Board Thread:Writer's Workshop/@comment-26030957-20150127035953/@comment-26113663-20150206090941

TheGamingSponge wrote: -TheRuckus- wrote: First of all, formatting was incorrect. Have you read a single pasta? They're not indented and has a different font (which I guess is a Helvetica typeface), but right now, is not a critical issue. This is just easy to fix, if you're going to paste a story from a different source, always use "source mode", so there won't be any formatting issue. In case you don't know how to switch to source mode, there's a bracket-like icon, click it and it will automatically turn to source mode.

---

...force that infested the human mind bringing about madness, murder and cannibalism. - "About" is not really needed. It should be deleted. The sentence will still make sense even there's no preposition.

---

'''It was thought that when the book was destroyed so were the three hundred words. '''- This basically didn't make sense. Add a comma between "destroyed" and "so". It will state that when the book was destroyed, the three hundred words was destroyed too.

---

This is not true. - There's no point for saying that. I suggest you to remove it. You can reword it, and connect it to the first sentence.

---

The creature knew not its own origin. - This didn't make sense. You can reword it, and you can refer to my example: The creature was not known by its own origin.

---

It had been called many things by the humans... - Maybe you can reword this, so it will improve. Refer to my example: It had been called many names by the humans.

---

'''Child eater. Soul sucker. Flesh devourer.''' - These need to be connected. Child eater can be connected to soul sucker, and soul sucker can be connected to flesh devourer, and don't forget to add "and" before the last object. Refer to my exaple: Child eater, soul sucker, and flesh devourer.

---

(Transition between paragraph 4 and 5) - The transition to from broad to a specifica subject is rough. You can smoothen it by adding some background to the next subject.

---

(The entire 5th paragraph) - What? What the fuck just happened there? Urge? Please, explain it clean and concise; it will make us question its legitimacy as a pasta.

---

'She thought: Tom can’t leave me for her. I mean, after all, we have the same Netflix account!' - You need to use proper punctuation. Before a dialogue, add an quotation mark (") and also after. Use a comma instead of a colon . "She thought" is a dependent clause, and it will need the dialogue to complete the idea.

It must be like this: She thought, "Tom can't leave me for her. I mean, after all, we have the same Netflix account!"

---

He gave three knocks. - Delete this part, it's irrelevant.

---

'''“I know what you have done,” he said. “But my account is only streaming now.”''' - Punctuation error. When connecting an unfinished dialogue, and then you add an identifier, make sure you add a comma, and decapitalize the start of the second part of the dialogue. Sorry for my unclear explanation, please understand the struggle.

It must be like this: “I know what you have done,” he said, “but my account is only streaming now.”

---

The story itself was inconsistent, and I think it didn't have any plot, at all. I suggest you to rephrase some parts, or if ever impossible, rewrite the whole story. I saw plot holes, improper punctuation, and some miscellaneous erros. Your grammar is fine. Overall, this needs some moderate work. Look, I don't want to be rude, but is English your first language? Some of the things you said here that "don't make sense" actually make perfect sense. "The creature knew not its own origin" this actually makes perfect sense, it's just written the way it would be written in Medieval times or something. "She thought: Tom can’t leave me for her. I mean, after all, we have the same Netflix account! " This isn't dialogue. Dialogue is a conversation between two people. Dialogue. Latin roots. Monologue would have been a better substitute, but this isn't monologue. It's a thought. "It was thought that when the book was destroyed so were the three hundred words." While I do understand that this may be hard to read properly, I assure you it makes perfect sense. Basically what he's saying is "I thought that the book and the three hundred words were destroyed," he just worded it differently; back with the medieval stuff. I admit, English is not my own language, but I know English better than my own language. But sometimes, I get wrong, because I'm just a human, and sometimes a typo, so let me blame my computer.

We don't look at things the same way; we have a different viewpoint of anything and everything. And by the way, it's just a series of opinions and suggestions, so don't be mad about that. It's not the way I read sentences and also not the way I write, so it's difficult for me to understand.

I'm not being dramatic, nor bemotional. But I actually agree with you. You're all correct.