A good premise, but needs a clearer narrative. For example, who is the man that sat in the back seat? While the reference to him in Chapter 1 allows you to establish a conflation of events common to traumatic experiences, he still seems superfluous to the plot. His addition confuses a casual reader: I had to read the story through several times to see whether it was Adam or Jason, and was surprised to find that he was neither(?).
Clarity would also be gained by using different terms (the thesaurus is your best friend.) For example, instead of "lifeless" when describing Adam after the accident, "unmoving" would have worked better. By this time, you've established that Adam survived, albeit with amnesia, but the wording of Chapter 3 makes it sound like there was another accident and that this one killed him.
Some work on formatting would also improve the story. For example, you establish a convention where italics are used to communicate thoughts, but then abandon it. Had they been retained, the italics would have distinguished between prose and thought more clearly; alternatively, you could have related thoughts in the third person, which would avoid some of the word salad that creeps into the story.
Something that was done rather well in this story is the juxtaposition between the ones who know what happened, and the one who is recovering his memories. The end of Chapter 2 is especially poignant. You have also done a good job of making a sympathetic protagonist, and this despite her shortcomings. Pacing of action and the space dedicated to each segment was also well developed.
This was actually amazing. Very well written, and I thought the pacing was spot-on. I know praise is generally not very constructive, but I cannot think of anything critical to contribute. The ending was especially powerful. I had to go back to the beginning to figure out "what umbrella?" but as soon as I did I saw the hook. When we do things we regret, and cast about endlessly for the root *cause* of it all, we often fixate on small things as having hugely causal influences, and I thought the ending to this tale absolutely nailed that.
This piece has a lot of interesting material, but its premise is unclear and it appears unorganized as a result; at the end of reading a host of compelling information, I'm left asking "But so what?"
I think that minor changes can turn this into something that is at once more engaging and more significant. Specifically, what is the point behind writing this? If it is to make the argument that Jaws is not in fact the same as Aliens, and that this statement is true according to the model established by the same person who said it, then this should be made explicit. Indeed, for me, that would be a much better framing device: I would want to know why someone compared the movies, who did so, and how you intend to prove him wrong.
As it stands, the point is buried beneath a lot of exposition: there were times when I did not know whether or not I was simply reading an application of STC, or was in fact reading an exegesis of specific parts of its material (which I think was your intention.)
I'm always a fan of optimistic works, and was happy to see this one :D I would have liked to have seen more work on the meter, as well as the structure. The piece seems to wander in and out of prose, as if it is unsure of where it's going. This gives it a somewhat improvised character, which I feel compromises its presentation.
Printed from https://shop.writing.com/main/profile/reviews/shoomesh
All Writing.Com images are copyrighted and may not be copied / modified in any way. All other brand names & trademarks are owned by their respective companies.
Generated in 0.06 seconds at 5:47pm on Dec 26, 2024 via server WEBX1.