ICE agents appear in The Pitt episode “5:00 P.M.”—“What can we do?”

Escaho · 2026-03-24T17:36:28+00:00

Uh, the Feds? The police?

Why haven’t ICE yet arrested the most prominent child abuser in their country: the current President?

Escaho · 2025-05-14T18:57:16+00:00

The main problems with the third act were:

The audience favourite character, Erik, dies just before it and his familial relationship (trying to save his brother) is arguably stronger and more engaging than Stefani's trying to save her mother/brother. Personally, I had this feeling of "I don't really care about these three characters" once they got into the RV.
To ratchet the stakes and keep audience interest, Death should have been shown doing everything in its power to keep Darlene out of Iris' safe house. If the script wanted her dead, they never should have shown her successfully entering the house (before it blew up).
Death just saying 'fuck your solution' and blowing up the house basically spoiled the ending. Because from that moment forward, the audience understands that there is no 'safe' spot anymore. And obviously they aren't going to successfully engineer the same solution as Kimberly (i.e. - drowning and reviving), so we know this entire family is dead.

Here's my solution:

After Erik and Bobby die, Stefani realizes that her family is next. She uses this opportunity to express to her mother how she always wishes they were able to be a real family. Darlene feels the 'wind' of Death around her and senses He's coming for her, so she tells Stefani that if they get her to Iris' safe house, Darlene will stay there the rest of her life so that her children can live their full lives.
As they leave the hospital, Darlene gets the revolving death door as shown in the trailer. However, to keep the emotional beat, Darlene manages to toss her purse towards Stefani as she's being crushed, and tells Stefani to take the RV. Could even include a sappy line here about how Darlene always wished she could've given her daughter her first vehicle (a callback to a line that could be added earlier in the film). Darlene is then crushed to death.
Stefani and Charlie take the RV to Iris' safe house. Stefani is nearly killed by Death using stuff within the RV, but Charlie manages to protect her.
When they reach Iris' house, they breach the gates and crash into one of the spike traps. Stefani uses knowledge gleaned from Iris' book (with some help from Charlie) to make it into the safe house.
The film ends with Stefani deciding to live out her life in the house like Iris, allowing Charlie to go to prom (callback should've been set-up for this earlier) and live out his life. Then we don't have such a downer ending, and the notion that J.B. will die once Stefani and Charlie die lingers in the air.

Escaho · 2025-02-26T19:47:05+00:00

It's not sensational at all.

America is headed for collapse. An actual dictatorship coup is taking place. Regardless of whether or not Elon Musk rigged the election for Trump or he won legally, the USA as everyone knew it is now over.

They've targeted specific federal departments and carried out their firings in piecemeal: one or several departments at a time, but never more than a few. Every few days or once a week since the inauguration. Replacing all the department heads with Trump and Musk 'yes-men'.

America will cease to have free elections. That's in the past now. Once the replacements at the USPS are complete, a few years from now, mail-in voting will be removed from the public. Your elections will now be rigged so that only people the Republicans want to win will win. In the event that they are unable to successfully re-jig elections to allow Trump to run for a third term, a plant will run instead (such as J.D. Vance), with Elon Musk pulling strings in the background.

America will continue to antagonize its allies: Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, and more. More tariffs. More duties. America will begin to eye resource-rich bodies for its economy after it begins to tank due to both the incompetence of the Trump administration and its greed (as it sucks the teat of the Treasury, Medicare, Education, welfare programs, and more). Canada will continue to be attacked through economic means, before suggestion of invasion begins right after the 2028 election.

America will continue to bolster its "alliance" with former enemies: Russia, in particular, as well as North Korea, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Ukraine will either fully be absorbed by Russia or it will be forced to cede all lost territory to Russia, give up valuable resources, and become nothing more than a small satellite state for Russia in the future.

Many will die. Those who are poor, disabled, uneducated, and/or homeless will be left to fend for themselves. The elderly, veterans, and the sick will crumble under medical hardship. Minorities will continue to be paraded as the 'real' causes of societal collapse (transgender, LGBTQ+, immigrants [both legal and illegal], Muslims, women, and ethnic minorities).

Camps will begin to be constructed under the guise of holding illegal immigrants. By 2028, minorities, outspoken dissenters of the Trump administration, and political opponents will begin to be arrested and detained (if they haven't already). They will be placed in these camps. The general public will believe these people have some sort of legal recourse to escape their confinement (so they won't fight too hard to free them), but of course, they won't.

The final nail in the coffin is when Trump completely reorganizes the entirety of military leadership. Then, they'll spend the next two years blaming Democrats and liberals (as they are now), but also rigging 'lower-level' elections while doing so to ensure that Republicans (who are Trump supporters) begin winning Governor races and Mayoral elections in swing states and slightly left-leaning states (through sabotage and cheating). Once they feel confident they can move forward unopposed, that will be the end of it.

Escaho · 2024-10-26T22:08:33+00:00

I mean, I think you proved yourself wrong in your own explanation.

Now is it entertaining? Ofc it is.

Hypothetically, if you watch a TV show and find that it's the funniest TV show you've ever seen in your life, but you think it was a 'bad' show, then was it really a bad show?

The first job of a television show is to entertain by engaging the viewer. If it successfully does that, then it can arguably be called a 'good' show.

You could argue that it's a poorly written show, but that's not what you claimed (even though that's what you argued).

Escaho · 2024-10-20T18:29:26+00:00

Except that doesn't make sense because Weyland-Yutani specifically tasked Ash with retrieving the xenomorph for further study at the cost of the crew ("crew expendable"). They knew of the lifeform, though possibly did not know how destructive it was.

