasty, though, and this could have been remedied with more insight into all of his relationships (with Jake, Marina, Daniel, and maybe even his parents). Especially when he’s on his way to Jake’s house, much more could have been revealed about his memories and the things that brought him to nearly being a killer. Otherwise, I give you due credit. The characters were believable enough and you’ve definitely improved in this area by writing about characters in a more accessible manner (modern contemporary vs. future dystopian).

• Evil Eye (8/10) – I said in another review that a high school story needs to be at least as brilliant as "Foster, You're Dead" by Philip K. ****. Well, this wasn't quite that brilliant, but it was definitely interesting. You did a good job with Jake, as it must have been tough to create a character with bully-like tendencies, but keep an affection and friendliness for Kaden somewhere deep under all the crocodile skin, distorted by the watery perception Kaden seems to have of most things. Kaden's shift, in recognition of this, to planning Jake's murder seems to move a bit too quickly. If you just flesh out Marina, and his relationship with her, a tad more, this probably wouldn't be a problem. In fact, even his relationship with Jake could be detailed a tad more, as only the most perceptive reader can see the playfulness behind what appears to be hostility.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (7.5/10) – A lot of what bothered me about the style is the “lacks of.” There’s a lack of showing in favor of telling. There’s a lack of metaphors in favor of just plain storytelling. Try to let the form and the content match. While he’s on his “longest journey” there should be more evidence in the form of the writing that gives the reader the physical sense of time elapsing (see Tim O’Brien’s “The Things They Carried”). Instead of saying “I’ll kill him in his own skin,” say it more implicitly, with metaphor. I loved that idea, but it shouldn’t be spelled out so obviously. I loved the subtle tense change between past and present, and overall yours is an easy style to follow and enjoy.

• Evil Eye (7.5/10) – What an interesting way to start the story! Muzzle flare bringing on a "flash" of memories. Well done, my friend, well done. At any rate, I thought all this water imagery would get tiresome, but I actually quite enjoyed it. Water's always been an interesting, evocative image to me. In fact, it served fairly well as a metaphor for the inconsistency of Jake and Kaden's relationship--or just Jake himself. Both work. Oh, but one thing. Please don't call a Desert Eagle a deagle. That's gun-nut slang, and I really doubt Kaden's big on guns. Anyways, back to the style, its level of interest was inconsistent. There were great spots and there were average spots. It wavered back and forth, not unlike water itself. Also, there's a bit of ambiguous tense stuff that detracts from the story overall. And a few sentences here and there could benefit from a comma or two.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (8/10) – I think that the story is framed very well, starting immediately with the “Blank Point” and returning to it after pretty sufficient justification is given to bring us to that point. The consistent water metaphor was commendable in hindsight and I was engaged enough in the pacing that I did not see the water gun twist coming. Again, the issue I have with your plot is the inexplicable convenience of vital tools (literally) showing up for Kaden. Why the gun was where it was and why the combination for the lock was his birthday are mysteries to the reader. And as far as we’re told, neither Kaden nor Jake takes off their jackets. It’s important-to-the-plot details like these that nag after it’s all done.

• Evil Eye (7/10) – I'm so glad there was more to Kaden's motive than just the love triangle. If that was all there was, I'd have wanted to give you a zero for plot. However, it works here in that it is not taken as the be-all and end-all of the problems with Jake and Kaden's relationship. You give it essentially as much time as something done so overdone in today's media deserves, while not exactly just brushing it off. That said, the story alone isn't the most engaging one I've ever seen, as the interest I felt in it hinged largely on Kaden and his transformation into a would-be killer. As Scav would say, "You've attacked a weak plot with flair." An extra half point for the twists. They were original and I definitely did not see it coming.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (4/5) – Often in the best short stories, one door closes while leaving another wide open. In this case, Kaden and Jake are okay now, but Marina is far from being off the hook. I like that. Nothing in real life is ever final and can’t be begun and ended in a nice little story format. However, you abandon any mention of Marina at the end and the final note is perhaps a little peppy, all occurrences considered. This is just my opinion, though, and I wouldn’t doubt that most others would feel differently about this.

• Evil Eye (4/5) – I'm torn on whether I like the return to their childish bickering after Kaden finishes weeping. And at first I disliked the lack of closure on the whole Marina thing, but I actually like it, in retrospect. Kaden has discovered that he has what it takes to be a killer, and while he and Jake are back to Two Musketeer mode, Marina is still out there. Guilt-ridden or not, Kaden remains with all his shame and lack of resolve, and anger waiting to boil over. In a sense, it's kind of chilling, and outlasts the bittersweet ending.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (2/5) – When Matt was holding the gun to Kyle’s head, this was probably the only point in the story where there was atmosphere, thanks to the repeated mention of the sirens. Otherwise, the contemplation was hastily handled and wholly unconvincing (as were the events leading up to this point in all of their GTA-esque splendor).

• Evil Eye (2.5/5) – The revelation was a bit hastily handled, but I did like the callback to Ben and his grandfather. Beyond that, the elements were there. It just needs some polish.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (1.5/5) – Aside from obvious mistakes like typos and fragments and confusing pronouns and fused sentences and misused infinitives and tense shifts and comma errors, your grammar was fine! Unfortunately, those things count for a lot. You would really benefit from having a friend or someone close to you proofread your story, or if you were just to print it out and retype it you would catch a lot of those mistakes yourself.

• Evil Eye (1/5) – Tense swaps here and there. Typos and sentence frags. It's fairly readable, but errors are everywhere.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (1/10) – There was very little in this story that could be considered believable, least of all your characters. Matt’s mom wouldn’t refer to him so impersonally. Matt wouldn’t be so demanding to his mother without repercussions. In fact, I’m having trouble believing any of the dialogue. Who are John and Ben? They just came out of nowhere and they weren’t the least bit fleshed out or important. Your characters were all entirely one-dimensional; you need to seriously reevaluate your characterizations. Listen in on conversations around you and actually write down, word for word, what people say. This will help immensely.

• Evil Eye (2/10) – Ben has about fifteen times as much characterization as every other character in the story combined. If I can say that about someone who is not your protagonist, you better go back in there and fix it. Beyond that, the characters are one-dimensional and their dialogue ranges from "adequate" to "****ing bizarre". And if Kyle and his dad are going to make ridiculous comments like that beating their own kin repeatedly is "protecting" her, you should definitely develop more.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (1.5/10) – Your style is utterly confusing. On the technical side, you absolutely must be consistent if you’re going to use the first person perspective. In most cases, you gave us absolutely no indication (italics or otherwise) that Matt was having a thought, and I hesitate to call it that because his “thoughts” added absolutely nothing to the story. I don’t mean to be too harsh because it’s obvious that you’re young and lacking in experience, but there are so many sentences that I picked out which were so haphazardly constructed that I had difficulty getting through the story. In general, stray away from sentences that aren’t the least bit creative and, when read aloud, sound corny and lifeless, such as: “Ow, that is an incredibly painful experience.” Show, don’t tell!

• Evil Eye (1.5/10) – There isn't much here, and there's no atmosphere (beyond, I suppose, the gunpoint climax). I will admit that your final fight with Kyle and Matt was pretty well described, but it did more damage than good, as it made me wish you could have extrapolated this to the whole story. In this kind of story, you really need to develop your characters, because that's what it hinges on. Kyle exists only to throw down with Matt. The Dad exists only to be a lunatic alcoholic. Michelle exists only to be beaten. John exists only to be the sidekick MacGuffin. Ben is the only character in this entire story that seemed to transcend the story and rise above plot device.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (2/10) – Young writers often make the mistake of putting themselves into their work—and all of the confusing frustrations of youth with them. For all the other details, cheap action movie and videogame clichés fill in the blanks. That’s no good! A teenager wanting a girl but not being able to have her isn’t anything new, and you didn’t present it in a fresh or insightful way. The conflict is so unbelievable and half-baked that I really can’t count it as such. The resolution? Also unbelievable, and not very resolute, all things considered.

