Talk:Protector/@comment-24229645-20160109182030

The story had no internal logic (e.g., how did a dead man manage to get his child home from the hospital and provide care for her; if, on the other hand, he's a ghost, why did the "agent" need a gun). Fiction can only work if a story remains true to its own internal logic; this is an established principal in literary theory. The illogical story is further hampered by clumsy turns of phrase, invented words, and overblown language that doesn't advance an already hopelessly muddled plot. It's almost as if the writer is an additional presence behind the narrator, jumping up and down and saying "See how cleverly I use words?" There is no such word as "contemptly." "Chipping" is a transitive verb denoting action upon an object, but in the story it appears to be used as an adjective; at least, that is the only use in which it makes even minimal sense. Also, "spectated." Yes, it is a word. However, it is used in an inappropriate context here; it is generally used to describe the act of being a spectator at a scheduled occasion such as a concert, sporting event, etc. In the context of a loving husband and father witnessing the aftermath of the accident that killed his wife, it is jarringly inappropriate and comes across as pretentious (the more so as it is contained in the phrase, "I watched, I spectated..."; a good writer never adds extraneous words).