Here is what you already know about the scene. Kamiko (MC) is the 'She' referred to and Uila is Kamiko’s warhorse. They are standing outside Kamiko’s lifelong home having just arrived after two years on the road. Her hesitancy to approach has to do with Kamiko's internal turmoil (as yet unexplained) so they are just standing there in the quiet forest clearing in front of the cottage. A sudden stillness has fallen on Uila. Years of training, nothing mysterious to Kamiko, yet a strong warning. This is still on page one of the MS.

One of my concerns is in the useage of the [ ; ], either incorrectly or excessively.

======= fragment ======
~ She’d never considered that strife or danger could find this sanctuary. Yet Uila was no alarmist, his intuition and his senses were as trustworthy and imperturbable as her own; and as well honed by experience. It was telling that he had sensed something she had not. Trouble had a knack for showing up in the moment of distraction.

The door of the cottage creaked and swung slowly open, sinking into the shadows of the dark interior, revealing nothing. It was in the details that did not so much catch her eye, but still caught her attention. The latch handle hadn’t moved; the patchwork of late afternoon sunlight on the door hadn’t dispelled the dim interior; the forest was not quiet, it was silent and suddenly so. ~

============

The 1st 13 lines are on the previous thread (Ravencroft 1st 13) if you are interested.

Thanks

edited to incorporate KayTi's suggestions for clarity.

Personal style point, rather than using "And as well honed by experience." as your fragment for sentence 3, I'd go "As well honed by experience, too." as a fragment. Feels less of an accident ("hey- the writer forgot to make that a sentence) and more of a style choice.

Last nitpick - I can't tell from this opening whether She, the unnamed main character, is inside or outside of the cottage. I presume this matters, it's important, where she is, because she considers it a sanctuary and is surprised to find it breached. I think you should find a way to specify where she is.

The writing is interesting, so I think your style is in great shape, my comments are much more related to as a reader, how I perceived the information being presented (and finding there were some gaps that made enjoying the writing on its own to be a little difficult.)

Good luck with this!

quote:

---

She’d never considered that strife or danger could find this sanctuary. Yet Uila was no alarmist, (The proceeding part and the following part of the sentence are both complete sentences (independent clauses?) and should have a period or a semi-colon instead of a comma) his intuition and his senses were as trustworthy and imperturbable as her own; (I think this semi-colon is used incorrectly. The part that follows the semi-colon is not an independent clause and has a conjunction. A comma should be used or even nothing) and as well honed by experience. It was telling that he had sensed something she had not. Trouble had a knack for showing up in the moment of distraction.

The door of the cottage creaked and swung slowly open, sinking into the shadows of the dark interior, revealing nothing. It was in the details that did not so much catch her eye, (no comma needed here) but still caught her attention. The latch handle hadn’t moved; the patchwork of late afternoon sunlight on the door hadn’t dispelled the dim interior; the forest was not quiet, (semi-colon instead of comma since they are independent clauses) it was silent and suddenly so. ~

---

I am not a grammer expert, so take my advice with a grain of salt. The ending does have a lot of semi-colons (and is very long). It didn't bother me, but it might annoy others.

The first paragraph seemed a little rambly and repetitive to me which diminished the tension. I think you can cut it down and have it read a lot smoother with higher tension.

Good luck.

Let's look at :"Yet Uila was no alarmist, his intuition and his senses were as trustworthy and imperturbable as her own; and as well honed by experience." This could be punctuated a number of different ways. As it is, it goes on rather longer than might be best.

"Yet Ulla was no alarmist. His intuition and his senses were as trustworthy and imperturbable as her own, and as well-honed by experience." Here the second sentence performs a single function: to compare Ulla's mentality to the POV character's. It makes sense to split off the first sentence because the connection between the ideas is rhetorical, not logical. A statement is made, then the following sentence provides substantiation.

"Yet Uila was no alarmist. His intuition and his senses were as trustworthy and imperturbable as her own. They were just as well honed by experience." That feels to me less like rhetoric and more like a stream of thoughts. The POV character makes an assertion, then reassures herself by going down the list of justifications.

I think if you read the sentence aloud, you can get a feel for whether it's a bit overloaded. I think the original version squeezes a bit more in than feels natural to speak.