/lit/ - Literature

>>22906668
Maybe I'm just stupid, but I had quite a bit of difficulty with your passage, anon. It wasn't that it was wordy per se, it seemed to be more a matter of the abstractness of the passage. Like a painting with too much negative space, things are too vague, the expression to florid. In other words, I had real trouble understanding what was going on. You evoked strong imagery, but it was just that: imagery, which yielded little in the way of narrative activity.

Additionally, you reuse language too much. The term 'necrotizing' is used too soon after using the term 'necrotic'.

Similarly, your opening paragraph (from what I can tell) mostly describes a mess of tangled corpses. Yet in the next passage, you describe the scene as being one of 'tangled corpses'. The issue here is that you're effectively re-using language again, just in a more obtuse and artful manner. Yet, in this instance the effect not only harms immersion and rhythm, but also (seemingly) puts the lie to the prose of the preceding paragraph. If you could express the scene so concisely here, what was the point of all those words there? You're doubling up on your use of imagery, in your doubling up of language, is what I'm saying.

I apologise anon. I have probably misinterpreted your work. I may simply be too dumb for it, but these are more initial thoughts. You clearly have literary skill and talent. Maybe tone down the high-mindedness a notch? That would be my advice.

Please feel free to disregard.