• Evil Eye (2/10) – As I mentioned above, your characters are purely plot device. The plot is something we've seen before a million times and very predictable. A car isn't going to explode just from being knocked off the road. Hitting a car hood at seventy miles an hour would not leave you in any condition for a fistfight--I know this all too well. A few years ago I bounced off the hood of a car similarly that was going maybe twenty, thirty miles an hour, and I had the wind knocked out of me for a good five minutes. It's not particularly interesting, all around. The fistfight was the only thing that held my interest, and even then, I was soured to it thanks to the Ethan Hunt action scene that preceded it. By the way, that wasn't a compliment.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (0/5) – There is arguably no theme here, and since I can’t imagine the argument that there is a theme, I can’t award you any points.

• Evil Eye (0/5) – No evidence of a theme there. It seemed like you were dabbling in thematic at times, but you never took it beyond infancy, if that far.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (2/5) – Interesting way of going about it, but not nearly as effective when handled so indirectly. I’d give you more points for subtlety, but I feel that the “turn card” (that’s what I’ll call it!) wasn’t poignant enough, all details considered. To the reader, Ewan didn’t love Ash enough to arrive at suicide. Also, suicide is arguably much different than taking someone else’s life.

• Evil Eye (2/5) – An interesting take with some definite introspection, but decidedly lacking in the areas of intent.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (5/5) – There were maybe a few commas that bugged me, but you could make a case of “that’s how Ewan writes.”

• Evil Eye (5/5) – It's a god**** journal. I'd have to be a bigger prick than a cactus to knock anything.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (4.5/10) – To your credit, it’s nice to get this sort of unique journal perspective from a character. It’s reminiscent of D.J. Waldie’s award winning memoir “Holy Land.” However, for a short story, this format is only able to offer so much insight into the characters. Layer each entry with depth and metaphor! There’s a brief sentence written poetically to describe Ash. Do more of that! It was nice but out of place compared to the rest. And there were some clever observations about Ash’s character, but it was a huge turn-off for Ewan to rationalize Ash’s anger about not being able to work. More honest observations and less “this-is-what-happened” would make your writing infinitely deeper.

• Evil Eye (3/10) – I'm sure you have a lot in your mind about the characters, but the thing is, we don't get to see much. I have no problem with the style, but the way you've written this is really thin on depth and introspection. You could probably tell me everything about Ash or Ewan, but the fact is that the reader can't. For reference on how to handle this style, please see Diary by Chuck Palahniuk.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (5/10) – Because the style and characterizations were practically one in the same, your score here is similar. Props for experimenting, but short stories are very needy little creatures and a lot of the needs weren’t fully met. I realize that it is explicitly called a journal, but writing in a more diary-esque manner would have injected a lot more life and feeling into the story. It feels bare as it is now and the contrast between “life is good” and “MY LIFE IS OVER!” is not nearly impacting enough (despite the bold expletive). And a lot of the details that were given didn’t feel symbolically important, but maybe that’s just me.

• Evil Eye (5/10) – I like the style but it's just oh-so-lacking in every crucial area for this sort of style. The password is... MORE. MORE thoughts. MORE rambling. MORE of those cool, colloquial list-things that remind you that it's a journal. MORE MORE MORE. It's too skeletal. Try writing in your own journal about your most emotional and then your most mundane days. I bet it'd be a lot longer. When you're done that, go read Diary.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (7.5/10) – This may come as a shock considering the previous scores, but there is definitely a solid plot here. There is rising action, there is a conflict, there is a revelation, and there is resolution. Just having those elements is important! However, I felt that they all could have been stronger, and mostly for the reasons I’ve already stated.

• Evil Eye (6.5/10) – Interesting, both in concept and projection, but rather underwhelming as you've shown it to us.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (2/5) – To me it seems like you’re just being morbid for the sake of being morbid, and I got that vibe majorly from your previous entry as well. That’s not a necessarily bad theme, because life isn’t always peaches and kittens and sometimes it’s okay to point out that bad things happen to good people (although having unprotected sex with numerous partners kind of clouds that a bit). What bothers me is that the larger universal sense is missing, and that’s largely due to the lacking characterizations and the terse style. Why should we sympathize with Ewan? Why should we feel bad for Ash? That they’re human and that they are in love isn’t enough on their own.

• Evil Eye (2.5/5) – Hmm. It's interesting, I'm getting a lot of FEELING from this story, and I see a lot of interesting ideas, but I'm not sensing a real "theme", per say. Ideas are present, but there doesn't seem to be anything to encompass the piece. Still, the story itself contains thematic, which is more than I can say for a lot of these other stories.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (5/5) – Perfect.

• Evil Eye (5/5) – Beautiful. That's how ya do it, kiddies.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (4.5/5) – Nearly perfect! I found a single typo.

• Evil Eye (4.5/5) – There's an error or two in there somewhere. It was pretty jarring, because the rest was perfect. Oh I just found it. You missed pastest tense in the beginning of the second segment where you introduce Mazzer. And on re-reading, a few other pastest tenses. Still, I'll leave this as four-point-five, because this is by and large the best story grammar-wise.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (10/10) – I think this is the first 10 I’ve ever given for characterization. Well, you earned it! Others reading this, take heed: this is how it’s supposed to be done.

• Evil Eye (9.5/10) – You've got this funny thing going on. I can pick up the vibe of a character just from your descriptions--before they even say a word. This is either an incredible fluke achieved by your great descriptive ability, or the best, most subtle characterization this contest has seen yet. In your characters, you've brought a lot of fresh ideas and style to the old stereotypical western scenes--the drinking at the saloon, the beautiful would-be killer, the confrontation in the back alley--and for that I applaud. For the most part, attempts at bending archetypes into originality in this contest have fallen flat on their faces. At any rate, it was lovely, and your characters were as fleshed out as possible, despite there being a very protagonist-centric piece. The ending was especially powerful. That said--just a tad of the woman he sees in the inn's dialogue was a bit stale. That was quite jarring in comparison to the flawless characterization otherwise, and thus, this falls just short of being perfect.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (9.5/10) – Yay, metaphors! Nearly every sentence calls attention to itself and I had to reread several sections just to fully absorb all of the subtleties. The descriptions are done wonderfully. The story is narrated in a way that would make Jeffrey Eugenides proud. I took issue with only a few minor things, such as breaking a sentence or two away from a paragraph for emphasis, the questionable need for parenthesis (and how they affect the flow!), and the thoughts from the protagonist arguably contradict the established “outside” point of view. Otherwise, you’ve got the right stuff, baby.

• Evil Eye (9/10) – I love plenty about your style. I'd go into long details about it, but as you've seen in my other critiques, I'm short for time, so I'll focus on what can be improved. Your style is a very immersive, Dean Koontz-esque one, with superb detail that just walks the line of "too far" but never really steps over. As a result, atmosphere is high. This is in a way a weakness, as every now and then, there's a clunky piece of phrasing that jolts me, knocks me out of the rhythm, and thus, out of your story. Similar wording is something you have to watch for, like in the opening segment--"A small creaking noise slipped from the slope". There's a good chance that was deliberate, but let me tell you, it doesn't sound as good on paper as it does in concept. In fact, in that same sentence you use two descripters for the same noun--"fallen dead tree"--and that's just icky. Pick one. I suggest fallen, as it implies the first one without losing the imagery. In case you haven't noticed, this first bit of your story is serving for a microcosm for you style, as the rest of it is too long to go through for other examples in the time I have. Anyways, moving on to my last point about your style. You generally have great word choice, but now and then you use a descriptive verb or the like that doesn't suit the action at all. "Stampeding leviathan" would be my example here. A stampede isn't exactly the right mental image to go with a giant, destructive tree rolling and bouncing at you. Even leviathan stretches its definition to fit, but it works. I suggest giving your story several re-reads just to see if every sentence is as effective as it could be. You're pretty much at the top of the line as far as amateur writers goes. Syntax and grammar, imagery and the like, it's all bang on. It's just a few snippets that don't meet the grandeur of the rest of the story. I just re-read your story for other points. Sometimes you choose pretty clunky places to put your adverbs, so keep an eye on that too.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (9/10) – I love the non-linear manner in which the story is narrated. Ultimately, this is the story of the true nature of the man and not the circumstances that lead to his death, and the order of the sections emphasizes the underlying focus well. I’m mixed on the effectiveness of revealing why the Hangman was driven to kill, or whether revealing it

