autumn part 4

I rolled my eyes and asked her to leave, but she kept on hassling me.

"Get out! Before I kick you out myself!"

"This isn't your room! You, get out!" She said, biting her teeth.

"Well, mother allowed me to use this room!" I gave her an enraged look. "So you don't decide who stays and who leaves"

Mia punched me on the arm. It doesn't hurt much, but you could definitely feel the rage.

"ARGHH!!! But it doesn't mean... It doesn't mean you can decide that too!" She said stomping her feet.

"Why are you even staying here? It's not like your boyfriend "Christian" is here or anything?" I said. Christian is her boyfriend or her crush to be precise. He is okay, quite tall around 5.8 feet, very muscular, very smart, and good looking. But I don't think that he would like a girl like my sister. I mean my sister is yes a very optimistic person, but she is very annoying. And when I say annoying, I mean it. 

"He is not my boyfriend! And don't you dare tell Mom and Dad!" she blushed, it's not so clear under her tanned skin but it is definitely there.

"I won't tell if you leave me alone."

"I am not going anywhere."she said.

"Well then, fine by me." Her face astonished when she heard that I finally gave up. "I am going to change here if you don't mind." I smirked.

"Come on, do you think I will fall into this trick again?" She rolled her eyes. "Besides, it's not like I never saw you naked before."

I turned round, looking at her face. "Excuse me?"

"I said is like I never saw you naked before. You abs are.... Well lets just say that christian is way hotter that you." she smirked back.

"And you said he isn't your BF." I laughed as I reached out for a cup of tea on the table.

She looked at me and gave me a middle finger.

"F**k you." She said.

I rolled my eyes and walked away. "Whatever, I'm going down."

Author's Note

Thanks for reading and please review. Sorry for posting so lately, I got exam next week wish me luck. Thank you.

Reviews

[keeanaaaa]

Same corrections in this are needed as the other 3 chapters I commented on. I would also love some more details. All in all you're a promising writer and cannot wait to read more.

[Xavier Lee]

Overall the story is interesting and I would love to know a lot more. However, being the grammar nazi I am, I can't get passed the idea that you need to do quite a bit of editing. However, it doesn't take away from the overall quality of your story, instead it makes it feel like it was written in a bit of a hurry. Don't be afraid to take the time to explain. In writing, details are your best friends. Describe the room, give a bit more of a history, focus on the information instead of just throwing it out there. Again I would like to stress that I did enjoy the read and hope to hear more from you.

[Nonnye]

Hi
I was able to read all 4 chapter today and the story reads more smoothly that way. Your characters are strong and you have created good tension between Alex and his sister. And the AI had a strong presents and lack there of. What you did with the AI and Alex set the seen beautifully. I like that you show action with dialogue vs the "he said/she said" form. You have asked the story be read for content however there are some revision you may want to make if you want a story that flows more easily, (that may not be your goal which is ok too).
Thanks Nonnye

[Ryan Henderson]

I like this Autumn book so far, it has good characters, good dialogue, and that dialogue is also realistic, great flow and good word choice, keep up the good work!

[David Ung]

Thank you.

[S. D. Forogar]

I am sorry to admit that I did not like this piece. That being said, I would prompt the author into continuing to work if only to bolster her / his ability.

*I will be doing some nit-picking for these first two chapters, so I will prepare you for this, David Ung!*

The introduction, since this itself is my review introduction, I will begin with. I wasn't fond of the First Chapter from its inception, beginning with its poor conceptualizations of both war and the human psyche. It means to lead the Reader into the belief that, at first, all people are either good and bad; redirecting itself quite expertly, the piece then generalizes the opposite, that goodness is merely passive evil ["A good and innocent person is only a patient wolf . . ." (Ch-1, Par. 1, Sent. 6)], and evil is merely misguided goodness [" . . . an evil person only does evil for good." (Ch-1, Par. 1, Sent. 6)]. These, still, are in error; even though this is a personal view by the narrator, it should be continued. Rather, blame is (in Ch-2) placed upon corrupt (corporations?) businesses, which either means that the narrator despises most (if not all) of existence universally, or that he is continually changing his mentality in the middle of his own story. If the former, such a trend should be continued, and depth will be far more difficult to add to this character (though, not impossible!). If the latter, then this is in error.