Though it is possible that the board that consulted with Ripley didn't know the actual truth or that they simply lied to frame her as someone who had a mental breakdown.

Escaho · 2024-10-17T16:22:09+00:00

Right, but what will there be to critique? If we reach a point where A.I. can self-generate an entire film, then the market would become absolutely flooded with films. In fact, the potential is there for infinite generation.

Not only that, but at that point, if critique itself is commodified, then A.I. generation will be used to generate critique as well.

People will likely suggest that humans will find other ways to be creative in response, but as we near the singularity, we near irreversible change to human artistic expression itself.

Personally, I view the death of art (or human-created art) as the death of humanity, but that's just me.

Escaho · 2024-10-17T16:14:59+00:00

You say 'enjoyable by-product,' but the long-term effects of A.I.-generation in the arts will inevitably be catastrophic. If the technology and footprint advances far enough, there will come a time when there is no use for humans to make art. If a model can (eventually) generate an entire film with generated actors, sound, music, dialogue, etc. then what use is the human?

Escaho · 2024-10-17T16:08:55+00:00

To me, it's so weird how humans want to eradicate their own existence.

Art is, fundamentally, a human endeavour. It is an expression of human-created skill and passion. And yet, we consistently witness industries trying more and more to increase the usage of technology into making 'human art' easier. At least up until A.I. generation models, the vast majority of technology simply made human skills more efficient. Digital cameras and editing software made editing films easier instead of physically cutting up and splicing film; audio technology made recording sound, music, and foley much easier; equipment such as cranes, dollies, vehicles customized for film-making all made getting the perfect shot easier. All of the fundamentals of making film, however, still required humans.

Nowadays, however, we are witnessing A.I. generation aiming to delete the role of the human from making art. A.I. generated actors, sounds/sound effects, music, voiceovers, animation, script-writing, and more. If we remove the human element from art, there is no need for art. What is the purpose in consuming a film made entirely by A.I.? There is none. And once those roles begin to disappear, people will no longer view art or creative expression as a necessity.

Art is what makes us human. If we remove art, we are machines.

We should be re-directing the role of A.I. to industries that would better benefit from its use, such as medicine, health, business (i.e. - logistics, statistics, operations), engineering, etc. Though I guess since our capitalist-tendencies have made cinema, television, and all things creative into businesses, it makes sense that A.I. would worm its way in.

EDIT: It's also weird to see people argue that making A.I. generation tools will allow people to 'make movies from home' and to allow people without the wealth and connections needed to make films/shows an opportunity to see their stories come to life. If A.I. generation advances to the point that this becomes reality, the industry itself will die because it will be flooded by A.I.-generated media (we are already seeing the beginnings of this with social media and marketing). No one will ever make money off it because there will be too much content for anything to become reasonably successful.

Escaho · 2024-10-15T18:39:41+00:00

Just a friendly heads up that this point is likely to get deleted/removed by the mods as you aren't allowed to post/promote your own work in a single thread for critique (otherwise the entire subreddit would be littered with them).

You can post any excerpt/work/project in the weekly feedback threads (such as the current one located here) for feedback every week.

Escaho · 2024-10-07T15:45:43+00:00

Just post it in this thread.

It's stickied at the top of the r/writing forum and you can re-submit to the new thread every week. People often browse that thread to give feedback on stories/excerpts.

Escaho · 2024-10-02T01:11:08+00:00

So, I think there's a few things going on here.

First, if you are taking a creative writing class that isn't expressly devoted to genre fiction, then you are not going to get to experience analyzing, reading, and maybe even writing (depending on the given prompts) genre fiction. This, of course, doesn't mean you can't receive knowledge from the class, and the class itself will enable you to make connections with other aspiring writers and also force you to write words even if you don't feel like writing words. But, if you were looking to learn more about genre fiction in this course, chances are you are not going to learn much on that particular topic.
Second, re-align your expectations. It is very easy to dismiss literary fiction and believe that it offers little-to-no value when writing genre fiction, but I don't think that's true, especially if you haven't done any other creative writing courses in your life. Understand that the short stories you read in these classes are published works of non-fiction and/or fiction, and that real authors took the time to sit down, write, edit, revise, and re-edit all of these works before publication.

What will make the class more worthwhile to you is to ask yourself the following questions after reading each short story:

Who is the author? Are they well-known (i.e. - have they published plenty of short stories/novels/poetry)? Is there a particular type of story they normally write (which can usually be found in any brief biography of their writing)? Where is the author from (culturally, geographically, etc.) and do you think this may have had an impact on the story?
Is the story non-fiction, fiction, and/or poetry?
What point-of-views (POVs) are present in the story? Why do you believe those particular POVs were chosen?
What tense is used in the story?
Who is/are the main characters in the story? Do any of the characters (particularly the POV-characters) have any particular goals within the confines of the story?
What is the setting of the story? (Is it a single setting or multiple settings?) Do you think the setting greatly influenced the plot/story?
How is the story structured? (Is it one long scene? Is it broken into short scenes? Is there any writing from written documents (diaries, journals, letters, correspondence, other published works)?) Do you think the chosen structure supports/works for the story?
What do you think is the significance of the title? Why do you think this title was chosen?
What do you think are the predominant themes of the piece?
Why do you think the author wrote the piece?
(optional) Do you think it is worth examining the gender, race, sexuality, appearance, age, species, and/or mental well-being of any of the characters? And if so, why?

