1. Papers of every variety? Really? What do you mean by this statement? Are you talking about papers with all kinds of different things on them, papers of all different makes (stationery, Japanese washi, papyrus paper, printer paper, etc.), or something entirely different? I believe you mean "assorted papers."
2. First sentence: pouring, not poured. It is an active verb occurring in the past.
3. Last sentence of the first paragraph wants breaking up. It's run-on.
4. All sentences, second paragraph: run-on. Please break them up into more sentences. You might want to try reading your story aloud while pausing appropriately for each comma usage.
5. I'm not entirely sure what your description means, as far as the body having the "look of stone with the shape and texture of metal." I personally identify materials with shape and texture, as well as temperature effects (specific heat). I do, however, generally appreciate your specific description of the object.
6. I think you can scrap the "quite unsystematically" in the third paragraph, though this may only be a matter of personal taste. The quite is an extra word, somewhat like "very," which doesn't add anything to the narrative. "Unsystematically" (other than not being a "real" word, which detracts from it in this case because it doesn't describe a new phenomenon or add any particular poetry to the tale) is unneeded because the reader will automatically assume "non-systematic" with "destroy." You would need to inform the reader if the vovoxes were systematically destroying things, but in this case the adverb is unneeded.
7. "The contents of the room" can become "the room's contents," which is a much tighter phrase.
8. More run-ons in the last sentence of the third paragraph.
9. More run-ons in the first sentence of the third paragraph.
10. I like the vovoxes. Mechanical constructions generally make me happy, but there is something more alluring about these--possibly because they are made of wood and iron, and therefore more interesting than the standard steel-and-piston beasts (though I am fond of that sort as well).
11. You can remove the "himself" from "he slid himself through the second door." Without an object to the sentence (like "paper" or, in this case, "himself"), the reader will automatically assume that the man is sliding his body through the door and not some random object.
12. As previously stated, pouring in p5s1 should be poring.
13. Fifth paragraph, sentences 2-4: run-on.
14. I am somewhat curious as to what exactly a "nolk" is--this isn't a criticism, just a statement of intrigue. I believe the strengths of this story lie primarily in your imaginative creation of new objects and phenomena.
15. Paragraph 5, sentence 3: "he had found each of them to be correctly calibrated" is awkward due to the "to be." You could say "he knew each was correctly calibrated" to keep most of the structure, but some meaning is lost. I'm sure you can find a better way to express this concept, but I can't think of a fitting one at this time.
16. Paragraph 5, sentence 4: "it was as if" should become "it was as though." "If" generally belongs in formal narrative only when proposing a yes/no question, such as: "If he wandered all his life, could he find respite in solitude?" or "If he overloaded the magnetic flux capacitors, would the ship explode?"
17. Paragraph 6, sentence 1: I don't know what you mean by "it felt as if his feet weren't able to push against the floor as easily." My guess is that you're saying it's harder for him to walk in some way, either because his body feels heavier or because the floor seems more slippery. Please be more specific so the readers can understand your vision.
18. Paragraph 6, sentence 2: You say that the humming has become truly audible, but it was audible before. Rather than "truly audible," which uses a throwaway word (truly), you might want to substitute in a description of the new sound--"a dull roar" is typical, "a cicada grumble" more poetic and potentially confusing.
19. Paragraph 6, sentence 3: Are the glass objects popping, exploding, or shattering? I ask because each verb brings a different "sound-component" to the reader's ear. The words for the destruction of closed objects fall on a spectrum. Different words convey different strengths, sounds, and materials. I believe the standard in this case would be shattering (because of glass), with the addition of further description to convey quality. One could write "the large glass instruments began shattering, shards cutting the unsteady air. The man winced as slivers pierced his flesh--yet he stumbled forth, resisting pain and fear and the pull of the ground. Ribbons of blood painted his torn pale shoulders." Though this is not necessarily an example of good writing, it is more descriptive and brings the reader into the scene on a sensory level. There is a critical balance between too much and too little description. You might be able to enrich your writing by describing more.
20. Paragraph 6, sentence 5: run-on.
21. I agree with the previous poster. Too much "energy;" try some synonyms, but don't get too crazy with the thesaurus or your writing will sound silly.
22. Paragraph 7, sentence 1: run-on.
23. What happens next?
Author
Topic: Your first post on Bay12 (Read 4961 times)