Another nitpick is that numbers should not be written in their numerical form, but spelled out (exceptions being things like years or vast numbers that would be impractical to spell out, where "2157" can be left alone in its numerical form. As well, any "Proper forms" of numbers, such as the "Philadelphia 76ers," also would remain in numerical form).

In Chapter One, a summarized description of Alex's environment is included in his written recollection, which lends credence to the fact that he might even be telling this story in real-time. In that case, some indication ought to be given, and a more clear-cut way of transitioning from the "monologue of war and humanity" to reality ought to be included.

Chapter Two was far worse. I've always been against exposition-laden works, and such a storytelling methodology was already "apologized for" by the narrator. Yet, it does not make a tale easier to deal with simply because the author acknowledges that she / he is telling it with knowledge of her / his flaws. Such plot lines should be expressed throughout the piece (and could very well wait until later in that story or EVEN in a continuation of it, for that matter; see Stephen King's "The Dark Tower" series, keeping in mind the differences in presentation of "The Gunslinger," "The Drawing of the Three" and "The Waste Lands." As the story progresses, its plot is disclosed via its characters' necessity of discovering or revealing it. For a shorter story, of course this process will appear rushed, but it needn't be forced, either.

"You see, life in the 22nd century isn't easy . . . " Ch-2, Par. 1, Sent. 1.

Compared to what? As far as I can tell, Alex has never lived in any but the 22nd century, so even if he has knowledge of history he'd have no true frame of reference to make such a statement.

"(S)o they decided to worsen the already apocalyptic planet by making the killing of people legal and causing chaos everywhere." Ch-2, Par. 1, Sent. 10.

This is a very powerful statement that comes off as foolish, because there's no reason for it. It's nonsensical, and not simply on a legal level; a society cannot run on the legalization of crime, and so all power would be lost. This is common knowledge, not even requiring advice. There are ways to explain this, but as a stand-alone, this line decimates this piece's Sense.

"And what happens when you let a bunch of gluttonous fools rule the lives of over a hundred billions?" Ch-2, Par. 1, Sent. 3.

Regardless of whether or not the number is "a hundred billion" or "hundreds of billions," this line is difficult. If we're talking about Earth, then either number of people is conceptually impossible, let alone physically so. Earth's hypothesized capacity to support human life stands at one billion. Currently, nearly seven billion exist on the planet, and its resources have dwindled dramatically even at that. There is no possible way, especially with the proclamation of "legal murder," that Earth could survive even a fraction of this number, in either case. To say otherwise is both contradictory of this story, and reality, without being explained in SOME fashion to justify such a statement.

There are more areas I could subject to this treatment, but this should give the author some idea as to how to go about asking questions. Any time she / he is introduced to a new element, she / he should ALWAYS attempt for a minimum layman's understanding of the concept, and inquire someone of greater knowledge should the option be present. I don't mean to be crude about my words, but this is a necessity. Broadening one's stores of knowledge will invariably lead to solving problems like these, and it does take experience. Age has nothing to do with the concept, but without experience, nothing will ever change.

Finally, this piece is inordinately riddled with grammar and punctuation errors, which must be addressed in more than simply an acknowledgement that they exist. Much work by the author has to be imparted in this regard, not only to correct those that exist but to internally process and prevent these severely-prevalent errors.

I won't say much about Ch-3 or -4, though I've read both, simply because they suffer from the same issues above. However, I will discuss the dialogue, if nothing else.

I loathe to say that I found it terrible, perhaps the worst aspect of this piece. It's neither compelling nor believable, and simply presents both narration and angst (two themes I'm distasteful of). Due to the back-and-forth between Mia and Alex, I've grown a disdain for both characters; Mia is presented as nothing more than a nuisance (also repeatedly disclosed by the author but addressed in no manner), a liar and a nasty person. I'm of the belief that she's merely an intended target of the audience's hatred, which will add absolutely nothing to the story and subtract a great deal.

By contrast, Alex is a seeming pushover, causing an obviously-intended rivalry to immediately fall apart by his character's very nature. As well, his dialogue is comprised of some mix of shoddy formality and terrible idiocy ("So you hypothesize it was me then?" I asked. -- "Why are you even staying here? It's not like your boyfriend "Christian" is here or anything?"), which is very confusing to the audience and leads to the belief that Alex is merely an arrogant thick-headed child, attempting to confuse those around him while coming off as a jerk.