• Evil Eye (9/10) – Did I ever mention I love westerns? You're making it hard not to create bias for you. A classic western tale with lots of heart and lots to say. There was a fairly complex structure that was usually easy to follow, and the plot itself was interesting. Everything you'd want in a western is here, and everything you'd want in a piece of literary genre fiction is here. The ever-present stars reminding him of the bright wicks of lives he's put out in the past gives the plot a human base, and it's all the more wonderful as a result. That said, I think the bank robbery could have used a bit more detail. It was beautifully written, and the ideas were great, but just a bit more of what's going on in Mazzer's head would be dandy.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (5/5) – [no comment]

• Evil Eye (5/5) – [no comment]

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (4/5) – You took a very different approach with the prompt, so I really had to think about whether or not it works. I’m leaning towards “Yes, it works!”, although the mixed perspective takes away from Ani’s dilemma. But at the same time it doesn’t, because it’s what is implied about her memories that makes your approach notable. Hmm. I think the impact is deadened a bit, but I give you due credit for originality.

• Evil Eye (5/5) – Marvellous. The first time thus far I've seen the story to the end and fully bought in.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (4.5/5) – There were just a couple of minor typos. The only other problem was the off-and-on paragraph breaks in dialogue exchanges. It didn’t seem consistent enough to be intentional, and if it was intentional then I admit I don’t see why it was necessary.

• Evil Eye (5/5) – Solid, as far as I can see.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (8.5/10) – You have a knack for creating memorable, believable characters. I love the repetition of thoughts and concepts, how the narrative is reflexive and obviously well-considered without being obviously crafted. I’m pretty confused about Maddy, though, and her role in the story. She was the jewel thief? I’m thinking the story would have been better without any mention of her or the identity of the thief, but maybe I’m just missing something.

• Evil Eye (7/10) – It isn't astounding, but it's good. In general, I can empathize with Charlie Boor's actions, reactions, and introspection, though his abrupt decision to steal the diamond came from nowhere. He definitely loves his daughter. As far as "precious little Ani" goes, she's a fairly interesting little girl that doesn't fall into that category I loathe of child prodigies. Harvey Kane was an enigmatic character. He definitely has a lonely past that you hint at just enough for me to get it without drilling it in there, and I had a clear mental image of him--when you have a clear mental picture of a character without a physical description, you have one darned well-written character. Older Ani doesn't hold up quite the same. I understand her pain, but I'm not feeling it. I do get that at the end, she plans to kill her father because she loves him, and not out of spite. That, in itself, salvaged an otherwise iffy end.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (9/10) – You’re an aspiring author, I presume? You certainly have the talent for it, and you definitely have my support (whatever that’s worth!). Your titles are immaculate, poetic. They force the reader to consider them and they provide a knowing smile after some thought. I’m a big fan of contemporary literature, and you do a good job of capturing that essence of uncertainty and accessibility with colloquial dialogue and minimalist precision, and yet your stories have been able (I think) to capture a sort of timeless, placeless quality to them. Excellent. My one suggestion for improvement is that your stories would benefit from having a greater focus on setting and the environment, those atmospheric sorts of things that give stories layers of depth.

• Evil Eye (8/10) – Rambling, neurotic... just this side of perfect! It naturally suits Boor and the constant mantras compliment the story ala Palahniuk in a way most attempts on this site at stream-of-consciousness fail at emulating. Oh... and a high speed TRAM chase? Between two trams moving at the same speed? Genius. Utter genius. Your style succeeded at following Boor through mental and emotional disintegration for the most part, though I don't really feel your decisions on changing narrative style. I'm all for it, it just seemed unnecessary everywhere except the last scene. By the way, once I remembered your old title, I am angry with you for changing it. It was much more unique before... I'm generally against spelling out your onomatopoeic moments (BANG) but it grew on me and ended up an integral part of the story, I think.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (8.5/10) – There are great sources of conflict in this story, and what makes them even greater is that they’re mostly implicit. Again, I commend your boldness in trying different narrative approaches, and I would call the segmented structure of this story an overall success (although I found some breaks to be questionable). I like the framing of the story (again your skill in reciprocity shines). I think the story ends a little too tenderly, however. There are a lot of “BANGS” in the story, and the ending needed one, too. Also, as aforementioned, shifting narrators can be troublesome, although I think it works overall well in your story.

• Evil Eye (7/10) – Uniformly interesting and generally original, though there's the odd cliché here and there that dampens it. As much as I enjoyed the twist of Maude's identity, I do recognize, as others did, that it's been done to death. That said, it was done in an interesting, almost cinematic way. I take issue with where you state "the law waits for no one", though. Frankly, it does. A case like The People vs. Charles Boor would have taken at least a year to get into motion, not weeks (or days?) Also, if they had it on record that Boor killed his wife, why wasn't he arrested a long time ago on warrant? And why wasn't his financial situation better, since there were no more shopping sprees? How could a D.A. miss a big detail like that, considering how deep they dig into defendants' lives? It's the court scene that punches your plot full of holes. Tighten it up.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (5/5) – You have a great sense of making your stories bigger than they first appear. I have no advice for you here other than “Keep up the good work!”

• Evil Eye (4/5) – Constant mantras shepherd us along amidst the madcap craziness, my favorite being "I believe in a little thing called innocence." There's lots of little themes I loved, but if there's a unifying one, my x-ray vision machine needs to be changed.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (0/5) – No gun, no deal.

• Evil Eye (0/5) – She never contemplates taking someone else's life. Even the part where she considers taking her own is tacked on, contrived, and terribly written, with no introspection whatsoever. Sorry. But not really.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (4/5) – Very minor mistakes on this front. A comma error here and a typo there. Nothing too detracting.

• Evil Eye (4/5) – Fairly solid. A few quips.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (1.5/10) – You tell and you tell and you tell. Your only instances of showing are pornographic instances. The characters and the situation are wholly unconvincing, despite your attempts to explain them. It’s possible to write about angst without being angsty. For an example of this (an example with incest!), read “The Kiss” by Katherine Harrison.

• Evil Eye (0.5/10) – Hah, right. Nothing is consistent or sensible, even in this bizarre West Virginian universe. If you take away all the sex, your characters are stale and completely uninteresting. As for your protagonist, let's just say I wasn't exactly engaged. We've seen angsty drama queens before--far too many times--and you neither do anything new with the character or her situations, incest **** notwithstanding. Yawn. If a story contains that much sex and "bland" is the first thing that comes to mind, you've done something horribly, horribly wrong.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (3.5/10) – Again, your style is fairly average in that “beginning writer” sort of way. I’m giving you fewer points this time around because of taste issues. That is, your story is pornographic and there’s no artistic need for it. You can be explicit without sacrificing taste. Again, I urge you to read “The Kiss.” How and not what you say should be most important.

• Evil Eye (2.5/10) – It's competently handled, but unengaging and uninteresting. And when you said filth, you meant it. It's completely gratuitous and unnecessary. Sex and violence aren't supposed to be in a story without purpose, but your story lacks purpose in all departments, so I guess I'm clutching for a handhold in dead air.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (2/10) – What needs to be focused on is the change in the narrator’s life between normalcy and immoralcy, we’ll call it. As such, the focus of your story is between the hatred of the brother and sex with the brother with some mostly inconsequential details throughout. The attempted and hasty suicide attempt felt entirely separate, like it should have been part of a story not focused around incest and anal sex. The only thing you’ve managed to convince the reader of is that the occasion behind your writings are very narrow in focus, perhaps too personal. The plot never strove for universality in any artistic sense.

• Evil Eye (.5/10) – Yeah, right. It's just emo angsty teenage bull**** with a smut smokescreen. If you took out the unnecessary and worthless incest **** scene, there would be nothing there but some lame attempts to create sympathy and a phonecall. You know what, writing this actually convinced me to drop your plot score another half-point.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (1/5) – When people are horny they do some pretty crazy things! Like writing pornography, for example.