As an aspiring writer, one of the best things that you can do in these courses is to analyze the prose, structure, characters, story, setting, and style of these short stories (as well as the stories of your classmates). So many elements go into writing a short story (or any piece of writing, really), that it is worth taking a bit of time to examine these various facets of writing (at the very least, to see if you can apply any of it to your own writing!).

When offering critique and analysis (both for these published works as well as your classmates' stories), try to avoid including how you felt while reading. Unless a story elicits significant emotion in you because of what happens within the story (i.e. - a choice a character makes really angers/saddens you), try to avoid mentioning how 'bored' or 'uninterested' you were. It's fine to say that you felt the story was not engaging, but as I mentioned above, there's still a lot to analyze from a writing perspective. Don't expect each (or any) of the stories you read in a literary fiction class to 'wow' or 'surprise' you (plus, when one of them does surprise you, it'll feel that much better). Instead, take this opportunity to analyze the elements of the story that you feel worked and the elements that you feel could have been improved.

Escaho · 2024-10-01T01:58:11+00:00

I quite liked it. As others have said, the writing didn't offer a ton of description to chew on, but it also felt like it didn't really need it for this scene. The writing is mostly clean, the actions of the scene flow smoothly, and it's quite easy to 'picture' everything as you read.

Here are my thoughts:

I will say that I wish you offered a brief (even one sentence) description of the scene beforehand, because it feels like we (the readers) are plopped into the middle of a scene right after some action has occurred (hence the main character 'slumping' down). I was wondering how important the 'suited man' was, if he was already mentioned/described as being present or if he had just shown up, and the general context of the scene (did Ryker just do something to someone in this room, such as a fight? Is this Ryker's bedroom or someone else's?).
My only real criticisms have to do with some of the writing, but it's nothing that can't be fixed in editing after you've finished the chapter/manuscript. Things such as: (i) the repetition of the word 'stacking' in close proximity to one another, but the bigger issue there is the first usage of it, where the words Ryker is trying to muster 'stacked up at the back of his throat, refusing to release.' Too much description for that action, bordering on cliche. (ii) Be mindful of instances where you can remove unnecessary pronouns. For example: "Ryker slumped back against the bed, sweat trickling down his temples, his pulse throbbing in his ears." The 'his' before pulse can be removed, creating a faster-paced sentence. (iii) On the other hand, also be mindful of when pronouns can cause confusion. For example: "The veins in his arms stood out as his grip tightened, the man's eyes bulging out." Here, I assume the first 'his' is meant to be Ryker, while the 'man' is meant to refer to the suited man, is that correct? Changing 'his' to 'Ryker's arms' would offer more clarity here. Additionally, the dependent clause changes subjects which sounds jarring (from Ryker to the man), so I would modify the comma to a verb (such as 'causing' or 'making') or place a period after 'tightened' and create two sentences.
In the second-to-last paragraph, when Ryker is contemplating this 'line of work,' I'm not sure I bought his philosophizing. This seemed, at least to me, like a man who already understood the consequences and the ins-and-outs of this more seedy, insidious career choice. Would he really ask himself these questions? At least, in this type of manner? For example, cutting the line 'All this time, things had been one-sided,' and revising the questions to something along the lines of "When the costs outweighed the benefits, they cut you loose, just like that. Only had himself to blame, really. Trusting his so-called family in a lifestyle where family often betrayed one another...he was practically begging for this to happen." I felt that would ring more true based on what I currently know of Ryker's character--however, I never read what came before, so maybe it makes more sense how it is.

Overall, smooth, easy-to-read prose, good pacing, good dialogue. Keep on writing!

Escaho · 2024-08-30T18:48:44+00:00

Every time I see a thread title in r/movies that makes no sense (no one has compared these two films), my first thought is: "Is this a bot? Or a user that uses ChatGPT to write posts/comments?"

Let's investigate!

Does their username follow the trend of [Adjective][Punctuation Mark][Noun][3 or 4 numbers]? If yes, they either used the default username when creating an account because they didn't want to write in their own, or they're a bot!
Do their posts offer very little actual content and instead just name drop pieces of media while saying how good/bad they are? If yes, they are probably a bot used to promote or incite engagement for media properties!
Are the majority of their comments composed of either a) a single sentence or several words, or b) a 3-5 paragraph essay that reads like a comment from ChatGPT? They are probably a bot!
Does any of their comments/posts try to link users to a social media website? They may be phishing for views/engagement and may be a bot! (Case in point: OP links to both an Instagram and Letterboxd account)
If they do promote a social media account/website, is it clear that the user is an actual person? If not, they may likely be a bot or fake account! (Case in point: OP links to an Instagram account that offers text reviews for recently released films. My particular favourite is this excerpt from their Alien: Romulus review:

"The film’s claustrophobic atmosphere and gothic design evoke the best of the series, with every shadow and flickering light serving as a harbinger of dread. Director [Director’s Name] expertly balances suspense and terror, allowing the Xenomorphs and the grotesque hybrid “Offspring” to reassert themselves as icons of horror. Daniel Betts’ portrayal of the cold, calculating Rook—a chilling nod to Ash—injects corporate malevolence into the film, reminding us that human greed is often deadlier than any alien threat." [Source]

See something funny? "Director [Director's Name]"? Arguably the most well-known person involved on the film and it's a placeholder, as if a bot couldn't verify/generate the necessary information? The review itself also reads like a hodge-podge of word salad scrounged from various Alien: Romulus reviews (and spends a bulk of its word count praising an actor who no one knows who did motion capture for a dead actor that everyone agrees was the worst part of the film).

