This is a nice twist to the scenes of a boring ballroom romance like those typical of Jane Austen wannabe's. I think this could be a nice piece; it is well written and has a good flow. However, there are some distracting inconsistencies and incongruities. This is long and I do hope you find it helpful. I think you have skill, but it needs some polishing.
There are some grammatical errors. You have some misspellings, such as "humanities" for "humanity's" and "weather" for whether." You also describe aromas as "comely." Comely refers to visual pleasantness specifically.
I'm not certain if this is supposed to be a 3rd or 1st person narrator. It seems to be primarily 3rd person, but there are bits that are first person. For example, " A moment of music swept her sister and Charles away as she shifted uncomfortably. What now?" "What now" is distinctly first person with both sentences on either side being 3rd person. If you are intending to convey her thoughts, it would provide greater clarity to give these thoughts a new line to themselves, put them in quotations and note she is pondering. Ex: "What now?" She pondered with anticipation, annoyance, etc. It also provides a means to portray the character's emotions and perceptions.
There is too much focus on the environment and describing everything. I do think you describe things very well and clearly and I admire the attention to detail you provide, but it is distracting and I think it could be better placed. I would suggest selecting a few important details for a few objects of importance. For instance, setting a scene, an item with significant meaning to the character or what conveys a vital aspect of her personality, focus on those and let the reader imagine the rest. You describe the ball scene beautifully and I think the attention to detail works well for scene changes. You might try removing the descriptions of the room and furniture to the very beginning and use it as an opening rather than having it amidst the conversation and character interaction.
I really enjoyed the part about her reminiscing on her mother's alcoholism; it was beautifully written and displayed the truth of the situation without spelling it out. I'm not sure if this is just how it appears when posted, but I think this needs it's own paragraph. It really gives a feel of her background and history as an upper class woman with family secrets.
As for the conversation, it moves well, but it isn't consistent. I have a hard time believing an upper class woman of good breeding and social status would EVER say "lame" or "cheesy" even in her private apartments or thoughts. You actually do a good job conveying this high status with their speech, which makes it all the more distracting when you let slang slip in. I also find it hard to fathom that such a person would not have been drilled with social etiquette from a young age, which she hasn't been. This is evidence by how inarticulate she is when she first meets Charles. A lady of proper breeding would know how to fake it. On the same note, everyone seems terribly forward! "You really are beautiful" and "Gorgeous girl?" Maybe I've read too much Jane Austen and my expectations are biased or maybe you paint the high society scene too well. You might try a metaphor, such as "You're a spring bloom in winter!" or some such variation on "sight for sore eyes."
Miss Bell seated herself??? A flirty waitress? What sort of establishment is this??? Pencil skirts? Onion rings? Oregon? I think this is a major issue. You need to clarify your setting, time period, who's who and the reason for what is going on. I was thinking this was the early 1800's, and a rich family of the most proper and arrogant status. The idea of over proper etiquette and propriety is repeated bluntly, however there are details that show this isn't the case at all. Oregon wasn't a state until 1859, so she must be really on top of things to know of it and it's terrain. It wasn't more than frontier land and I doubt one of Alex's standing would have ever been there; old money tends to stay in one place for generations. Onion rings weren't around until the 1930's- the depression had ended and Hitler came to power. Pencil skirts- 1908 to present. These hoity toity families were still around in this era, so it isn't an issue for the timeline. Some may have an issue with onion rings being at a fancy dinner, but I can imagine this being OK in Charleston, SC or New Orleans, LA.
These anachronisms could work if you rewrite this as a satire. I'm really not trying to give you a hard time and I apologize if I seem to be.
As for the conversation, it moves well apart from the aforementioned inconsistencies. You really do write well. I would suggest making the conversations less blunt and forward. Why did Alex mention men have it harder? This seems an odd time for deep reflection on current standards. Were they already in a debate about them? Does Alex have a penchant for ranting or delving more deeply into a topic than is fitting a young woman in her times?
|
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
My review has been submitted for consideration in "