• Evil Eye (0/5) – It's trite, pure and simple. The message of "don't sleep or your brother will **** you" isn't that great advice.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (1/5) – Although there is one character pointing a gun at another, there is no mental struggle or deep introspection or anything remotely human about the gesture.

• Evil Eye (1/5) – He holds someone at gunpoint with intent to kill, but there's no introspection or revelation. At all. It's not even feeling like a human action, but that's more a stylistic problem.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (1.5/5) – I can hardly follow your thoughts with the confusing narrative as it is, and it doesn’t help that very few of the quotations are formatted correctly. There were also a lot of major typos that could have easily been caught with another read through.

• Evil Eye (1/5) – Frequent missed words, repeated words, spelling mistakes... and you do some weird things with commas.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (1/10) – I don’t mind dialogue-heavy stories and in fact I rather enjoy them—but yours was not only heavy it was almost exclusively dialogue. This is a problem, especially when little or nothing gives your character a personality (other than a few obscenities), memorable or otherwise. You also didn’t explain who was who or why. Very confusing.

• Evil Eye (2/10) – There's nil. We never see outside the head of our narrator, in terms of development, and our narrator isn't that well-developed either. Cade Match had more development than every character in the piece combined--after all, Matthew was just a stereotypical man on a vengeance quest.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (2/10) – I’m not sure if you’re merely (and severely) inexperienced or if you were experimenting with a new style. I’ll assume that the ladder is true—at least true enough to give you two points. Stories told through dialogue still need to be written artfully, and other than giving me a general sense of confusion, there is arguably nothing artistic about your style. You absolutely must give the reader something more to chew on than confusing dialogue between faceless inhuman characters.

• Evil Eye (1.5/10) – It's very difficult to follow. I had no idea what the hell was going on most of the time. It's painfully disjointed, and the constant tense mishaps don't help anything. It reads like an attempt at stream of consciousness, but doesn't exactly pull of the effect. In fact, it reads almost like Dr. Seuss. And in dialogue scenes, there's a lot more going on than just the exchanged words. Try to flesh out the talk-scenes.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (1/10) – Arguably, nothing happens in this. I’m so lost by the typos and vague characterizations and hazy dialogue that I wasn’t able to figure out anything that was going on—that is, until Cade Match revealed himself to be the devil, which doesn’t make sense given the tenuous context.

• Evil Eye (3/10) – Again, just a stereotypical vengeance quest, and not a very interesting one. He just happens upon Sanders. Wow. Likely. Even with Lucifer as your guide, that came off awfully ridiculous. I'll give you a three, since there's definitely a plot here, however poorly exercised.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (1/5) – I think you were trying to go for a theme. I’m not sure what that theme is, but I get the feeling that you had something in mind. Maybe.

• Evil Eye (2.5/5) – It's a fair idea about not getting ahead of yourself and the like, but after reading Virgiljius's story about the same thing with mob mentality dangers, this piece pales in comparison. And the fact is, the theme isn't that well developed.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (5/5) – Without a doubt, there’s sufficient introspection on the part of the narrator, and you handled it very well, I’d say.

• Evil Eye (4/5) – He definitely contemplates taking a life, and holds him at gunpoint. No contesting that. He learned something about himself in the premeditation, which was a neat twist. I think you're missing the moment where he snaps, though. Like a parabola, he just kind of waves from one side to the other without much to provoke it beyond his hostage's dialogue.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (4.5/5) – A couple of typos is all that I noticed.

• Evil Eye (4/5) – Solid, for the most part, but I wish you wouldn't neglect our good friend the Comma. You seem to have trouble with "to" versus "too", as well.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (7.5/10) – On the one hand, I do like the carefully considered details on your part in telling the story of the narrator. On the other hand, I don’t think that you were quite as careful as you could have been. I think the narrator’s case would have been stronger had there been more interest in the weapons of the past (whether than the complete disregard that we see), and I’m not so sure about mentioning something as potentially huge as “destiny” and then not making a strong case for it later. Unless, of course, you’re saying that he was destined to commit this crime, in which case I can see how that parallels well with the end message of falling from grace. Some details just don’t make sense to me and don’t seem to have greater significance, like the knots in his stomach or the complete uncaring for his wife.

• Evil Eye (7.5/10) – Your protagonist's characterization is pitch-perfect. You've created a living, breathing old fart with a real past as far as I can see. There's almost no attention paid to anyone else, however. And I'm having a bit of trouble believing the Man would kill his hostage, considering the "he's too pathetic to kill" direction the narrative was taking before. You're missing something in that climax. A vital moment where something deep inside the Old Man snaps.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (8/10) – You’re definitely in tune, overall, with the possibilities of writing something grander than what you’re writing. I can definitely see multiple facets for interesting themes, and your pacing creates a rising tension for the reader, and it all ends literally in a bang. Although the retrospective nature of the story lends itself to some criticism in that you’re almost forced to tell us about the narrator rather than show us the narrator, I think that you could have found ways to strengthen the style. Perhaps recalling the narrator’s past in vignette style or leaving more possibility for metaphor would have helped, but overall your style was solid for what you were trying to accomplish.

• Evil Eye (7/10) – There are a lot of lines I really liked. That said, it reads a bit dry; it descends a bit too far into memoir at some points, pushing me out of the narrator's head. Disconnecting me from his emotions. Also, your narrative is using a lot of colloquial language, considering our speaker is an elderly man of wealth and importance. It would be different if, say, the narrative was him speaking to his hostage, but it is clear that he is speaking to us, making it a bit awkward as we're in his head, not his mouth, yet the language reflects the latter. The "rambling old man" narrative is great in the present tense stuff, but keep that out of the past. Your past-present-past transitions are silky smooth, by the way. And I wasn't sure where to say this, but the first paragraph is REALLY bad. It's a mess of clichés run together with lacking punctuation. It set me in a bad place to read this piece, but I quickly saw that the sum was greater than the parts. Especially that part.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (8/10) – Again, I’m not so sure that all of the details of his past were necessary and that some of the details that were included had as much weight as they could have. I give you credit for obviously having a clear idea of a futuristic world in mind, one that is plausible and immediate and is explained sufficiently to the reader without too much direct telling. I have to wonder, though: How did he get bullets for that gun, too?

• Evil Eye (9/10) – I was sucked right in. Fascinating and original. You probably gained another half-point just by mentioning the futuristic timeframe in passing, rather than going into constant lame details about LOLFUTURE. As with typical science fiction, things in the world have changed. In good science fiction, these changes are interesting--your changes are interesting. At the same time, this read a bit dryly at times. However, any dry moment served a purpose, so plotwise, I can't penalize you that badly. As a sidenote, conspiracies are one of my favorite plot skeletons--when done well. You unravelled yours masterfully.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (5/5) – Not even dignitaries are safe in this cutthroat culture that strives for perfection—and that’s only one of your themes! The news media turning on an individual instantly for ratings, the power an individual has over another with the right instruments, and others abound. Well done.

• Evil Eye (5/5) – There's great ideas behind essentially every paragraph and a persistent theme of meaning and purpose, one of my favorite archetypal themes. I liked the subtextual analysis of guns, as well. You took an idea right from the prompt and made it your own.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (5/5) – I really like your approach to this, how adrenaline rushes and the will to survive played important roles in whether or not to pull the trigger. It all checks out.

• Evil Eye (5/5) – A great take that just sidesteps gimmick.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (5/5) – [no comment]

• Evil Eye (5/5) – Easy on the eyes. A nice change in this contest.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (10/10) – I couldn’t find the cracks in this fine social scene. To anyone else reading this: take heed! This is how you characterize.

• Evil Eye (10/10) – You've really got the rhythm of creating people. Emotional disturbances and reactions are all measured with the precision of a gourmet baker. There's nothing to criticize. Your characters are as fleshed out as possible and completely human and real.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (8/10) – Very minimalist! I know that may sound strange considering yours was probably the most detailed story in a sense, but I think this story would have benefitted more from more artistic narrative, greater emphasis on word choices rather than whole descriptions, more implicit meanings. In particular, I think the internal dialogue detracted. Overall, though, an 8 out of 10 is something to be quite proud of and your style is definitely exceptional My criticisms (though I try to avoid this) might be just a matter of personal taste, so take them for what they’re worth.

