Board Thread:Writer's Workshop/@comment-38956976-20190328232205/@comment-38956976-20190329224812

BloodySpghetti wrote: Alright so this follows the typical "mysterious creature out to get the protagonist" trope, and its use here is very bad, I'll be honest the story should've ended the moment the guy sped off. Like, there's no point for a predator that knows prey is bound to fall into his hands to follow this specific guy. He could just wait for another passerby and eat them because this creature comes off like an opportunistic ambush predator rather than one that stalks its prey, sort of like some incests and arachnids are. It's a waste of energy for the beast to following this specific guy. This story ends the moment you let your protagonist get away from the monster completely the first time.

Instead of doing what you did, you could've made the protagonist need to walk through the city, or a city he doesn't know where you could slowly and patiently establish that he is being followed, after that you'd reveal this creature and from there on you could come up with some escape route for the ending.

Aside from this stupidly persistent thing, the armed forces that show up at the right place on the right time, that's just not believable.

Also, "my dog got scared, therefore something is about to go down, and badly" mentality... don't do that, that's not how things work, my friend, loud sounds a dog is not accustomed to would scare or alert even the largest dogs. I personally dislike the idea that dogs see "evil" in in-plot monsters, they don't, they react to body chemistry and body language, thus supernatural beings shouldn't be causing dogs to get fearful to advance the plot with cheap dramatic characterization. It's not believable really. Dogs can and will eat corpses, so seeing an ugly mother effer won't bother them much.

As for the "you've seen too much" ending, I don't think it fits here, it's just so random and kind of forced. Stick to, "it looked like some mutated bear" and that's it. Also for the record, there are cases of hairless bears, so it can work as a viable explanation. Damn, I see theres a lot of room for improvement then. I thank you for your honesty and the descriptive critique, though!