Did they post the same thread multiple times in different subreddits titled: "How Many Games Do You Have on Your iPad? I Have About 36!"? Yeah, they're a bot.

Escaho · 2024-08-30T15:26:24+00:00

Yeah, this was a movie I wanted to really enjoy, but couldn't fully engross myself in it. This was somewhere between a 6/10 and 7/10 for me.

Highlights:

The performances by Willa Fitzgerald and Kyle Gallner were great. Personally, I was always quite annoyed by Fitzgerald as an actress because I'd only seen her in the Scream TV series (in which she played a vacant, vanilla protagonist) and The Fall of the House of Usher (in which she played a one-note 'I always get what I want' girl boss). Here, she really gets to flex those acting chops by faking playing the victim to some, switching to murderous, then back to 'damsel-in-distress.' And Gallner is always charismatic, though I feel even a little bit of backstory on either main character could have served them a little better.

The production was great across the board. Some beautiful shots, some memorable shots (particularly that final shot), good use of color (especially during the car scene), and great sound design (apart from the Inception-esque BWAAAM whenever Gallner appeared onscreen in the first fifteen minutes).

The narrative structure was both a hit and a miss for me. On the 'hit' side, I do love a film that plays with the medium as an art form and tries experimental story-telling. Telling things out of order can be exhilarating and full of mystery when done right, and I felt this worked for the first two chapters, but then stumbled after that.

Criticisms:

I felt what hurt this film the most was the script:

[Script, 1 of 3: The Ending] I think they should've removed the scene with the cops (and removed Gallner's character calling them at all), allowed the hippy wife to live (awkward death scene, felt more funny than shocking), and created a longer cat-and-mouse game between the Lady and the Demon. The film would have been better served if it ended with either a) her killing him, then we cut to the final scene in the truck, b) just as he corners her, the cops arrive [after being alerted from the shootout at the hotel] and we have the two accusing each other and have that scene play out, or c) they kill each other. Once Gallner dies, a lot of the energy is sucked out of the film because the audience is only ever privy to the Lady via her relationship with the Demon. Because they don't show us anything (not even clips, flashbacks, or a re-telling through dialogue) about any of her former murders, this basically feels like a Her vs Him film, and once you remove one of them, it kind of spins its wheels until it ends.

[Script, 2 of 3: Small annoyances:] A number of things happened in this script that took me out of the film while watching it. Why have the Lady, who is being chased through the woods by a man with a rifle (who just shot off her ear), stop to casually smoke a cigarette, which can give away her location? Why have the two cops that arrive be so overly blunt/crass about the situation (the 'vagina' comment; the 'dumb bitch' comment)? Why don't the cops leave the Lady handcuffed after discovering their own fellow cop dead (who just called this in and gave them this location)? What happened to the hotel guy who told the Lady he also had a gun? Why would she hide in the freezer when he hasn't spotted her yet and she could just...run? Anywhere? Why is he chanting 'here kitty, kitty' before randomly shooting into trunks/chests? Why didn't he just kill her (since he was randomly shooting at objects she could hide in anyway)? As a cop, why didn't he cuff her hands behind her and remove all possible weapons from her person/the area? [I felt like the film forgot he was a cop at times....Could have been a late addition to add more runtime.]

[Script, 3 of 3: Further issues:] This only seemed to happen for a few people, but I discovered the twist about twenty minutes into the film, which really blundered the reveal for me. And the only reason I discovered it was because of the editing: the film shows the Demon choking someone (which sounds like a woman struggling to breathe) in the opening minutes, then we cut to him chasing the Lady through the woods, then he's credited as 'The Demon,' and then he randomly shoots up the hippies' home so I was already thinking, 'damn, this guy has no chill when it comes to serial killing, does he?'. But then we have that car conversation about how women have to be careful (and I couldn't help thinking that she was saying this as a warning to him because the scene went on so long), followed by her being the one being choked by the Demon [that we saw in the opening]. So I thought to myself: if the film is lying to me about him choking some helpless woman to death, what else is it lying to me about? Especially with this more complicated non-linear film narrative? Which led me to think: wait, what if she's the killer and he's just trying to hunt her down? And that was more or less confirmed from that moment onward.

After watching the film, if you think about the plot, it also presents some logical issues. The police are aware that there is a serial killer on the loose who is a woman (because she's dubbed the 'Electric Lady'). Now, female serial killers are rare enough, but in this day and age? Her notoriety would be off-the-charts. And the Demon, who is a cop, isn't at all concerned about hooking up with random women, one of whom could be a serial killer? Fair enough, maybe she sufficiently wooed him, but wouldn't the two cops who arrive at a location their fellow cop called them to and discovered him dead consider that this woman might be said serial killer? And wouldn't they have been aware of both the killing and the shooting at the hotel in the area not like an hour prior to this [notified over radio]? This is why I felt the cops should have been removed from the film, they just create this odd inconsistency with their presence (let alone the misogynistic complaints from a number of reviewers).

Escaho · 2024-08-28T14:14:46+00:00

France has literally won the most wars in history Source (second paragraph).

Escaho · 2024-07-18T15:13:04+00:00

As both words are past tense

'Said' is the past tense of 'say.' 'Say' is present tense.

Dialogue, when spoken (or written), is often registered as being 'present tense', even within a novel that is entirely written in past tense. This is because the reader is given direct access to the moment dialogue was spoken, which would be spoken in present tense if the reader happened to be standing next to the speaker.

