[P. Breathnach]

People seem to have lit on the word "interconnected" as being a problem of bad choice of vocabulary. That's not what hit me first when I read the sentence:

Their faces moved ever closer, inc-by-inch, until their lips met and their fingers interconnected.

My first reaction was to be slightly unsettled by the idea that the fingers were somehow connected to their faces; then I thought that "interconnect" was not the best verb.

The first edit I would make is to separate lips from fingers. That's easily done with a favourite character of mine, the semicolon, making the sentence into an associated pair of sentences.

Their faces moved ever closer, inch-by-inch, until their lips met; their fingers interconnected.

Then I would concern myself with the fingers, and I would strive to balance the two sentences.

Their faces moved ever closer, inch-by-inch, until their lips met; their hands found one another's and their fingers twined together.

[PurpleBee]

I'm a big fan of the semi-colon, but you've increased the "their" count to four

[pickarooney]

their hands found one another's and their fingers twined together.

I think this means that their hands had hands.

[P. Breathnach]

Originally Posted by PurpleBee

I'm a big fan of the semi-colon, but you've increased the "their" count to four

True. But is that a problem? I think that the "theirs" are in balanced pairs.

Originally Posted by pickarooney

I think this means that their hands had hands.

I can't get my head around this one. It's very slippery, because hands generally don't do anything without the involvement of the person, so the hand is both part of the body and representative of the person who inhabits the body.

If there is potential for confusion, further work is possible, but the sentence has already been taken a good distance away from what boneyarsebogman wrote, and I believe that an editor should keep as close to the original as possible.

[boneyarsebogman]

I've re-written that line about their fingers interconnecting, so that it now reads:

Their faces moved ever closer, inch-by-inch, until their lips met; his hands holding her like they once did, like they’ve yearned to do for the longest time

Is that an improvement?

[boneyarsebogman]

I've also re-written the opening paragraph - is is better, or does it need more work?

It was the darkest and coldest night of winter; in the forest, the breath from the various animals that dwelled within was made visible against the chill, rising into the air like steam, before vanishing. No stars were visible through the thick blanket of grey clouds that hung in the air, even the moon’s light could not penetrate it. It was then that a pinprick of light broke through, growing ever larger as it descended until it stopped right above the forest, near the almost dilapidated and rundown shack, whose sole inhabitant was wrapped up in his warm bed, unaware of the new light in this otherwise dark night.

[pickarooney]

Originally Posted by boneyarsebogman

Their faces moved ever closer, inch-by-inch, until their lips met; his hands holding her like they once did, like they’ve yearned to do for the longest time

Holding her or holding hers?
You've mixed up past and present (perfect) tense here.

[boneyarsebogman]

Originally Posted by pickarooney

Holding her or holding hers?
You've mixed up past and present (perfect) tense here.

Hold her, as in the woman.

Oh, man. I really have great difficulty with tenses sometimes. I've mild dyspraxia and this is one of the small things that goes with it, it seems. I try not to let it bother me though and I think I'm improving.

Does it make sense grammatically to do that, or is it completely wrong?

[pickarooney]

Sorry, I wasn't clear at all. You have 'moved', 'met' and then 'have yearned' in that sentence. 'Had yearned' would be more consistent.

[alfa beta]

I read that and thought 'fine'

but if its just a story about an old bloke dying then what's the point?

I mean it's nice and comforting and all that...the way the missus appears in her angelic way....but there needs to be something more if it's gonna grab the reader...an if its gonna make the reader think about stuff.....the big stuff.

And then I read the comments and everyone gets hung up on one word: 'intertwined'....to be honest, I didn't care what their fingers did, coz I had lost interest by then.

If you wanna be a good writer, you need to keep the interest of slackers like me!

[PurpleBee]

Originally Posted by alfa beta

I mean it's nice and comforting and all that...the way the missus appears in her angelic way....but there needs to be something more if it's gonna grab the reader...an if its gonna make the reader think about stuff.....the big stuff.

I agree the intertwinned thing got a little specific but having said that its a small step towards improvement.

"Big stuff" is a little too general to be helpful in any way as is encouraging the writer to "grab" you...

[gubby]

whose sole inhabitant was wrapped up in his warm sheets sheets? really should that not be blankets. that was what jumped out at me.. not the intertwined thing, also: A smile formed on her face and it went away, all of it. why did her smile go away? Otherwise I though it was very well written. was looking for a twist in the tail though.. but that me. well done anyway

[alfa beta]

Originally Posted by PurpleBee

I agree the intertwinned thing got a little specific but having said that its a small step towards improvement.

"Big stuff" is a little too general to be helpful in any way as is encouraging the writer to "grab" you...

Sorry purplebee - you're right - I wasn't being very helpful - I think you might be a nicer person than me!

I s'pose all I'm saying is that I'm the type of reader who needs to be forced to 'turn the page'. I give up easily. So I need someone's writing to grip me. To 'grab' me. Now, how the writer does that is entirely up to them. Whether they want to do it through plot, through character development, through language use, through subject matter, through whatever....that's fine. But (for me) they NEED to do it, they NEED to keep my attention. And this piece didn't.

So...and I'm not being negative or vague or unhelpful here (I hope)....small steps towards improvement (as you put it above) are not going to change the overall efficacy of this piece. The writer needs to look at the bigger issues. The whats and whys behind the story. He or she (and for some reason I think the writer is a she) needs to start again and focus in on what she is trying to achieve, what she is trying to make the reader think and feel. That's what I meant by the 'big stuff' - as Tolstoy would probably have put it, the emotive reaction of the audience to a piece of art...and the thing is, my reaction was minimal in that regard...I just thought 'yup, he died...so what!'.

I (as a reader) need to think more, much more, than that. If the piece is to succeed, I need to question something, to re-evaluate something, to doubt something, to at the very least consider something....then, and only then, will the writing have succeeded.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

I hope you do, coz I value your opinion.

[PurpleBee]

No need for apologies!

I see where you're coming from. My problem with that kind of criticism is that it demands the piece to be something else entirely.

If you plain don't like it then I think that's it. Nothing to be done.

I think you can only constructively criticise work which you think has a certain redeeming quality, a quality that makes it worthy of improvement without rendering it unrecognisable from the original.