> I'd be interested to know, do you think this concept could work the way I've currently gone about it?

 The idea you have laid out just now sounds cool, and yes I absolutely think it could work as it's described above, but the bitch of it will always be the execution. Most ideas *could* work, but relatively few ever end up working well.

For yours to work well, I need to understand your narrator. The explanation on the first page about the reporter wanting to focus on details outside the scope of his job really drew me in, and I can see how that relates to what you've written here. It's just, the details he ended up focusing on, and the voice he used didn't make me go "Oh, the incongruity between reality and witness accounts is greater than I thought." Instead it made me go, why the fuck is he acting so jolly about being led by the sound of weeping to a tree where this guy killed himself. I can imagine feeling happy, or a sense of relief or whatnot, but I can't imagine finding that c

Hello, thank you very much for such a thorough critique. Those line edits made me see a lot of things that don't really add-up or make sense. I think I'm going to finish this story in the same style it's written here and decide whether or not to tone the language down in a revision. Also, the conflicting tones were intentional and I can see how it comes across as jarring. I think if I using these contrasting tones, I need to be more careful in my placement of them. 

Mainly, I'm using this kind of ornate language in the piece to contribute to a larger theme of miscommunication and how the interpretation of events is entirely subjective.  Kind of how a person will not be remembered truly for who they were but by the individual's own personal perception and always changing states of mind. I want to use conflicting massively conflicting accounts of Medley as a person to contribute to this. I'd be interested to know, do you think this concept could work the way I've currently gone about it

**Tone Confusion**

I’ll start by looking closely at a scene where I thought the emotions of the narrator were unclearly expressed.

> I sat on a bench, one suitably close to the scene of death, which overlooked the frozen lake. From here, I questioned any dog walker who dared try to pass me.

“dared try to pass me” feels excessive somehow. I get that he’s determined, but you don’t really show me anything that would explain why they would need to “dare.” I get that he’s about to interrogate them, but he’s still appears to be just some guy in a park, sitting on a bench as far as everyone else is concerned. 

> I stood before each perplexed person and their pet and asked with such solemnity the words, “Do any of you know a Medley Sikes?” that it should have been impossible for anyone to tell me otherwise.

…unless they didn’t know Medley Sikes? Then it would have been very possible, I presume? Again, I get that this detective is determined, and I think the cadence and lengthy sentence ap

I’ll just get into it. Please ignore my ramblings if they don’t make sense. I’ll start with the smaller gripes before I get into the greater issue of tone confusion in the second part.

**Prose**

> Legs dangled in the air, his body had stiffened, his face turned blue; occasionally a strong wind came, causing the tree leaves towering over him to rustle whilst simultaneously causing his body to sway ever so slightly. 

My first impression is the this is over-written, like you are cramming too much into this sentence. I don’t think that semi-colon works at all and could easily be replaced with a period.

> But the rhythm of his sways were too restrained by his weight to ever match that of the frosted and free foliage above his head. 

Confusingly worded. I guess you are saying that the limbs above him are whipping more strongly in the wind because they aren’t weighed down, but I think this could be more clear. 

> Why, I ponder, didn’t I think to include of such matters as to what the mi

Hey, thank you very much. Yeah, I knew it would be a risky style to try and to actually execute well. I think this type of writing is one of the biggest dividers of opinion. Lots of people strongly dislike Lolita (not that this is anywhere on that level) because of its "purple prose", but it's what makes the book what it is. 

Also yeah, I thought the same as I was re-reading this today. Definitely need to be more critical of the style. As for the second point, the facetious attitude is done purposefully, but I think it will need to be finished until I can judge whether or not it actually works. 

Thanks for your comments and I'm glad you liked it.

This is not a critique, but I do want to say I enjoyed the story. It has a fun, postmodern style. A general criticism you would get is an accusation of "purple prose", however, I think that's missing the point. Style itself is a subject of study here, and is not, as generally conceived, a mere instrument in propelling the plot forward.