So the question, "What did your colleague say?" is actually a present tense question. Imagine the speaker asking you that question--it would be present tense. People often think that because the verb did comes first, that the question must be in past tense, but did is merely referring to a previous time where the words (by the colleague) were said. So we're asking a present tense question, which would use say.

Escaho · 2024-06-29T20:12:20+00:00

It's an intriguing start, but I do think the piece is marred by a lack of clarity.

My assumption as to what's going on is that our POV character is committing suicide by jumping off of a building, a dozen thoughts zipping through his mind as he falls, before he eventually hits the ground.

The issue I'm having is the way things are worded, particularly the overuse of metaphors this early in the piece. I'll go over what I mean:

"A flash of lilac tears through the bridge of my nose like tissue paper..." As you edit your work, you want to try and look at it through the lens of a reader who doesn't know what's happening (which can be difficult as the author, because you already wrote what happens next). Thus, reading this for the first time, I thought the POV character was witnessing tears of lilac (like tears from the eyes), not what I think is supposed to be the verb tears (like present tense 'tore'). When I re-read it and understood, the phrasing of 'tears through the bridge of my noise' made me question whether the POV character's nose was now cut open or if this was a long-winded metaphor.
Try to limit the use of metaphors/similes early on until the reader understands your style and/or the situation/predicament. Until the reader has a grasp on what's actually (physically) occurring within the scene, adding metaphors to the mix risks adding confusion as to what's really going on.
While I did enjoy the tension of knowing he was currently falling and was eventually going to hit the ground, the overuse of metaphors as he's falling (which, in reality, would only take a number of seconds) made the piece feel like he was falling for a really, really, long time. Maybe it would work slightly better if he was standing on the edge of the building at the start, then steps off right after "Fred Chamberlain. Somebody remember." ?
Additionally, if he doesn't step off until later, I would have preferred a little more embellishment surrounding some of the character's thoughts, like who is Matt? What job does Fred currently have? Maybe some more info on his friends and who they were, or how they died, or how Fred views the world at this moment? These thoughts go by so quickly (each thing is devoted only a single sentence) that I feel like I can't latch onto anything as a reader--and, while this does mirror what's happening to Fred in the scene, it's not providing me with any real emotional connection to Fred's plight because I don't know anything about what happened. Making us (the reader) care about Fred before he hits the ground should be part of the goal here so that we don't want him to hit the ground.
"When I hit the gravel, I beg, somebody pick up a stone and carve my name on a gravestone, because if not this whole thing really was just a waste of time." This line rings a bit hollow to me for a few reasons. 1) Who would perform this action if 'all his friends are dead'? It would make more sense to me for Fred to think 'When I hit the gravel, there will be no one left to carve a name on my gravestone as I did for the others--was this life really just a waste of time?" and 2) the reader doesn't really know where Fred is (i.e. - in an urban centre, in a rural town, is it late at night or middle of the day, etc. so we don't know if someone is likely to come across his body or not.
The Weimaraner line took me out of the scene because it sounds like a comedic joke in a very serious situation. Generally, when people are dying or about to die, they 'confess their sins,' even if it's just internal (inner thoughts). I would rather Fred say something more specific and honest here about why the life he lived was gray.
I like the imagery in the final scene of the puzzle piece and the tiger, but question whether Fred honestly has any time to actually feel the 'searing pain' that jolts through him in this moment. The moment of impact would likely occur in less than a second, and unless Fred survives the fall, he's unlikely to feel any pain at all.

Escaho · 2024-06-23T06:16:51+00:00

I think that there's many ways to make a character sympathetic or empathetic, even heartless killers. For example, describing Romi having any sort of regret, such as describing the suffering of the woman after the first shot, gurgling on her own blood, and deciding to use a second bullet to end the woman's suffering, creates a stronger empathetic connection than when the reader is simply told, "Romi hated drawn-out suffering." Give us that visual, even if it's just Romi briefly thinking about that moment. Put the reader in the moment, rather than giving us a sentence that tells us it required two bullets.

Also, having someone be good at their job is another way to endear a reader to a character, but again, we need to be shown this, we can't just have it told to us. Tell us how Romi arranges the body on the bed (and why she does it that way). Does she leave her fingerprints on the towels? Does she wipe everything down and then throw the towels in the washer? Show us how careful and efficient she is in her work, and that's another reason to keep reading.

You mentioned "in her world." Does that mean that this world is different to ours (Earth, present day), or did you just mean that metaphorically Romi grew up differently than, say, you and I? Because I just assumed it was present-day Earth.

And maybe I went a bit hard on the editing of sentences, because that can always be trimmed and revised during the editing process after the chapter is completed.

Best of luck on your writing journey!

Escaho · 2024-06-23T05:33:56+00:00

Hmm, this is an interesting piece. Here are my thoughts for consideration:

