This was so-so for me. Very little character development so hard to care whether or not they got killed. IMO, There needs to be a little more character development in the dialogue between the two boys up front and a little less action later.  The action was so detailed that it got a little tedious - a few broader strokes would have worked better for me.

I quite like the name Dazzer for a kid.

THE GOOD:  I liked your style, for the most part.  Crisp, with a good flow.  A very easy read that asks little of the reader.  Your opening shots are unique, and I enjoyed your experimentation with it, flexing your technique a bit.  I like your choice of beastie, although I am not sure you do enough with it.    

THE BAD:  I dislike it when characters stupidly knock themselves out.  It is just too easy as a method to move the story.  I was also a bit confused as to place.  Glen escapes, only to find himself right back at the pond?  I am not sure how that happened.  The larger problem, however, is the lack of any real hook for the reader.  While it is written well, it also has a perfunctory feel to it.  I suspect this author could have used more time.      

bert's grade:  C  

The story is very basic here. To sum it up in two sentences: Glen thinks there's a monster, Dazzer doesn't. In the end Glen is right and alive and Dazzer is dead.
A bit of simple for me.
It's well written in my opinion.
And probably shootable.
My suggestion would be to add a bit of flare to the boy's characters and you'll have a more fun story.

Quick thoughts on Pond Life:

Love the unique monster in this one.  From what I've read thus far, there's an overabundance of Frankensteins and Werewolves in this OWC.  So a yarn about the Creature from the Black Lagoon is a nice breath of fresh air.

Well written, too. So far, I haven't read a single clunky/newbie story.  Nice quality we've got going this time!

My only qualms: for once, I'd argue there's *too* much white space.  Alot of description can be lumped together into the same paragraphs (no more than three lines a piece of course.)  But the way it's spaced out, it feels wrong to my eye.  Just a minor stylistic thing, but I think that matters.

And - the story's a bit too descriptive.  I think it can be also streamlined.

Finally - re: the tale itself.  There's really no twist or satisfying conclusion here.  Just like one scary event, told in detail.  So - for me - it missed having a good end clincher.  But the craftmanship was very good anyway.  (Due to the use of the word rapeseed, I *might* know who wrote this one!)  )

PS: I *do* like little writing flourishes: like "did something undulate below the surface?"  First of all, undulate's a terrific word.  Secondly - despite what some may say - asides are a great thing for a screenwriter to use... as long as you don't go crazy with them.  What they DO is color a story with a writer's individual voice.  Which makes a script stand out - and not be bland and cliche.

Cheers,

--J (W)

Not bad, but I was expecting a bit more, especially at the end. Writing is okay, needs polishing, like my shoes.

R

Thanks all for the reads and the comments - appreciated as always.

With this one I specifically tried to hit the brief and use a classic Universal monster and create a short horror... I had (have) a great idea for a horror-comedy but for me that wasn't the ask, so I'll save it for next time.

I also wanted to stay away from the Frank and Dracula, thought they'd get enough attention

Lack of a twist, yep agree muse deserted me at the end so just played it straight.

White space... I was trying to pace the action to the script so that it matched a kid running round a wood in the dark, short movements, twists and turns... an experiment really.

Janet - thanks re 'undulate below the surface?' note... I liked it

Once again, thanks all  

Nice work, Anthony. Looking forward to reading the comedy.