Wouldn't you cut a log "in two"? Not even sure (I'm often wrong), but that's one of those things that would bother me, so I'm not sure I would read on.
"Cut it into?" Into what? (If the "into" is supposed to be a dangling end on the question, that might become clearer with an ellipsis between "into" and the question mark. Just a thought. :-) )
Huh? Stating the obvious here and it's not very interesting. Comes close to being funny, so I might read a little more to see if it is before I decide whether to continue or not.
Please, please, please don’t tell me this is an alien or something that doesn’t know simple English words like ax but can otherwise speak fluid sentences… Please! That’s sort of what it looks like just from these two lines. I’m not hooked, sorry.
Thank you, ladies. I do apologize for the misuse of into, which should be in two. I see tightening the beginning sentences is in order and possibly changing it around. The lines are from a Christmas comedy, a fiesty city-gal and a reclusive writer who clash from the get-go. Thanks again, I've enjoyed reading your comments and appreciate your time to offer suggestions.
Wouldn't you cut a log "in two"? Not even sure (I'm often wrong), but that's one of those things that would bother me, so I'm not sure I would read on.
ReplyDelete:) Terri
yeah, it's "in two." But I like this--I'd read on.
ReplyDeleteHmmm, interesting. How does this character not know what an ax is? I would read further to find out.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering why someone wouldn't know what an axe is and ditto on the two thing.
ReplyDeleteHmmm....
ReplyDeleteand cut it into?
and cut into it?
and chop it in half without taking out my feet?
:]
This person is better than me. I would be just repeatedly saying one word (after looking at the sharp murderous looking axe) - No.
I'd prefer "cut it in half" or "split it in two"... just feels more natural.
ReplyDeleteI'd read a bit more to find out why our character doesn't know what an ax is.
If it's meant to be sarcasm, I'd like to see the voice sauced with a bit of it too.
"in two" not "into"
ReplyDeleteWhether it's meant to be sarcasm or not, I'd be reading on to find out why the character had an ax and didn't know what it was.
ReplyDeleteLol! I want to know what kind of person doesn't know what axes and chopping wood are all about.
ReplyDeleteinto = in two
I'd read on. :)
"Cut it into?" Into what? (If the "into" is supposed to be a dangling end on the question, that might become clearer with an ellipsis between "into" and the question mark. Just a thought. :-) )
ReplyDeleteI'd read more of this.
Huh? Stating the obvious here and it's not very interesting. Comes close to being funny, so I might read a little more to see if it is before I decide whether to continue or not.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. It's intriguing that the speaker is someone unfamiliar with a comment object. It'd read on.
ReplyDeletePlease, please, please don’t tell me this is an alien or something that doesn’t know simple English words like ax but can otherwise speak fluid sentences… Please! That’s sort of what it looks like just from these two lines. I’m not hooked, sorry.
ReplyDeleteThank you, ladies. I do apologize for the misuse of into, which should be in two. I see tightening the beginning sentences is in order and possibly changing it around. The lines are from a Christmas comedy, a fiesty city-gal and a reclusive writer who clash from the get-go. Thanks again, I've enjoyed reading your comments and appreciate your time to offer suggestions.
ReplyDeleteOh, so only the ladies get thanks? *adds you to top 10 list of doom*
ReplyDeleteIt's important to note that it did do the job, though; feedback was mostly positive and it seemed like people wanted to read on.
So while a little trimming is in place, make sure it doesn't the essence that hooked them.
Wulf! My apopogies. It's always nice to hear a gentleman's view also. Thank you for your comments. I hope this post comes through. It's the third try.
ReplyDelete