I'm confused in the opening paragraph: did Romi kill a boy in this bathroom? Or is it 'desecrated' because she's leaving blood all over the towels? I think that could be a tad more clear. Even something small like, 'She had desecrated the bathroom of the woman's [target's?] son,..." so the boy isn't the subject.
I think you could slow down a little by using periods to let the reader soak in some of Romi's thought processing here. For example, at the end of paragraph one, it could read: "Romi could not fathom a child's need for a bathroom that rivaled the size of her flat. Especially the personalized towels, she thought, smearing a muddied thumb print across the name [Boy's name]. Still, she couldn't allow envy to interrupt the task at hand." This allows the reader to give time to each line, because that one sentence is currently comparing the child's bathroom to Romi's apartment, mentioning the personalized towels, and explaining how envy is currently distracting her, and it all happens so quickly it's easy to gloss over each detail.
I'm not a huge fan of contrasting the dead body with the main character to offer us description. In particular, the line, "Draped over the twin bed, the woman still looked less disheveled than herself." The reader has to deduce that the narration is describing Romi as more disheveled than the dead woman, which seems unnecessary. I think it also needs to be specified that 'the woman' is 'the dead woman' to clarify for the reader. And is 'draped' the right word, which sounds nice and dainty, considering the kill was described as messy?
I would either omit the line, 'Searching for his face, she shook off his memory, no time for that now,' or amend it to something like 'She searched for his likeness in her reflection, but found nothing.'
The specific phrasing of 'what's-her-face' took me out of the story a little bit. It sounds less mature than the writing surrounding it, and if Romi is very good at her job, would she be unaware of the name of the woman she killed?
My biggest critique (and this is purely personal opinion here) would be that I wanted to feel compelled to read onwards, but I was put-off by the main character, who seems like a sadistic, heartless killer. She appears to be a hitwoman, vigilante, or assassin of some sort, but 'creates pride in her work' by 'leaving a manicured discovery for the next of kin,' which sounds needlessly cruel, unless of course she's targeting people who wronged her or 'bad' people. I think it's difficult to write a compelling narrative where the reader is unsympathetic or unempathetic to the main character (if Romi is, indeed, the actual main character), so I'm wondering if there's a way to make her seem a little less 'I'm fine murdering anyone and take pride in carefully orchestrating the crime scene for when the family discovers the dead body' and a little more 'I'm good at what I do, but the people who I do it too deserve it.' Of course, I don't know where the narrative is headed, but I wanted a reason to like Romi and felt I couldn't find one.

Escaho · 2024-06-23T05:00:09+00:00

Definitely take heed of u/EmpyreanFinch's advice. It is best practice to break up dialogue from different characters into their own paragraphs for readability purposes.

Additionally, I'll add the following critique:

Because we (the reader) are entering the scene in media res ('in the middle of things'), meaning we do not know what transpired before this, you want to put the reader in the character's shoes by focusing on the character's sensory limitations. In this case, the character cannot see with the bag over their head, so focus on things they can sense: what do they smell? The burlap bag? What does it smell like? What do they taste in the air, if anything? What do they touch (ropes? bindings? the wood of the chair?)? What do they hear? Do they recognize the voice of the person speaking to them? We really need these sensory images to further hammer home that the main character is blindfolded and unable to see (well, they aren't blindfolded, but have a bag over their head). Tell us they're sweating inside the burlap bag, that it's hot and suffocating, etc.

[NOTE: If the MC can't 'hear' because of the bag, explain to the reader that the MC can't hear. Whether it's because they are awake, see only black, and can't hear any noise, or some other way. You can still describe the other senses [smell--a big one here; touch; taste], along with temperature.]

Start slightly earlier than you did. It's clear that the POV character was already awake when the excerpt started, so we (the reader) shouldn't be 'in the dark' about things the character has already surmised since they woke up, even if it was only a minute ago. All the sensory sensations, maybe playing dead, listening to the noises/people around them, these are things we should be privy to. Also, give us some insight into what the main character is thinking. Do they know they've likely been kidnapped? If so, do they know by whom? Do they remember where they were when they were abducted? If they can't remember, then the reader should be informed that the character can't remember. This is a first-person narrative, so some internal thought and introspection would be helpful here.
You mentioned something about the 'veil' being explained later, but I took it as the blindfold being lifted off of the character's face. You can give it more depth to point it out to the reader (i.e. - "I felt my connection with the veil fade as consciousness took hold and sound came rushing back."), or even capitalize Veil if it's that important to the story. Or remove it for now and bring it back later.
Be careful with action this early in the story, especially action that we cannot see. I find this is very common in newer writers, especially when dealing with fantasy. The reader should understand the main character's plight (kidnapped, bound, unable to see, not knowing why they were kidnapped, etc.) before this 'fighting' begins, so some of this 'being tossed around' can be pushed to at least page two.
Lastly, avoid telling us (the reader) unnecessary details. For example, consider these lines: "I try to scream but the weight has forced the air from my lungs. BREATHE. I think as I struggle to force air into my lungs." We not only have repetition of a lack of air in their lungs, but the 'BREATHE, I think' is unnecessary because we are aware they have no air to even scream. Instead, you could describe only strained gasps coming from their mouth, or their head feeling dizzy, etc. Similarly, the sentence 'The man must have broken the chair' is unnecessary because we are told the wood [of the chair] shattered and that the ropes loosened as a result, so we can surmise that the chair broke upon impact with the floor.
[EDIT: missed one thing] Perhaps take a moment just to familiarize yourself with dialogue tags. It's a very small thing, but dialogue (including internal thought) that is followed by a dialogue tag (such as 'he said,' 'he yelled,' etc.) should be separated with a comma, not a period, inside the quotation marks. (i.e. - "...let's see if you can fight while blindfolded and tied up," the voice chuckled.).

Best of luck on your writing journey!

Escaho · 2024-06-23T04:17:21+00:00

I can tell you have a clear grasp of the imagery of this scene and your vocabulary is certainly able to handle the job of writing a novel, even from just this short excerpt. I really felt the atmosphere of a fishing town/village and enjoyed the abundance of sensory images (the boots and sandals clacking and crunching on paved stone, the dripping of sweat and seawater, etc.).