I do think two potential pitfalls here are: 1. not being critical enough of your own style in the story. This is something you of course, do, but I wish you did it more often, or it could collapse under its own weight and turn mawkish. 2. treating a subject as serious as suicide to such a whimsical style. Again, since I don't have the whole piece I cannot fully comment, and I hope you resolve this further down your story.

And yes, I'd definitely read more. :)

Yeah you're right, I do need to sort that out. I think sometimes you can get used to reading your own stuff to the point you end up being blind to inconsistencies like that. I definitely need to polish up and flesh out some more. 

Anyway, thanks for your comments and taking the time to read this, I appreciate it.

Ok, good to know. And I'm glad you like this story and are having fun writing it! That's important and I love stories with strong narrative voices myself.

I would just think about the circumstances a bit. You say he wouldn't be allowed access to details on the suicide but he already wrote a report on it? Presumably he already knows the basic details of Medley's life. It would be a different thing if he wanted to avoid the family for some reason (giving them privacy could be enough), but as it stands it seems really stupid that the narrator would be in possession of the knowledge of how to contact Medley's mother, but runs into her only by random circumstance.

Your first point is very true. Definitely need to establish these reasons as early on as possible. Still, I'm without a doubt sticking with this, I'm having too much fun with it.

As for the questions: yes, it's something he's doing personally and he wouldn't be allowed to access details on or interview the family of a suicide victim due to this. And as for the last question: he's not doing any job and so he's trying to write as he wishes.

1. The narration is too much. Generally when you have a highly idiosyncratic narrator you need some kind of explanation why they're so peculiar. The style also makes this story way too difficult to read. Somebody who doesn't know that you're trying for a distinct voice in this narration would probably think that you're just being verbose for the sake of sounding intelligent (and failing). It's not charming. You need to find ways to signal to the reader that this is a deliberate choice on your part and then cue them in on why it's important that this person is the narrator of this story.

2. No. I read the whole thing and I don't know what the story is about, why the narrator is meddling in this suicide, why they write in such a bizarre and florid way, or what the conflict is going to be. Obviously more will become clear as the story gets longer but the thing about beginning a story is that you have to draw the reader in and make them want to continue. Making them confused is not the sa

Hello, this is a kind critique and you've got interesting ideas when it comes to attempting to write in the style I've attempted here, especially in regards to pacing and finding the right balance. Those line edits are great, too. I really appreciate these insights. 

Both the comments I've received seem to have had an opposite reaction to this piece. But I'm glad to know at least one person liked it. I'm definitely going to keep at this as I really did enjoy writing it. 

Also, I'll be sure to check some of your writing out. Thanks again for this.



This is high effort reading. The prose are crafted with each word in its rightful place, just as the author had intended. Every line is pointed and exact. Its a detailed piece of poetry. Each line demands you slow down and absorb all that it shares...

Is this a writing style that mass markets of consumers would latch onto? It’s a complex piece and paced with so much detail that speed readers in the crowd might get hung up while trying to picture the images in their mind. 

I am all for this kind of writing. I am biased because I too, write in this style. It forces the reader to slow down and parse every idea the author is trying to describe. 

It shows that the author is intent on mastering the English language and his knowledge of word choice is deliberately placed to show that he is a student of the word. 

There are a few clunky sections. Sentences that trail on with an added tag at the end. These could easily be trimmed and it would allow the piece to flow more smoothly. 

Below

I've started writing a short story and I think it's going to be a pretty long one. This is the first 1,000 or so words I've got. I realise it can be quite hard to critique a piece with just a portion of it, but I'm mainly interested in just a few things. 

* What's your opinion on the narrator's voice? I realise some will find it way too much, but his manner of narration is linked to the narrative. Still, I'd be interested to hear opinions. 
* Would you continue reading if you started this somewhere else? 
* General remarks. 

[Critique](https://www.reddit.com/r/DestructiveReaders/comments/l61ofw/2406_frozen_in_time/)

[Story](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dLDYZ0VsM-yN0JIJySBC5gm-Uxd_4ZjpZBnLNiDKImE/edit?usp=sharing)

[1197] Give It Up - Part One