The piece is rather amusing, but reads like the barest sketches of a rough draft. Its lacking in a lot of detail, but seems like a good place to start from. Granted, for a piece like this, we dont need a wealth of description to get the message across. With the heavy emphasis on dialogue, it reads more like an elaborate joke than a piece of narrative fiction.
This piece opens almost in the middle of a scene, which works well for something this short. It immediately immerses the reader in the writing itself without any unnecessary lead-ins that do nothing to capture our attention.
The conflict in this piece is pretty straight-forward, which is okay for something of this length. It easily supports the humorous aim of the story.
Like the conflict, the plot is relatively amusing but doesnt extend itself very much beyond thatsave, perhaps for the later scenes involving the tournament itself. It is simple and easy to understand, and doesnt attempt to be anything more than what it is.
The setting in this is vague, but elaborate descriptions arent really necessary for something like this. Because of that, there is little that can be added to the writing that doesnt clutter it.
There is little characterization in this, and so the characters are somewhat two-dimensional. If youre okay with the readers having to invent details about the two men, there is really nothing wrong with that. Considering that the focus of the piece is the humor and dialogue, too much exposition about the inner workings of the characters minds would seem out of place.
However, the more we looked at this, the more we found some things that we could not quite get past. On an initial read-through, nothing seems out of place. But on closer inspection, some questions become inescapable. If Wilson-Smythe knew beforehand that he was a terrible shotas he must havewhy would he choose to host the tournament in the first place? And why would the butler choose such a time to reveal that the father was a bad shot as well? The holes in the logic somewhat obscure the original humor. Those holes arent a big deal since the piece isnt supposed to be emotionally deep, but a little clarification wouldnt go amiss.
The dialogue itself read well and seemed natural. In that aspect, it was rather successful.
Format of the Text
Considering the shortness of the piece, the formatting isnt as annoying as it would be if it was a wall of text. However, it would be a little easier to look at if there were spaces between the different paragraphs.
Grammar and Spelling
Overall, the grammar spelling, and punctuation is excellent. The only misspelling we found was in the second paragraph: it should be practiced , not practised .
Style and Overall
As a whole, the piece is amusing and works well on the surface. It was only when we sat down to critique it that we ran into some confusion over a few details. We must confess were not sure how helpful this critique will be. Usually, a critique is used to pull apart a story and look at the individual pieces, and there is really nothing here that needed that. Any true attempt to dissect humor only robs it of its value, and since that is the whole aim of the writing, the point seems moot.