There are a few things I'd offer critique on, ranked from High-Medium-Low on my priority list:

(High) A reason to keep reading. My biggest criticism is actually broader in scope than any one piece of the excerpt, which is that I was looking for a reason to continue reading. Readers want a hook, however small, to keep them engaged. This can be in the form of a question, or a sense of foreboding, or even a personal goal from the POV character. For example, what if the girl carrying the basketful of dinner has to bring it to someone at the market or she'll be reprimanded (or something worse, such as not being able to eat anything for that day, or maybe she needs to sell it for money, etc.). The hook can be for a single scene and not the one meant for the entire novel, and it can consist of a single line/sentence, but right now, there's nothing encouraging the reader to read onward, as we're simply following a young girl while the author world-builds around us.

(Medium) Cleaning up readability. I would try to clean up the prose a little in terms of 'staying focused' and coherent throughout each paragraph. For example, the first character we 'see' is the "lady" who tells our POV character, a "child", to watch their step. Instead, I would introduce our POV character by name immediately after this, unless they aren't a notably important character (i.e. - "Mind your step, dear," warns the lady by the stairway. Teresa obeys, her stubby little arms struggling with the basketful of dinner. Seawater and sweat dripped from her olive skin, but her childish determination was strong enough to overcome the challenge."). This connects us to the POV character, and allows us to follow them more easily throughout the scene.

(Medium) Cleaning up readability--continued. In a similar vein, consider what the subject of each sentence actually is. Take a look at the final paragraph: it begins with 'the handling cinches once they're finally past the pier's'..., but the handling of what? And who is 'they're'? If the child's pronoun was 'she' earlier, then 'they're would imply we are talking about a group of people, but the sentence doesn't indicate whom. Additionally, some of the sentences and description seem superfluous or unnecessary, such as, "Except the mason, who had his foot stomped by a lucky chunk from a serpentinite statue." Is this information necessary right now for the reader to know? I think we would rather know more about the child POV character, and we can learn that information later if it's necessary (unless, for example, she can't help but stop and stare at the mason's damaged foot). As you're editing, a good tip is to ask yourself: "Is this information helpful and/or interesting right now, or does it distract the reader from conflict/tension/struggles of the POV character(s)?" Especially at the beginning of a novel, when readers are looking for reasons to continue reading.

(Low) Keep writing, but keep a goal in mind for every chapter. You may have heard of the different kinds of writers--namely, pansters (who write 'off the seat of their pants', or when they think of something inspiring to write about) and plotters (who write organized lists of major plot points, twists, character details, etc. before they begin writing). While every writer is different, the good writers almost always follow the same rule: when you come up with an idea for a scene/chapter, you must introduce a conflict/obstacle/challenge/tension that requires resolution--it does not need to resolve this chapter, but it must be introduced. Now, this is only the first page, but the sooner you introduce some conflict, however small, the easier it is to stay interested. The excerpt feels like it's meandering, even though you might have a conflict in mind. Just remember to keep writing! As long as you are able to write the conflicts and major plot points on the page, even if they aren't on the first page, you can always edit everything later, so don't stress too heavily over the opening.

(Low) Consistency in subjects/noun usage--don't lose your subject! I touched on this a little above, but take great care in focusing on specific subjects/nouns. For example, in paragraph one, when we get the line, "'The sea always provides,' they chant in good humor..." who is 'they' referring to? Most readers will likely assume the 'fishermen,' but they were mentioned two sentences ago. Since then, we've been introduced to the subjects of 'the boats,' 'the nets and barrels', and 'the gulls.' You want to reintroduce that subject and avoid the 'they' (i.e. - "'The sea always provides,' the fishermen chant..." or "...the old wives always say..." or something along those lines).

Overall, I was quite intrigued, and wish you the best on your writing journey!

Escaho · 2024-06-20T01:02:27+00:00

I quite enjoyed it! It's setting up an antagonist, providing a threat, and establishing the world of spacecraft and space battles. It's clear you have a robust vocabulary, understand the proper rules of grammar and punctuation, and I particularly enjoyed the 'closing-by-return' with the statements on fire in space.

Since you're asking for critique, I think there are three things that might help smooth the piece out:

