Darkness at the arch (A story I wrote)

[John V]

I got to the second line and stopped because it's a sentence fragment. Consider working on your craft. It doesn't matter how good your concepts might be if your craft is bad.

[Faith No More]

For the sake of giving constructive criticism, I'm going to assume that this is the story in its entirety, rather than just an introduction to the plot that continues beyond what you've written.

I liked the setting and the subject, but I thought the overall background plot could have been developed more. I would have the conversation between Lucifer and the cherub much longer and go deeper into the conflict that arose. It would allow you to give more details and develop the hostility and tension between the two sides better.

I would also work on the continuity and description of the action. I didn't feel like the true picture was being painted, and it was more of just a sterile description of some things happening. It also felt fragmented and needed more of a flow.

Overall, I thought it was good but you just need to develop the points you are trying to make with the story to a fuller extent.

[Lemonvariable72]

I got to the second line and stopped because it's a sentence fragment. Consider working on your craft. It doesn't matter how good your concepts might be if your craft is bad.

Could you be more specific, because what you point to doesn't look like a fragment to me.

[Foxaèr]

It has to grab my attention with the first paragraph, and it did not.

[John V]

His handsome blond hair under his fedora moving with wind of the Israeli desert.

This is a sentence fragment. It has no verb. "moving with wind of the Israeli desert" is a present participle phrase which modifies "hair."

If you change "moving" to "moved" or "was moving" you'd have a sentence. "Moved" is better because it's active voice. Avoid passive voice such as "was moving." Better yet would be a more descriptive word than "moved." Flowed, whipped or waved might be better. It depends on what the hair is actually doing. Move doesn't tell us much.

[Lemonvariable72]

His handsome blond hair under his fedora moving with wind of the Israeli desert.

This is a sentence fragment. It has no verb. "moving with wind of the Israeli desert" is a present participle phrase which modifies "hair."

If you change "moving" to "moved" or "was moving" you'd have a sentence. "Moved" is better because it's active voice. Avoid passive voice such as "was moving." Better yet would be a more descriptive word than "moved." Flowed, whipped or waved might be better. It depends on what the hair is actually doing. Move doesn't tell us much.

That full sentence is actually this

His handsome blond hair under his fedora moving with the wind of the Israeli desert.

I may have missed the word the as I tend to miss words sometimes when I get really into writing, usually I pick them up but I was exhausted proof reading this.

[John V]

This is a sentence fragment. It has no verb. "moving with wind of the Israeli desert" is a present participle phrase which modifies "hair."

If you change "moving" to "moved" or "was moving" you'd have a sentence. "Moved" is better because it's active voice. Avoid passive voice such as "was moving." Better yet would be a more descriptive word than "moved." Flowed, whipped or waved might be better. It depends on what the hair is actually doing. Move doesn't tell us much.

That full sentence is actually this

His handsome blond hair under his fedora moving with the wind of the Israeli desert.

I may have missed the word the as I tend to miss words sometimes when I get really into writing, usually I pick them up but I was exhausted proof reading this.

The issues I noted remain. Adding "the" does make it read better, but wasn't grammatically necessary. It's absolutely necessary to make one of the changes I suggested.

Note that sentence fragments can be used in fiction, but such use must be infrequent, and can't be early in the book.

I've since read the whole piece. There are a lot of craft issues. I can clean it up for you for twenty American dollars.

[Faith No More]

Note that sentence fragments can be used in fiction, but such use must be infrequent, and can't be early in the book.

Could you elaborate on the part in bold?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Your opinion is valid, but as a matter of politeness, etiquette, and common decency, why don't you offer the man some explanation. Maybe some constructive criticism instead of a cold remark that offers nothing. You just came off as purposefully rude.

Actually, I refrained from a more detailed criticism so I wouldn't appear deliberately rude, but OK.

My main issue with the piece is that it is replete with logical problems:

- The action takes place before the gates of Eden in Israel. Why is Eden in Israel?

-Why is Satan wearing a suit? We are told this is a form of mockery, but the mockery isn't explained. What is Satan mocking and why?

-Why are they all armed with swords? What is Satan doing with a tomahawk?

-A pillar of flame shoots towards Satan, but the flame is described as 'omnidirectional'.

-How is that an angel can be slain by a sword, bleed to death, or have a mother?

There are other issues - not so much logical errors as problems with the crafting of the story. Anton Chekhov once remarked that a writer of fiction needs to tell the reader everything necessary to understand the conflict the story is about, and that simply wasn't done here. I think this short-short could be MUCH better if re-crafted as a short story or a novella. There's simply too much left out to make it work as written.

Boru

[Doubting Thomas]

I agree with John V. You need to clean up the grammar, sentence fragments, spelling, capitalization, and such before you can make it into a readable, compelling story. I'm no English major, but English was one of my better subjects and I hate to see poorly-written prose.

Every time a different character speaks, it should be a new paragraph.

There are a few sentences where the general idea you were trying to convey started to come out but were not complete. Like

The cherub let forth his battle cry and three others like him, with flaming blades.

This is kind of confusing even though I got the general idea. Three others like him with flaming blades what? Did three more cherubs appear? Did three more cherubs let out a battle cry? The main purpose in writing is to convey your ideas clearly.

Now that that's out of the way, the story line itself could use a bit of work. There could be a bit more back story, and the ending where Lucifer talks about "that angel you tortured to death" was not clear. Who was he talking about here? Jesus? Lucifer's buddy? Lucifer's brother? There should be a bit of back story or fleshing out of that part.