Board Thread:Writer's Workshop/@comment-26268104-20161003223019/@comment-24101790-20161004200445

Creeper50 wrote: Thanks for taking the time to critique the story, Empy. Your notice of the grammar issues will be really helpful to me. However, I'm going to have to refute a few of the things you said.


 * "The dialogue doesn't feel realistic." There are a lot of ways that could happen. Which one applies to my dialogue?


 * "Nick's random descent into DID needs a lot of work." Didn't I clarify that NIck was just acting so the police would not get suspicious by him walking away from school on the final exam day?


 * You said the flashback didn't explain Larry's selflessness. The thing is, the flashback comes back here and there, slowly revealing what made his father so selfless.


 * You questioned how a kid almost out of biology class could cure lung cancer on a budget of 100 bucks. The story is designed to demonstrate how much further people could get in getting things done if moral codes didn't get in the way. And with Nick, he starts crossing them to get his work done, which gives him an edge over other researchers.


 * Lastly, the stuttering reporter was there because he's a dramatic plant. At the end of the story, the reporter is still stuttering, but unlike before, Nick is not laughing, showing that recent events drained hope and happiness out of him.

All the other issues have fairly good points but the ones above you described had weren't as great. Again, thanks for your time, and bye.


 * ""The dialogue doesn't feel realistic." There are a lot of ways that could happen. Which one applies to my dialogue?"


 * What I mean is what I said there. The dialogue feels like you would never hear it coming out of someone's mouth. The only scenarios you would hear lines like the ones I included above being given is in a movie that doesn't quite know how to work it organically into the story itself so they just have the characters say what the author wants them to tell the audience without making it work in the story. For example: “I wish that you continue doing whatever you are attempting in life and pretend that I never existed.” That line feels like it was ripped off a melodramatic soap opera and should be followed by a dramatic organ and a cut to commercial break


 * ""Nick's random descent into DID needs a lot of work." Didn't I clarify that NIck was just acting so the police would not get suspicious by him walking away from school on the final exam day?"


 * I mention that because it "feels shoe-horned into the story as a justification rather than an actual character trait. Additionally if he's using it as an excuse, why doesn't he go with the much more obvious explanation (his father's terminal disease) for failing to take the test?" I wouldn't call in to work when I'm sick with the stomach flu and then claim that I had amnesia when there's a much more reasonable excuse there as the decision that I now have to pretend I suffer from amnesia (or your protagonist's case, DID) make a lot more issues. The protagonist's father has just lapsed into a coma, what school would reasonably deny him the right to visit his father and give him an opportunity to re-schedule? If the protagonist is trying to retain the ability to re-take the test while also getting away from the police, wouldn't literally anything other than he's prone to randomly shift into separate personalities despite not showcasing symptoms of DID make for a better reason? What school do you think is willing to take on the liability of someone who has proven themselves unstable and isn't seeking treatment for his condition which has suddenly manifested? This is really flawed thinking.


 * "You said the flashback didn't explain Larry's selflessness. The thing is, the flashback comes back here and there, slowly revealing what made his father so selfless."


 * Please read this: "Additionally that had nothing to do with explaining how Larry was selfless as it was just Nick and Brad protesting. You get into it later, but at this moment, it just seems like a pointless aside." If you drop a line like "His father had once again demonstrated how selfless he was. Just like that other time." and then not explain that for another three pages, there is something very wrong there. It would be like me telling you "Here's what's wrong with your story." and then proceeding to explain the history of literature before going on to explain all the issues present. It comes off as un-necessary and like meandering writing.


 * "You questioned how a kid almost out of biology class could cure lung cancer on a budget of 100 bucks. The story is designed to demonstrate how much further people could get in getting things done if moral codes didn't get in the way. And with Nick, he starts crossing them to get his work done, which gives him an edge over other researchers."


 * Sorry, but that's flawed logic. If that were the case, then Nazi experimentation and the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment would have revealed a lot more information about the human condition. This is especially flawed as there are multiple people operating outside of medical boards as we speak. Why haven't they solved these medical issues when they're operating under the same principals. Additionally it ignores the fact that the protagonist is operating at a much lower capacity (financially, in terms of manpower, equipment, and time) than organizations who have devoted their entirety to studying/understanding this disease. A quick google search shows numerous examples. The lung cancer research foundation has been operating for fifteen years with little success.


 * "Lastly, the stuttering reporter was there because he's a dramatic plant. At the end of the story, the reporter is still stuttering, but unlike before, Nick is not laughing, showing that recent events drained hope and happiness out of him."


 * Please look again at what I wrote: "the idea of a physical change impacting a mental/personality response needs more explanation. (Large eyes wouldn't correlate to a desire to travel the world and see everything.)" It doesn't make much sense to write a line like that as it feels out of place. Do people with small ears not listen to everything, do short people have small personalities, does a person with a large mouth mean they're always talking? No. It doesn't make much sense to draw that connection with small ears and being closed to criticism (especially since there are no examples given). And that just reveals another issue. There is a massive amount of telling the audience not showing them as you state this word-for-word in the story itself: "If Nick had seen this months back, he would giggle at Carl’s constant stuttering and mispronunciations, but past events had drained Nick of hope and humor."

I suggest taking time to actually read the reviews carefully as skimming them and throwing out weak refutations will in no way help you improve your writing.