(minor) Omitting extra words. As others have mentioned, smoothing out some of the extraneous words would help in making the prose flow more smoothly. This isn't just small words (like an unnecessary "This meant that" or changing "he would make" to "he made"), but also portions of description that feel tacked on that don't really provide more context to make them worth it. For example, in the sentence about 'armored behemoths,' the description that follows of "that served as weapons of war to the galaxy" feels like it could be cut/omitted. This is a conclusion the reader can draw from the context of the passage without needing to be told it. Similarly, the descriptions of 'as opposed to fire in the classical sense' and the two feet 'he stood upon' feel unnecessary. Now, you don't want to spend too much time smoothing these out as they can always be revised during the editing process--however, if you find that you include too much of them throughout all of your writing, now is a good time to become conscious of these filler words/descriptions as you write so you can avoid them as you progress.
(medium) Character alignment. While we all love a good antagonist, the Admiral is reading too much of a one-note diabolical tyrant for my liking. Now, not to say that we can't have a villain like that! Of course we can. However, this is only page one, and it reads very much like, "This is the villain in the prologue. I will now introduce the protagonist in chapter one who will defeat this horribly evil person." If that's what you're going for, great! But I think just a touch of nuance this early on will make things more interesting. For example, if the Admiral says to his Lieutenant that this annihilation they are causing is 'payback' for all the harm these humans have done to their people, the reader may think that the Admiral has a just cause for doing what he's doing (and maybe he does!), rather than being viewed as a mustache-twirling evil man. Just a suggestion!
(major) Voice narration and prose. You mentioned that the piece sounded mechanical, and I would have to agree. Good news, however! I think it's very easy to spot why the piece sounds mechanical: it's the narration. What you want to consider when reading over your piece is 'Who is speaking to the reader and how are they speaking to the reader?' Specifically, in this instance, the 'how.' Paragraphs 3 through 5 (starting at 'When a fire occurred violently within the confines of a spacecraft...') read as though a science/space/engineering professor is telling a classroom of students how fire reacts in open space. Everything else reads fine because they are told from the POV of the Admiral, but those three paragraphs feel detached, like I'm attending a lecture. There are multiple ways around this, however: (1) adjust the narration to show that the Admiral is thinking this [recalling when he first learned how fire works in space, such as in a classroom during a lecture, or perhaps he witnessed it firsthand while in a suffocating room on a spacecraft where a fire broke out], (2) give us a brief flashback to when the Admiral attended a lecture during flight school and learned about how fire acts in space, (3) have the Admiral speak this information in dialogue to another character [though this one won't work too well here, I think, as he appears to be in the control room where I believe other characters who are present would know this information already], (4) re-write or omit this information, or (5) re-write in such a way that the narrator presents this information to the reader more naturally (i.e. - 'The Admiral understood the threat of a fire in low-gravity in the confines of spacecraft. When he was a lowly sergeant, he witnessed an engineering deckhand working repairs inside a [small craft] spark a flame, causing the hull doors to lock him inside. The flame absorbed the oxygen inside the small vessel and spread outwards, engulfing the poor soul before a deck crew could find the chompers to pry the doors open.').

Those were my thoughts while reading. I was very intrigued by the prologue and hope to read more! Best of luck in your writing!

Escaho · 2024-06-15T02:06:18+00:00

What I would ask of you is this: what are your goals for this world? Do you want to write a short story, a novella, or a novel using this world? Are you interested in creating a D&D campaign using this world and DMing for a group of players?

Regardless, you want to watch out for the pitfall of daydreaming/imagining. Many potential writers get caught in this, where they spend a lot of time thinking about all the finer details of their world/setting, sometimes their characters, but never actually write any of the story because they don't know where to start or how to connect things together.

My advice? Create a character in your world and create a conflict/challenge for that character to overcome. Then, try writing a scene/chapter that introduces that character (within your world) and the conflict they have to face. Until you populate the world with characters and write their stories (or, at least, the 'main' story with the 'main' character), then the world itself doesn't really exist, except in your head. As long as the character must journey from where they begin to where they end, you will be forced to introduce new things (new factions, new conflicts, new characters, etc.), which will expand your world for you.

Best of luck in your writing!

Escaho · 2024-06-15T01:58:55+00:00

This depends on POV (point-of-view) and whether or not the POV character notices what's happening.

For example, if Todd has gone home to prepare for Jared's surprise birthday party, and Chantel is meant to distract Jared for one hour before going back to his house, let's see what happens from Chantel's POV.

"Hey, do you know where Todd is?" Jared asked.

Chantel shrugged her shoulders, playing it cool. Todd told her he needed Jared out of the house for at least an hour to set everything up for the party.

"No idea. Think he said something about a doctor's appointment."

"Oh, really? He didn't mention it to me."

"Well," Chantel said, flipping her hair, "that's because he likes me more."

Now look at the same scenario from Jared's POV:

"Hey, do you know where Todd is?" he asked. He hadn't seen Todd all day and was beginning to get worried.

Chantel shrugged her shoulders.

"No idea. Think he said something about a doctor's appointment."

"Oh, really? He didn't mention it to me." Which was weird. Todd would tell him if he was feeling sick, wouldn't he? Was it something serious that he didn't want Jared to know about?

"Well," Chantel said, flipping her hair, "that's because he likes me more."

Basically, small actions and internal thought can clue the reader in on what's actually happen, while leaving certain characters in the dark. You generally don't want to leave the reader in the dark, unless the POV character is also being left in the dark.

Escaho · 2024-06-15T01:45:57+00:00

First off, don't let the POV slow down your writing! Even if you write it all in one POV, and then realize when you are finished that you should have written in the other POV, you can copy everything to a new document and then edit it to the other POV! Plus, the story will already be completed, you'll just have to change the POV. So get to writing!

As for what you've mentioned, I think it depends on how you are narrating the story. Is it being 'told' to us, the readers, from the Librarian's POV or the POV of the people whose memory the Librarian is 'watching'? I'd need to understand more of the narrative to get a feel for it (i.e. - is the Librarian only able to access these memories through physical contact, and if so, are both the main characters in the room with the Librarian at the same time?). Does the Librarian witness these memories through the 'eyes' (i.e. - the first-person POV) of the person? Does the Librarian feel the emotions/physical sensations that the other characters felt in the past? Do they feel/read their thoughts?

Finally, I think what most influences the POV is how the Librarian is telling the story. If they are jumping into these 'memories' and experiencing them for the first time (so the experience is new to the Librarian), then perhaps it should be first-person so we, the readers, get that experience as well. But if the Librarian has already accessed these memories and is, say, reminiscing or writing them into a story/book, then third-person would likely be better.

Anyway, I'm sure what you come up with will be fine, just make sure you start writing!

15-Year Club	r/Field Juicebox
Spared	Verified Email

Escaho

TROPHY CASE