You suck us into your characters, making us want to know them, understand them. You tell something, and then put that information into practice with some documented behaviour. Some things you leave for us to work out for ourselves. You love these people, even Brandon, and it shows. It makes us love them, or love to hate with Brandon. You also introduce the challenge, so lauded by so many, that Rod has to over come. So, this is one of those mainly positive reviews. My one gripe. Given the natu...

A great recollection, pretty well told, and in a style that matches the content. Thank you for this. Two biggish things. First, Betty Lester is a very important character in this story. To gloss over "She died sometime later" does not do her service. Give us details. Second, "Somehow, I knew..was right. I never did. " Again, tell us why. Even if just briefly, we really want to know. For the rest, just a few items to help polish this: "dreams in the mist" does not work for me. Either "phantoms...

There is a charming naivity to your writing style. This contrasts beautifully with the subject matter and it's dark side. The dispointment of the show, and Mickey Mouse, bringing out the whole dispointment (to use a mild word) at the treatment of vets in general. I also like the 'eliticism' from the other vietnam vet, drawn from bitterness. Yet, the excessive grammar errors start to grate and intrude. You will have to find a way to polish this without losing that refreshing approach. Your cha...

Your style is very easy reading, and your descriptions work vey well on the whole. You have introduced us to Irving and Trina, and their character development is well paced. Your enviroment is well set, though a bit more of the cold effect might be useful. Working from top down: Query Letter. This really needs to spot perfect. First, explain the pun of the title - it must have more import than merely a pun. "It spans..their lives.' I feel this would work better as two sentences, -> "It spa...

I'm not sure what age group this is aimed at. The intro certainly hints at the very young reader. Yet you also talk as though to an adult. This first part is more a prologue - and best separated out as such. "Bear’s life" -> "Bears lives" "Bear’s life..your claws" Change of perspective - either "you" or "bear". Later you use "she". Be consistent. e.g. -> "Bears lives..in their claws" Main Story: This is a good story, though the linking of your story as a forebear to current animal behav...

As an introduction chapter, this is very good. You have paced it well and built your characters with some depth. You impressed the chaos and mood of the hosptial onto the reader. All good. However, the writing is very rough in places, and you have some inconsistencies. Nothing that can't be easily fixed. You start out following Luke, but then suddenly change to concentrating on Ryan. This is confusing. Give us a switch. e.g after "...it was unsafe to do so". Either have the nurse leave Lucas ...

This works for me. I drew my own conclusions and it doesn't matter whether I'm right or wrong. Just sometimes, the repetition is too much. I'd ease off a bit more, give the remainder more impact. e.g. This whole section is just too much. "Red, orange, blue, white,..Now the slight downhill tromp, , , tromp, , , step, , , step, , ," Overall, though, good work. Just a few small things: Following on from her eyes, listing colors next is confusing. "The cars, blue, red, red,...drove by emitting......

In terms of style, I get the impression you are trying to run before you can walk. Those "rules" are there to help us writers, make our job easier. To break them, you both have to work harder and THOROUGHLY know what you are doing. This was a brave attempt and has a lot of potential. "son at large" and "out to pasture" are contradictory in connotation - one is active (e.g. rampant) and the other passive (e.g. retired). I'd just delete the 'at large'. "are false luckily" - > "are false but ...

Not a lot to criticise here, I really like this. You have used a lyrical style to oppose some of the content - excellent work. Circling through aggressor, victim, witness, all one and the same is a great concept. I'd drop the dream bit - it detracts from the concept. Same goes with part 10, we get that from the story - so you repeat the obvious. Still, a good piece of work. So, just a few nitpicks - some are where you have use something that doesn't fit your style: "the stream you could hear"...

Both the first chapter and this one are far too short to gain much insight. There are hints we can pick up, certainly, and they intrigue. I'll just comment on this second instalment. The repetition of 'breathing', perhaps some qualification for each line. Breathing in, breathing out. Perhaps some information about the breathing. Is it laborious, painful, rattling or smooth? Is it the narrator hearing or the breather hearing his own? Maybe this becomes clear later, (you do add 'Self breathing....