First chapter was a great beginner, one thing I wished I could do so soothingly was your description in detail about the way the ponies are, that's a power I'm striving to understand and use fluently.
Now for chapter 2....
Fuck I wish I can do it that well for the way you handled the wording.
Narrative: Coherent. It adheres to premise, although perhaps a bit longer than it should. By the end I felt raw, rent by the overstated.
Mechanics: Your wielding of the adjective is adept, and each individual sentence is pleasurable to read. The overall flow, however, is... ouch. It feels like I am being prodded with the pointy end of a rather negative vernacular haberdashery stick.
ex.- "My lungs churned red fire."
"The rail car filled with my thunder."
"She had a lot of love to give. I took it all." (made those up)
Sharp, precise statements are fine for punctuation, but when they are the sole constituents of a piece, they comprise something altogether jarring and difficult to read. I get that you're going for "stream of consciousness" a la James Joyce, but even Joyce varied his sentence length and structure. Brevity does have its spartan virtues. It also has its spartan vices.
You can't "techniqueify" good writing, really, but simply being aware of a certain imbalance can change it. Our syntax is a reflection of how our mind processes information, so making a conscious edit of your pacing and structural variance can actually change the way you cognize words. I believe W.E.B. Yeats said it best with "As I altered my syntax, I altered my intellect." It's not a raw correlation, but it's close.
Why is this style of writing some dominant in modern literature? I blame Hemingway.
I feel like you spent too much time in that opening bit (though I like how you handled it otherwise), but this is a pretty good scene interpretation regardless. :)
First chapter was a great beginner, one thing I wished I could do so soothingly was your description in detail about the way the ponies are, that's a power I'm striving to understand and use fluently.
Now for chapter 2....
Fuck I wish I can do it that well for the way you handled the wording.
Narrative:
Coherent. It adheres to premise, although perhaps a bit longer than it should. By the end I felt raw, rent by the overstated.
Mechanics:
Your wielding of the adjective is adept, and each individual sentence is pleasurable to read. The overall flow, however, is... ouch. It feels like I am being prodded with the pointy end of a rather negative vernacular haberdashery stick.
ex.-
"My lungs churned red fire."
"The rail car filled with my thunder."
"She had a lot of love to give. I took it all."
(made those up)
Sharp, precise statements are fine for punctuation, but when they are the sole constituents of a piece, they comprise something altogether jarring and difficult to read. I get that you're going for "stream of consciousness" a la James Joyce, but even Joyce varied his sentence length and structure. Brevity does have its spartan virtues. It also has its spartan vices.
You can't "techniqueify" good writing, really, but simply being aware of a certain imbalance can change it. Our syntax is a reflection of how our mind processes information, so making a conscious edit of your pacing and structural variance can actually change the way you cognize words. I believe W.E.B. Yeats said it best with "As I altered my syntax, I altered my intellect." It's not a raw correlation, but it's close.
Why is this style of writing some dominant in modern literature? I blame Hemingway.
FLEX YOUR MUSCLESSSSS
I feel like you spent too much time in that opening bit (though I like how you handled it otherwise), but this is a pretty good scene interpretation regardless. :)