• Evil Eye (9/10) – The interesting thing about your style is it dances with stereotype and sidesteps it. Every moment where a lesser story would be all [INSERT CLICHE DESCRIPTIVE HERE] you swoop out of the way. That said, while your story has wondrous descriptive value, all meaning seems to be handcuffed to the description. It's bizarre, actually, because subtlety is not the problem. It's like you set the curtain to veil your intentions, but the descriptions keep the ideas from hiding behind it, so to speak. I don't even know if this is a good thing or not, so I'm not going to penalize very much. It's well-written, and that's what matters here. However, one thing with your internal dialogue. It's very well done, but it's used so rarely it feels more like a cheat than a device. If you're going to use it, I think it should be integral. Which isn't to say I think internal dialogue would have worked well in this story in large number. Merely that I's likes my consistencies.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (9.5/10) – I love the narrative style here, the way you combine the fates of five strangers and give them each the sort of attention that brings credibility to you as someone very much attuned to human nature. One thing: I wonder if the opening could not have been stronger. That is, as strong as the very nicely executed (no pun intended) ending.

• Evil Eye (9/10) – You've almost given the town a character in and of itself, embodied by the Charity bus. Said Charity bus is a very original, but completely believable addition to your neat little city. In fact, I've never seen anything like that before whatsoever. As for the plot itself, it seemed to spring more from the characters than from device, which makes me want to kick you in the nuts--in celebration! That's how ya do it, kiddies. Go read Poke's story and take notes, or something. The stories of these strangers are woven together magnificently. It doesn't feel gimmicky at all, which is saying a lot, given the circumstances of the story. And despite the funky things you do with your separation and framing, it always works well. All that said, you left a lot of things wide open. Nothing wrong with that--this is the PKD fan talking--but you need to narrow the scope just a bit to give an idea. Ie: What the hell happened to Jimmy's ***. That kinda thing. There's a good chance I'm just mentally ********, though.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (5/5) – Your stories speak quite well for themselves, yes. Quite well, indeed.

• Evil Eye (5/5) – [no comment]

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (4/5) – Interesting take, but I found the delivery to be a little lacking, a little forced. The narrator’s thoughts are disjointed and difficult to follow and there wasn’t sufficient build up to arrive at the Blank Point.

• Evil Eye (4/5) – By far the best take on the prompt I've seen thus far, but it's a bit lacking in delivery. You definitely should have spent more time on the climax.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (2/5) – There were several mistakes including typos and impossible sentences and very strange errors that I don’t even have a name for. The best way to catch mistakes is to give yourself a week away from the story and then come back and read it with new eyes. You’ll be amazed at how helpful that can be.

• Evil Eye (1.5/5) – Typos galore! Sometimes I didn't even know WHAT the hell you were doing, though I knew it was wrong.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (2/10) – Just dialogue gives us nothing if the characters aren’t interesting or particularly human. All that really happens is some bizarre dream-like occurrence, which gives us only minor insight into the protagonist’s mind. Since the only other character worth mentioning is an alternate him, I really don’t have a lot to go off of here.

• Evil Eye (4/10) – There isn't much outside of your protagonist, but your protagonist is fairly well fleshed out. There is a lot missing in how you'd piece him together, but I digress--that's a plot flaw, not a characterization flaw.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (3.5/10) – I can tell that you really had something clear in mind that you want to convey to the rest of us and that you made an effort to do so in an experimental sort of way. However, the style choices just don’t make much sense. I will forever be skeptical of the merit of ellipses and internal dialogue, but the section breaks really don’t seem necessary, either. Every style choice should be for a reason and that reason should illustrate itself.

• Evil Eye (5/10) – I can tell the pace slowly quickened as you wrote this, because it starts out good and fairly atmospheric and drops down almost to the meat and potatoes. You still have a few snippets here and there that I quite like, interesting ways of description. "I cringed as the ground rushed up to meet me" being one of my favorites. A question, though.... Open your eyes... inspired by Abre Los Ojos much? Hurrr. Oh, and don't use bold to designate stressed dialogue. Use italics. I enjoyed the Time Machine-like back and forth structure, with the first person part being extended dialogue. You could do more to clean it up, though. It's a tad messy. This story would be very enjoyable if you did some reconstruction.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (3.5/10) – I like that there something to be implied in your plot. Well, there are lots of things to be implied, but most are due to confusion in the lack of relevance or fleshing out of the majority of the details. But like I said, I do enjoy that the story is a reverse narrative and that a plot does, in fact, exist.

• Evil Eye (7/10) – It was very engaging, but bogged down by a hurried style and a need for fleshing out of major points. It's just kind of like he tosses a bit of Science at the psychiatrist and thus automatically it is accepted for the moment. There's no mention of how or why he has acquired said knowledge. Also, your ending is a bit confusing, though certainly interesting.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (2/5) – It’s there, somewhere, but it’s so convoluted that it’s nearly indiscernible. Alternate and infinite realities should be handled with much more care, I think.

• Evil Eye (2/5) – Until you fix this up a bit, I could never guess what it is. I definitely know one is there.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (.5/5) – Memories tugged at him. That’s not enough, and the fact that the story starts and ends precisely nowhere doesn’t help give this pivotal and crucial moment any weight at all. What is needed is deep insight into what the protagonist is feeling, what he’s thinking, how much he’s struggling. That, and a convincing antagonist. More on that later.

• Evil Eye (1/5) – As clever as I have to admit that he misses his target, the fact is that he learns nothing about himself and there is no introspection or consideration over the idea of shooting an old friend. He just prepares to do it. Then takes his time doing it. Then attempts it. And that's all.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (2.5/5) – One typo isn’t bad, but it’s the overabundance of ellipses and inexplicable paragraph breaks and ambiguous speaker and confusing style that really bothered me. A friend of mine writes and constantly asks herself “Does this make sense???” She’s perhaps a bit too obsessed with that question, but it is an important one to address for the reader’s sake.

• Evil Eye (2/5) – Bleh. Some spelling mistakes, typos, and the pastest tense seems to frighten you. Missing prepositions. Oh, and do me a favor--look up a book on who versus whom.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (2/10) – The exact term for your characterization of the protagonist isn’t called “projecting,” but I’m going to call it projecting. You’re projecting! Projecting what, you ask? Why, yourself, of course! It’s a common malady of young writers to put themselves into their protagonist and all of the angst and confusion of junior high therein. Good writing requires a deliberate remove from the goings on around us, especially if you’re projecting. You have to be open to the possibility of metaphor and you have to really be conscious of what details are really important and which can be omitted in your rough draft. I could pick out specifics, but in your writing I see nothing important or thought-provoking revealed about the characters and nothing that doesn’t seem forced (that especially includes dialogue). Removing yourself is step one!

• Evil Eye (2/10) – Brandon's a bit eccentric, I think, and not in the good John Cleese character sort of way. More the inexplicable sense that comes with underdevelopment. If he thinks his mythical beasts are unrivalled by his classmates, why erase it? I don't completely doubt that you had a reason in doing so, but you didn't tell me, and you didn't tell your reader. Oh, and the part where Brandon Matrix'd it up? You can't see me, but I'm ramming my finger down my throat. I literally groaned at how lame that was. Sorry. I just find it hard to believe a little kid could move faster than a hardened criminal could aim. Speaking of bullet-time dodges, Ms. Staffing seems to exist only to die. The closest she gets to a personality is a first name. As for your goon, if he doesn't have bipolar, he is by far the most unrealistic character I have ever mentally digested. He shoots the woman he loves, then he yells at some little kids SHIFT he starts crying. See how awkward that was? That's how it read. His dialogue is poor poor poor as well. As for Trent, how old are you? Are you the age of the kids in this story? Because let me tell you, I'm only eighteen, unlike the Formido gangbanger who's no doubt in his late twenties or thirties, and even I feel confident that there's no way in hell even the most freakishly large twelve year-old kid would be able to knock me down, much less hit me hard enough to make me drop a gun. This fits more under plot, but it leads to another point--Trent did something big there, and I'm completely neutral on whether I buy it. That's bad, my friend. It means you haven't developed him. At all. And that Spit fella? His speech to his men is the most cliché "motivational moment" I've ever watched or read. Please please alter it.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (2.5/10) – Your style is really quite average, which is not meant to be an insult. It just means you have a lot of work to do. One thing that would help immensely is working on your descriptions. As they are now, they’re not your descriptions. You were exclusively cliché with everything you described.