As well, this dialogue DIRECTLY spits in the face of the "apocalyptic build-up" of the first two chapters, because it attempts to compare teenage angst to the very real dangers and pains of a world in chaos. Fights, of course, can and will still arise in such a latter world (and even fights as trivial as this), but when the opening conflict deals with such matters I feel it loses all manner of seriousness. In a dark story of a failing world, some critical themes ought to be addressed before others.

In conclusion, I recommend that the author go through her / his work and attempt to correct some of these points of contention. As an additional note, a great deal more detail would only enhance this piece (as it appears non-existent except during the odd moments in which it is declared desired).

[David Ung]

Thank you for the review. I will try to correct as much mistakes as possible but there are parts in the piece that I don't really explain well like the part when I blamed that the corporations are greedy and this is what lead to the damnation of the world. I am not changing my mentality but I didn't really stated "that even though no one is pure evil or good, they are not
free from the power greed." Now that I stated it, this will lead to another flaw that you found while reading the piece, "making the killing of people legal." I do not actually mean that killing was made legal, what I actually meant was that the government (corporations) don't really paid attention to crimes anymore. They won't loose their powers because they still have control over the "resources'' and they expected that the people won't rebel, and if they did rebel would be a perfect opportunity to depopulate the world. As we know it, the resources are running out. This then lead the people to rebel and the tension got tighter. Now another flaw that you found, the population hundreds of billions or a hundred billion would be impossible. Well http://growthunlimited.blogspot.com/2006/12/happy-new-world-with-100-billion-people.html
Plus by that time, the technological advancement is quite high, sky scrappers ranging from 200 floors to 250 are very very common and "lives" include those that are living outside of earth too.
I understand that the resources are not enough but by that time they discovered resources on other planets too. But even all those resources are not enough so depopulating is their idea in mind.

[S. D. Forogar]

I'll respond to this in a manner akin to yours, but I am pleased that you took my review with such courtesy and responded likewise. That said, these are mere responses clarifying my position and not jabs at your answers:

I understand that the corporations in question are posited by you as greedy; to deny such an implication would be foolish. However, to also state blatant mental states of ALL people is also foolish, for it takes into account no variables but those of the perceived general. I've mentioned, however, that I have no problem with this, as this seems the work of the narrating Alex (though I'd be happy for a reason for his distaste very quickly).

Restating the "legal murder of citizens" would be a wise idea. As well, those in a corrupt power would never willingly tear down the system that makes them corrupt. Legalizing heinous crimes would do that; this is common sense. Even whilst in possession of the resources (or rather, because of such possession), civil unrest would skyrocket. People aren't to be trodden upon; we tend toward the carrot and to avoid the stick. Even more, we tend to want to steal the stick and "stick it" to our abusers. Now, if done in a manner inconsistent with the common quo, a rebellion might be quite interesting, but perhaps I'm biased toward such a sub-genre.

I'll let my words directly lead into your next point, as the two are simply one for this argument, and state that such a population is NOT impossible upon the surface area of the Earth. I had not once posited such a thing, merely that "Earth's hypothesized capacity to support human life" stood at one billion. Now, I was mistaken in this number, only if we account for humanity itself and not a vast assortment of other animal life (minus those we consume). However, as a balanced "carrying capacity," this number would remain unchanged. Therefore, to supercede this population by a decent ninety-three billion is nonsensical, because the Earth would not be able to support or even accrue such numbers. Use of resources from outside of the planet, also, is something I cannot know with the information you've provided.

Technological advancement must be met with displays of advancement, not merely insinuations. There is no hint of a civilization in this story surpassing the confines of Earth, therefore I cannot be expected to believe that it has been achieved. It's possible now for us to leave Earth, after all, but it is not predestined.

Those nit-pick points were merely food for thought, so-to-speak, and something you should keep in mind as you continue to write. As I mentioned, I am fully capable of more, but that is not my intent; rather, I'd love to see you showing me that I am wrong, not merely telling me that I lack the information I am aware of lacking. Nothing can be known about your writing except what you have written, and I would appreciate seeing these things implemented in a manner not consistent of expositional narration.

I will be happy to continue reading your story in order to help bolster it, but I would be quite pleased to see these errors addressed prior to new content being uploaded.