I was inducted to the “Forties Club” for my entry “The Reunion” (posted here) into the Clarity of Night “Ascension” contest. That just means that the judge gave me a possible of at least 40 points out of 45 for pacing, entertainment value, technical skill, storytelling, and voice. I’m absolutely delighted that I wrote something that someone finds even slightly good in any of those categories.
But here’s my problem: I want to know why. Why was it good? And what could I do to make it better? Any ideas? What do you think makes pacing, entertainment value, storytelling, and voice interesting?
Maybe the easiest way to understand what is done well is to understand when it isn’t done well. My scoring system is designed to deduct points when various elements remind me that I’m reading, when the words are a friction against the story rather than the wings making it fly. For example, here is an example of bad pacing: “I reached for the doorknob. My fingers lit on the cold brass. I grasped. Hard. With a turn of the wrist, I unlatched the door.” Unless a microscopic view of opening a door is essential to the story, this passage is giving WAY too much attention to an unimportant detail as is thereby derailing the story. The flow of language should compliment the pace of the scene unfolding in the reader’s mind.
jason, thanks for the feedback: I can definitely see the cringe-factor of your example.
Thanks again for the contest. I enjoyed the challenge very much.