Board Thread:Writer's Workshop/@comment-31477126-20170823183346/@comment-30307610-20170828203340

I actually gave this story a review before it was put on this site. Me and the OP talk regularly so he is already aware of my thoughts on the story. I appologize for that as it sort of leaves you as a middle man trying to figure out why I am not reviewing the story as much and am focusing more on your review. My point was more that the story works as it was written. Sure there could be some more fleshing out in the intro and the writing style needs to be more consistant. However I was feeling like you were trying to make this story into your own story. Opening up your eyes and seeing nothing but Milky white eyes is in itself imagery. Because there isnt anything else that is being described the reader is left to infer what is there. For me, I inferred that the character doesnt actually have sleep paralysis, but instead has an invisible creature who sits on him every night and watches him sleep. This creatures eyes cant be seen unless there is direct illumination on them.

Now that may or may not be the authors intent, but because it is a creepypasta story I am left to fill in the detail of this. All of your other comments I agree with. The syntax/gramatical errors are spot on. It just seems like when you make story section reviews you have decided that the author can only mean something if it is being expressly said. Again, I do not mean any ill will on this, but not saying something can go a long way as well. Nebulous writing is a tool that is used a lot in creepypasta writing with very good effect and it seems like you want to just write it off. Like you said, a happy iguana is different than a happy dog but its in the other descriptions that you start to peice together what I am talking about. If I said: " I came home to find Spot was acting strange and was sleeping more than usual. Ussually he would come bounding down the stairs, greeting me with his tail wagging, almost knocking me over." I havent said that Spot is a dog, but it can be inferred that he is more likely a dog than an iguana. I understand that is what you are trying to say too, but if a kid was able to do internet research and then later gets a computer, I am left to infer that he did internet research somewhere else.