• Evil Eye (3/10) – One thing about the title. I can't read Latin. Neither can ninety-nine percent of the general population. If you're going to go for something outlandish like that, find a way to weave it into the story so your reader can "get it", or drop it altogether. Also, this was a pain in the *** to read thanks to the awkward enter-key work, but I assume this has to do with a Word/WordPad-SWF transfer, so I'll let it slide. Now, onto the story itself. Never use quotations to implicate thought within the protagonist's mind. That is beyond confusing. You italicized it, and dammit, that's good enough. You have a bad habit of describing the wrong things. My best example is encapsulated while Brandon watches Trent draw the portrait of the girl he's gettin' his mack-daddy on. While describing the drawing itself--and you describe the stereotypical things, face, hair, body... get original!--you completely remove Brandon and his bemused voyeurism and turn the focus of the story completely over to an as-yet undeveloped and cardboard character and his inanimate drawing. What you should have done was describe the drawing as Brandon would see it, seeing the "eagle-like" sharpness is the girl's eyes, the delicate smoothness of the shading. Getting into your character's head is tough, and I'm not convinced yet. You have the other habit of throwing unneeded words into sentences in the most clunky way imaginable. "A chill traveled up Brandon’s spine as he watched--astonished--the door crash open." Why did you--seriously--need the astonished? See what I just said? See how clunky it is? Gross! Don't do that. By the way, you don't die instantly from a bullet to the heart. The reason a shot in the heart kills you is that it stops your blood from pumping. It'd take at least a minute, though I'm not a doctor. And now the good. "Brandon remembered his mother driving him far, far away in the middle of the night. She had feared for his life. The long drive was hazy, but the horrible sound of his mother sobbing stuck in his mind." That excerpt there was by far the best of the piece. Do me a favor--dissect it, find out why, and incorporate that style into future writings.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (1.5/10) – I understand what you were trying to do, but the way you did it is very confusing and very unconvincing. There was really no justification for the drastic shifts in your characters’ behaviors. There is much more at work when one human kills another, and it’s so much deeper than “they’re from The Ghetto.” The things that characters do overall don’t make sense, and the ending is not an ending. I recommend picking up any Short Story anthology to learn what makes a story breathe.

• Evil Eye (2.5/10) – Man, do you have any idea how unlikely it is that a gang would assault a school not once, but twice? Much less while the same person is in the room--that's about as astronomically unlikely as winning the lottery. At any rate, so much of it is cliché and whatever is indeed original is completely skeletal. Like the gang itself. We know nothing of its motivations or anything of the like. It's just a gang. That wants to be the best. Great. Trent's being Spit? Cliché. And completely unprecedented. Yes yes, I know. He wants to be significant. But there's two different ways. It could have been interesting to witness him going down "the wrong path", from being this heroic kid to someone who gets his "significance" in all the wrong ways, but we don't get to see anything. At all. And Trent and Brandon's friendship was as undeveloped as it was unlikely.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (0/5) – There is no universal truth in this story, on the surface or otherwise. Again, I urge you to remove yourself and discover metaphors and deeper meanings in the world around you, in the people that you meet. I don’t want to say that’s impossible for a young writer (pokemonmaster01 proved that it can be done!); it’s just a big challenge. But no one ever said good writing is easy.

• Evil Eye (1/5) – It's betrayal. I know this only because people are betrayed in it. The concept of betrayal itself and the story's manifestations of betrayal are given no gravity whatsoever.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (0/5) – The protagonist did not consider taking another person’s life, so I can’t award you any points here.

• Evil Eye (.5/5) – I thought I was pretty clear when I said that the contemplation had to be taking someone else's life. I'd have been more lenient with the score here if it was really well-written or something, but...

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (2/5) – Typos, tense shifts, comma splices, ambiguous pronouns, and other stuff. Spelling and grammar aren’t easy skills to master, but they’re important and must be mastered at least to the point that the above mentioned mistakes in particular aren’t made. At your level, I only recommend reading more to develop a basic sense of acceptable grammar.

• Evil Eye (1/5) – Frequent tense swaps, spelling mistakes, improper sentences... ugh. Did you write this straight into the browser?

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (1/10) – I don’t buy any of it. Aside from treating your characters with clichés and wholly unimaginative descriptions in general, you don’t develop them in the least bit. What I mean is that, on top of making your characters bland and uninteresting, they are static and unconvincing. You have to describe characters artfully, with the senses in mind, with metaphor in mind, with much more in mind that simple concrete facts like hair color or simple clichés like “I love her because she is beautiful”—show, don’t tell. Explore the true depths of the characters. Psychoanalysis!

• Evil Eye (1/10) – The only characterization here is designation of gender. You have characters Type A (male) Type B (female) and that's it. The dialogue amongst sameTypes is inconsequential and interchangeable. The dialogue between differTypes is stilted and awkward.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (1.5/10) – As I mentioned already, your handling of language is not imaginative. You have to be open to the idea that there is more at work than what happened. What happened is not what’s important; it’s how (and sometimes why) you write about it that makes the story artistic. Your style is completely barebones and leaves no room for metaphor, absolutely no room for interpretation. It makes your writing cold and unaffectionate, the exact opposite of what writing about “love” should feel like.

• Evil Eye (1/10) – You don't really, uh, have one. This story is the embodiment of bare bones. I was about to say "bare bones in the flesh" but that just wouldn't make any sense now would it? At any rate, there really isn't a style. There's meager dialogue, often a simple one or two word phrase, a dull way to designate the speaker, paragraph break, lather rinse and repeat. Sometimes you changed it up with a whopping oneliner of exposition and back into the dialogue. You've really got to work on fleshing things out.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (1/10) – I can’t stress this enough to young writers: if you’re going to write thinly veiled autobiographical stories that address your angst and confusion, it has to be extraordinary writing and not of the bland and banal caliber seen on Live Journal. And even then, you hardly have a narrative ark, and this wouldn’t even be passable as a personal essay. There are a few stories I recommend that you read which offer an invaluable insight into writing artfully about the challenges of adolescence (among other more things): “Autobiography of a Face” by Lucy Grealy, “The Kiss” by Kathryn Harrison, or the short story “Where are you going, where have you been?” by Joyce Carol Oates.

• Evil Eye (1/10) – That was painfully contrived. It's almost hard to put into words, come to think of it. Take a look through your story and ask yourself if you can really call that realistic. Ten years later, after exchanging a whopping ten words with a decade-older high school sweetheart, he says they should start dating again? It's horrendously unrealistic that puppy love can last ten years, but if you insist on having it as such, you've got to cling to every shred of realism you can. It was so much worse at the wedding. That was, in all honesty, essentially unreadable. The dialogue was unlikely, the plot happenings were completely impossible, and "Zip your lip" is by far the worst line I've read in this contest. If this story gets a second draft, write yourself some notes on what went wrong with this draft, scrap it, and rewrite.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (.5/5) – You get half a point because there was a theme. For slapping us in the face with it and force-feeding it down our throats—a theme so cliché and poorly developed—I can’t give you any more than half a point.

• Evil Eye (.5/5) – Alright, I'm gonna lay something down here. If you're going to write a story about high school drama, I have a minimum quota on brilliance--it must be at least as brilliant as the Philip K. **** story "Foster You're Dead". "True love conquers all" is a beyond worn out theme that has descended into the Seventh Circles of both Hell and The Cliché Retirement Castle. There's no theme here that's particularly interesting or deep. You definitely didn't meet your brilliance quota.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (3/5) – There was way insufficient mental consideration in whether or not to pull the trigger. Even the situation for it was unlikely, given the fact that it’s a war and the protagonist had likely killed (or at least pulled the trigger) many times before without hesitation.

