Next Fence by Yuvraj Rajwanshi - Short, Horror - Some situations are more than what meets the eye. That's what happens one night when a man comes home.  4 pages - pdf format

Writer interested in feedback on this work

Took a look at this:

Quoted Text On the wheel sits MATT(40s), covered in a thicket of warm clothes.

Seemed odd - maybe "at the wheel"

Quoted Text There's a DOG COLLAR under his foot. He picks it.

picks it up

Quoted Text MATT(CONT'D) What the heck?!

After the what the fuck that preceded this - heck seemed a bit mild. Plus I think it would be more effective as:

MATT
No....

SPOLIERS

Okay - lot of nice tension build up in this one - but I didn't quite get the story.  This is what I got.

A man comes home to find his dog missing.
Discovers its corpse in the neighbor's yard.
Police discover bodies in the neighbors house.

And..... ?

You need something else here,  IMO. The story doesn't really have an ending.

Thanks Dave, for reading and commenting.

It has to do with the fact that Matt indeed killed Andy and his acquaintance in the heat of the moment. It is implied from the very beginning when he puts the knife in his pocket. After committing the crime, he indeed felt guilty up until the point he saw the empty pit. That sneer indicates that he was rather happy with what he did at the end. It indicated a switch up in his trance that very moment.

Anyways, thank you once again.

4 page horror, thought I'd give this a read.

Logline, doesn't really read like one, it's too vague.  

Thicket = a dense group of trees.

Tensions seeps in - that's not very visual, describe how that's visible on Matt.

I'd not use so many exclamation marks and CAPPED descriptions in action lines.

Agree with Dave re Heck, seems jarring after WTF, his dialogue should escalate as he gets more worried.

I read your response to Dave's question about the story and ending and I agree with Dave, it just doesn't work as written as the timeline is muddled.

I think this is how you say we should interpret the story...
Matt pulls up to his house on a snowy night.
Takes a knife from his glovebox and enters his own house.
Discovers his dog is missing and suspected foul play due to burn fur on stove.
Goes next door to Andy's house
Discovers dead dog.
Goes into Andy's house.
Then completely off camera, kills Andy (after discovering he's killed some people?)
Waits for Police.
Police find two bodies in the house.
Matt walks off, back towards his own house, for no apparent reason.

Is that right?

If so then the internal logic/timeline needs some attention, e.g.
Why does Andy break into Matt's house, steal and kill Tess, and then bury the dog (badly) in his yard.
Why does Matt take a knife from his car before he knows he's going to kill Andy... and whilst you as the writer may know that Matt has killed Andy with that knife, the reader doesn't as you've not shown that happening.
If he has killed Andy, why not show it in the script, currently Matt runs into Andy's house and then out again without (on page) meeting or killing anyone.
Matt's reaction to the Police doesn't seem realistic (to me).

As an aside, and assuming Andy is a Serial Killer(?) many start with animal killings and then onto people, note sure many then go back to animals.

I'd have a think, rewrite based on the notes you agree with, and maybe expand a little, no real reason to not show what happens inside Andy's house.

Best

Hi Yuvraj,

Sorry to say I struggled with this.  I gave it two reads (this was before your explanation) and I was still unsure as to the how/why which left me with questions rather than a resolution.

Even after explaining the how I don’t know that seeing Matt with the knife at the outset does enough to imply he’s the killer.  Why is he taking a knife from the glove box after the killing?  I understand you want to set it up that he’s the killer, but what’s the logic here?  What’s the sequence of events that have led up to this?

We follow Matt’s perspective through the house and only have his reaction to go by.  His shock and the broken latches all point to an intruder.  You can use misdirection to an extent, but it has to follow some logic.  If there were another character present—one not privy to Matt’s deed—maybe that would help explain it.  Too much misdirection and you’ll risk confusing and ultimately alienating the audience.

Matt’s sneer at the end does suggest he’s complicit in some way, but I still couldn’t connect it back to him being the killer.  Not without some understanding as to why he killed them all in the first place.  You have the end result of Matt’s actions but little way for the audience to tie it all together.

I can see what you’re aiming for but it’s quite the feat getting all the pieces into place to build both tension while saving the reveal.  For me, it’s not quite there yet.

Steve

Thanks, Anthony and Steve, for reading and commenting.

I agree there is a bit issue with the timeline. I will try to clean it up.

Thank you once again.

Hi Yuvraj,

I enjoyed the tension and I was hooked waiting to see what was going on...a very good thing. I do agree with the others about the timeline etc. I too was very confused by the ending.

looking forward to the seeing the re-write.

cheers K

Quoted from Kirsten Hi Yuvraj, I enjoyed the tension and I was hooked waiting to see what was going on...a very good thing. I do agree with the others about the timeline etc. I too was very confused by the ending. looking forward to the seeing the re-write. cheers K

Thank you for reading and commenting, Kirsten. Yeah, it's pretty confusing. I try to clean it up.

Thank you once again.