• Evil Eye (1.5/5) – He definitely holds someone at gunpoint, and he definitely learns something about himself. That said, it could have been done much better.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (4/5) – Just a couple of typos and awkward sentences, nothing major.

• Evil Eye (2/5) – Ick. Constant tense swaps, spelling mistakes. An abuse of the enter key that I wish was stylistic, but sadly know otherwise.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (5.5/10) – This corresponds directly with my above criticisms: given the nature of the situation dramatized and the lack of reasonable insight into the psyche of the protagonist, there is insufficient justification for the end result. The other characters seem to act merely as backdrop, and the dialogue needs to be either more convincing or non-existent.

• Evil Eye (1/10) – There's almost no evidence of any attempt to characterize except in the end. For the most part, if your characters are lucky enough even to be MENTIONED, they're lucky if they rise from being a mappe painting to an archetype. What is clear is cliché cliché cliché. I'm completely removed throughout essentially the entire thing. I'm not feeling this at all.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (6/10) – I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but: you need to be more open to the possibility of metaphor. It’s important to tell stories (especially war stories!) with the senses, with impressions and franticness. Also, the Metal Gear reference was senseless. Don’t do that.

• Evil Eye (2/10) – Eh. It's hard to distinguish your style, as much of it is a bit of a jumble. My best example is your opening. You open with a sentence that belongs a few paragraphs in. I guess you were going for the "pick it up in the middle of things" approach, which is a well-travelled route that can be pulled off well, but here it just isn't. The opening line and its following sentences are a big mess of clichés. We get it. They're outnumbered. They're outmatched. Not only are you giving away the eventual plot outcomes, but seriously--find a creative way to point out the usual, or skip it. Sadly, this paragraph seems to be a microcosm for the whole piece. Oh. And don't use numbers for numbers, write them out. And don't use all-caps for yelling. Describe it. Also, you picked a **** weird place to point out what weapon your soldier was carrying. If you're going to point it out at all... have a point. It would have been a nice way to give him some actual introspection while he sat by the fire.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (3.5/10) – So they’re fighting a war against injustice. What war? What injustice? A short story has to be able to tell itself, and if there are going to be broad statements like that, then the idea must be explored and given room to breathe, not left behind like an obese soldier. Again, the twist was weak and improbable, as was the James Bond-esque locating of the nuke plans.

• Evil Eye (2/10) – Lordy. Ground troups don't fight battleships. Seriously. That makes no tactical sense, considering they'd be like fruit flies to that thing--and the fact that they're generally in deep water. I'm positive the Germans never used Kalashnikovs. Soldiers don't listen to other soldiers unless they have special chevrons that actually designate some sort of training in military tactics and leadership. And what's up with the computer scene? What war is this, man! Because they definitely didn't have personal computers and/or floppies during either. Just because it's a fictionalized account, it doesn't mean you don't have to do any research!

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (1/5) – The title was the theme, so I can’t exactly award you points for subtlety. That the character was “betrayed” in a matter of sentences is a weak case, too, and not at all impacting. There are so many deep themes to explore in a war situation, so I would urge you to explore something less obvious in future writings.

• Evil Eye (1/5) – You missed a great opportunity with the "Nuke plans" file to explore a really dark area of human nature, and instead dismissed it with a single line. Your theme is given away by the TITLE. Don't do that. The theme itself is flimsy

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (2.5/5) – There were an awful lot of triggers being pulled without a whole lot of consideration for the other person’s life, which was the point. The Blank Point.

• Evil Eye (2/5) – There's zero revelation. The prompt's situation is there, and it works--and that's it.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (4/5) – Some typos, some comma things, nothing major.

• Evil Eye (4.5/5) – Around 3+ errors.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (4.5/10) – Too much telling, not enough showing. It’s interesting that Sergei has telekinetic power, granted, but it’s necessary that something so bizarre be properly fleshed out rather than summed up in a single paragraph of dialogue. And that Sasha didn’t believe his power after seeing the glob of floating vodka is pretty unbelievable. I found most of the dialogue to be unbelievable. You need to focus on more subtle aspects of communication, not merely what is said. Also, Vladimir’s quickly changing attitudes just won’t do.

• Evil Eye (5/10) – Your characters are pretty well just barebones Russian stereotypes. They have skeletal potential that is completely unexpanded upon. As is, they're not very different, despite their various powers (politically/economically and in the sense of Sergei's telekinesis). They're rather wooden. Sasha is terribly uninteresting, generally. It almost feels like you just have him there to ask the obvious questions. That makes him dull dull dull. Deliberate or not, this is a big no-no for a PASSING character, much less your protagonist! Let your readers ask the obvious questions. Pose the question... don't ask it cognitively. Also, why do your Russian thugs talk like goons hired out of the Bronx?

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (6/10) – What kills the story most is its almost complete lack of environment and consequently lacking atmosphere. Focus on the senses when narrating, on metaphor and impressions. The story reads pretty bare without those important aspects of depth.

• Evil Eye (6.5/10) – Frequent run-on sentences, and they aren't used in the dandy stream-of-consciousness fashion. Very stilted and inconsequential dialogue. There's little atmosphere as well, which is the carnal sin of fiction in a Russian setting. The title feels like something taken out of a generic "Examples of Titles" book, and what's worse, there isn't really much tension in the story.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (4/10) – I don’t want to say that the story was confusing, but it was difficult to follow exactly what was important. The reader knows very little of Sasha, Sergei, and Vladimir besides the few things you tell us. The characters and their pasts need to be sufficiently fleshed out in order for an engaging narrative to form. And again, the telekinesis needs more attention, more believability, if it’s going to be such a key plot point. I also can’t say that I’m a fan of the way you started the story; it reeks of gimmick.

• Evil Eye (5/10) – Your transition is strange at the beginning. I wasn't completely sure whether the skip was backward or forward in time for quite a while, there. The plot itself is circular and nonsensical. Why would Sergei shoot those thugs if it wasn't allowed in his plans with Vladimir? Why would he shoot them at all, if he has psychic powers? Why would they go back to the apartment if they were just going to leave right away? Why would they leave right away at all, after such a long night? And I'm not believing that plot twist at all. A knock-out dart gun? Trés contrived! You could have handled Sergei's telekinetic introduction much, much better, as well. Right now it reads like "I have psychic powers." (bad line) "No you don't." "Watch this." "Oic."

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (1/5) – Don’t trust a person who claims to be your long lost cousin? I can’t really imagine that you were going for anything more than that, if even that.

• Evil Eye (1/5) – Is there even one? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but let's just say I wouldn't defend you from the Rwandan government out of faith, either.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (2/5) – The idea of the prompt was to explore the mind of a man who holds another man at gunpoint, to reveal the intense mental struggle of whether or not to take another man’s life. You did that—kind of. Insofar as everyone wanting Nikolai dead, including Pyotr, I guess you could make a case for there being some mental aspect of wanting murder explored, thought it would be a small case. A 2 points case.

• Evil Eye (4/5) – All the elements are there, though I'd like a little more introspection and revelation on Pyotr's part. You told us about the hesitation, but nothing about his brain cells bubbling about trying to make sense of the situation.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (4/5) – I didn’t notice anything more than a few minor typos.

• Evil Eye (5/5) – If there's an error, I missed it. Which isn't difficult to believe. It's 1am right now. So if there are errors in there, pat yourself on the **** for a free point.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (7.5/10) – I liked your way of revealing the characters to us, showing their human tendencies with sharp dialogue and some very key gestures. And it’s interesting to think of the townspeople as a single character with their mob mentality and vengeful spirit. However, I don’t think that any one character was fleshed out enough, and it would have especially been helpful to focus more on Nikolay. Or his killer, for that matter.

• Evil Eye (7/10) – Now this is interesting. You characters all have a different dynamic. They aren't rooted in cliché, look oh-too-many of these entries. They are definitely their own people. If one of them did something out of character, I would know. I know them JUST enough to care about what happens to them. However, though they have lives and they breathe, and possess autonomy of mind, you haven't shown me too much about what's going on IN those minds. I understand it's difficult to capture the minds of a whole town, but even within your circle of main characters, the mind's eye is a bit blank. The dialogue was both sharp and a fun read.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (8.5/10) – You have atmospheric writing down pretty well. That is, you’re able to render some pretty cinematic sorts of visuals. Especially in the first and last sections, I really liked the shift in language towards describing what was heard and seen. In a lot of cases, though, I see words that should be omitted entirely, words here and there that prevent your sentences from being as tight as they could be, as if you have an idea of what you want to do but haven’t done the revisions yet to let that idea present itself. Thismeans rewriting and giving every aspect of your story artistic importance and cohesiveness.

• Evil Eye (8/10) – As I said in Vanilla's story, a story set in a Russian atmosphere needs to actually HAVE atmosphere. It needs to breathe. I could definitely see the snow hitting everyone's faces, hear those dastardly bells, sense the oncoming frostbite. However, as I was walking home from my college just a few days ago through a miserable Winnipeg day, I realized something--for however marvelous a painting you've brushed for us to look at, it's lacking a bit in making us experience it. It draws us into the story, but it doesn't suck us into the situation, if that makes any sense to you.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (6/10) – My biggest problem is the point of view, or lack thereof. Granted, the way you wrote it provided a decent movie sort of effect, but the story would have been considerably deeper had there been a clearer protagonist, or at least someone who’s thoughts help guide the story. It’s almost like giving the story a second plot. Also, I imagined that if the story were to end with ambiguity that you should have circled back to the theme of whether or not man can redeem himself, rather than ending so morbidly like you did.

• Evil Eye (9/10) – At first, you would have had a seven. However, when I read your later post with some behind-the-scenes snippets, I re-read the story, at which point the plot became much more interesting. However, since you did little to nothing to insinuate these behind-the-scenes scenes, nothing to plant them in our minds at least in an infantile state, I can hardly give you a ten.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (4/5) – Like I said, the potential for a greater theme was there, but you didn’t run with it. But as far as the dangers of mob mentality, being manipulated by a woman’s tears, and at least proposing the idea of whether or not man can redeem himself are all interesting and worthy of some points.

• Evil Eye (4/5) – You know, there's something about a crowd of people trying to fuse panic with reason has always fascinated and terrified me. For me, when I saw War of the Worlds, the scene with all the people freaking out, fighting and killing each other for a car, was far more scary than the Martian foghorn. I think you could have done more to show that to us, and more to generalize it into the form of a message--and more craft it into a cautionary tale, rather than just an interesting point.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (3.5/5) – Your protagonist certainly did struggle with whether or not to commit the murder, but you didn’t take the opportunity to be terribly deep or crafty. The internal dialogue almost ruins the moment.

• Evil Eye (3.5/5) – The climax definitely has good ideas and the required introspection, but at the same time, the presentation itself is a bit hackneyed. I'm sure if you go over it, you can do better. Beyond that, the required elements are there.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (3.5/5) – There were a few types, and when you write dialogue, there has to be punctuation. For example: “I have a hospital fetish,” said Vyse.

• Evil Eye (2/5) – The spelling is generally solid, but the constantly underwhelming punctuation made this a pain to read, despite the story being fairly interesting. Some tense and apostrophe stuff. Nothing a read-through can't fix. I hope. You seem to have trouble with "s" versus "z", by the way. Realise instead of realize and all that.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

• Matt (5/10) – I like that you tried to explore unfamiliar grounds with this writing—that is, insofar as noir and stereotypical characters can be considered unfamiliar. Again, you’re so concerned with delivering us some corny cartoon-esque lesson (not to be confused with theme) that your characters become secondary. Internal dialogue is a copout and I strongly encourage you not to use it anymore.

• Evil Eye (5.5/10) – Your characters are bizarre, in that they are both original and cliché in concept. The son that doesn't want the empire, the slapped-in-the-face father, the friend who becomes stuck in it all. You took these archetypes and knocked it up another notch (BAM) to make them your own. Sadly, beyond this feat itself, you don't accomplish too much with the characters. And for the love of God, when draft two comes around, try to make Naomi more than the beautiful woman who cries and such.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (3.5/10) – He thought quietly? That’s just redundant. As with your characterization, your style and any hope for artfulness are sacrificed in your obsession with shoveling us quaint little lessons. Another thing I really must caution you away from are those section headings. They suck any chance of subtlety for whatever metaphor you’re trying to achieve right out of the story. It’s a gimmick, and not a very effective one.

• Evil Eye (4/10) – I'm happy to say this is much more competent than your SMASH SAVES story, but it's still plagued by decent ideas impressed upon the reader clumsily. "Before a crowd of scrutinising peers, or before empty rows of red velvet seats, it was in the operating theatre where Raphael’s inherent weakness became most apparent." One word, Miami Vyse.... "What?" That's what I asked. That's what most people will ask. There's a basic idea in there somewhere, and it would be dandy if I didn't have to unwrap a riddle and dropkick an enigma to figure it out. It's not completely clear what you're talking about, and that stands up many times within the piece. Try to re-read your stuff and try to find ways to help your reader stumble through the fog. Especially those little lanterns. What lanterns, EE? COMMAS. Seriously. Read some stuff on commas, because your writing looks about ten times as amateurish as it actually is thanks to your neglect. And dammit, I just finished saying this to someone else. Don't use quotation marks to signify thoughts. Especially when said thoughts are italicized. By the way. Don't end sentences in adverbs. Plenty of writers I love do it (Philip K. ****, for example), but they were alive in a different time. An innocent time where pedophiles and homosexuals and bad writing were unknown concepts. Either make the description suit the adverb and drop said adverb, or weave it in more smoothly. Hah, just ended a sentence with one.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (4/10) – Mob stories in which the antagonist is a funny-talking unfeeling drug peddler seem a little bit trite to me. Your take on the genre is in dire need of revision, in dire need of some breathing room. To accomplish the poignancy that you were striving for, the length of the story would need to be closer to novel size.

• Evil Eye (4/10) – It's fairly interesting, and the structure itself was a nice change from the typically formulaic structure of other stories in this contest (exposition, plot happenings, climax & prompt situation, end). However, you just don't accomplish what you could have. And Boss Cibriani needs a LOT more work in the development department. One minute he's an okay guy with an unsavory business, thinking of happier days and enjoying his son's happiness, even if it stings that it isn't the same happiness he wanted for him. The next minute, he's got his son's best friend and girlfriend tied to chairs and said one of them has to die. Same problem with Skywalker--if he's not bipolar, you've got some serious work to do.

• Scav (/10) – [no comment]

• Matt (3.5/5) – Despite my criticisms of your lack of subtlety, I can see that you clearly had theme in mind. However, the unlikelihood of the protagonist’s situation and his hasty decisions, despite your earnest attempt to convince us otherwise with the lead doctor’s words of wisdom in the beginning, take away from the theme.

• Evil Eye (3/5) – It's interesting and fairly subtle, but it's really backed up by the constipation of bad punctuation and stereotype. Clean it up a little.

• Scav (/5) – [no comment]

smashman90 said:

Eh, my story was my first entry, it sucked on the contest but people seem to like it. So while it makes me a little bit sad that I didn't do good, but at least it was entertaining for many people, and that makes me happy.

Click to expand...

Evil Eye said:

It's too bad you didn't enter this one. I seem to have a knack for telling people what they did wrong.

If you finish and post the story in the CM, though, I'd consider a line edit if I have some time

Click to expand...

Evil Eye said:

Don't do what you're considering. It's just a bad idea. You'll have to meld the story around a new idea despite having already thought it out and, from the sound of things, written some of it. It would warp the story and vastly diminish its quality. I say do what Eor did. Finish it as a personal project and post.

Click to expand...

Evil Eye said:

So, I'm done, but I clicked EDIT POST on Matt's post and there was more UBB code than writing. I was afraid to touch anything and **** it all up, so you'll have to wait until I see Mattykins or something.

Click to expand...