I'm sure you know that some people frown on the passive voice. I'm not a fan when it's not necessary or purposeful. Only you can determine whether that's true, but I think its use here weakens the opening sentence. What about
They held the party at a grand mansion in the woods. Given the way your next sentence goes, I think you can omit the "in the woods" part as well. Try this:
They held the party in a grand mansion. The guests thought nothing of the party being in the middle of nowhere, just another place to get drunk[...] I'm not crazy about the comma usage but I really can't find a reason not to do it here.
I like this. Very true.
Added a comma.
A couple things.
- "partaking in the joys of the earth" could refer to either the guests or the village. I can't think of a snappy way to untangle this off the top of my head. You can add a comma after "village," but I'm always afraid I add commas everywhere. Maybe others here could say whether or not that removes some ambiguity. Instead, you can rearrange this sentence and do all kinds of kung-fu: The guests, high school students from the neighboring village, had come to partake [...].
- I prefer "a neighboring village" because we're given no real specifics, like how many students, which high school, or where "the" village is. If you have in mind a mansion with literally one neighboring village, feel free to use the indefinite article. I think the indefinite adds a lot in the way of "this is an urban legend and I'm keeping it vague."
- I assume "they" refers to the students, but this sentence's syntax makes "the joys of the earth" the subject of "before they faded to ash." Find some way to straighten this out if my assumption is correct.
"The stroke of eleven" is stylized and described in a way that make it seem much more precise than your "about" implies. Why not simply
At the stroke of eleven, or
Near the stroke of eleven,? If that seems too formal, consider loosening up: "Near eleven" or "Before midnight," etc.
It seems unlikely that only one student would hear the knock. I'd think that a handful would hear it, or no one. I think a better way to write this (and one that fits with the rest of the story's style) is:
a knock came on the great wooden door. Following this, you might be able to say
No one heard; the party raged on. or something similar. The latter is just a minor tweak.
Same. This is a
very precise time, and the "around" totally contradicts it. It's also different formatting from "eleven" (spelled out). Why not
Hours passed. (or
One hour/
Two hours passed.? Obviously, since the sentence would end there, don't forget to capitalize, etc, the next one.
I didn't notice this the first time I read the story. Here's why: the first knock(s) are met with "no answer," which I thought meant that no student opened the door to see who it was. Given the course the story later takes, I'm inclined to agree with my original assessment. Given that, when I read the above bit, I have to stop and ask: does the author mean someone opened the door this time, or does he mean that, as with the first time, no one cared to answer? Because the story is so short, I think you ought to clear this up. If no one opened the door to see who was there this time, make this clearer. Otherwise--and forgive me for overthinking this--I'd like to have some idea why they answered the door this time and not the next. A small, specific action would do wonders:
There was another knock on the door, greeted this time with drunken amusement. The guests who answered were unnerved to find no one outside. Certainly my attempt is colorless, but you get the idea.
Where did they see these reports? Another good place to be specific. You might say some of them were watching TV, or that a few of them received text messages. Substitute with another delivery method as desired: radio, even YouTube. TV and radio have the advantage of keeping the story's setting ambiguous (100? 75? 50? years ago). Or you can have a fashionably late guest arrive who mentions this development.
A tendency I find in my own work is to avoid heavy description when I myself don't care much about the specifics. From time to time, I make this broad focus into a narrow one. The above would definitely fall into this pattern. I think I do this because (1) it's a good way to bring very important things to the reader's attention, or (2) it allows the reader to fill in where you couldn't care less what they imagine, while still allowing yourself to guide them with little prizes along the way. Do as you wish, but consider the advantages when you're writing really short fiction, like this.
For me, "party" here means the same thing as, say, the group of characters experiencing events in a RPG, or what hosts at restaurants mean when they announce "Plautistic, party of four." In other words, an entire group of people. This distracts me from what I think is the intended meaning, and the one we see used earlier: the event itself. If this is intentional, I don't think personifying it in this way works. Otherwise, I'm sure you were trying to avoid using "guests" again--an astute move, but ultimately distracting. Some more specific word--kids, students, even partygoers--would serve you better.
Another odd phrase. "To fling" is generally transitive, i.e. used with a direct object, or intransitive with a reflexive pronoun. Something like "They flung the x" or "They flung themselves." I would just use the latter here, especially with the change above. Also: corrected a typo.
I get what you want to say here, but I think "virus" here is over-wrought. It's a word I usually see used scientifically or (as in Burroughs) as a stand-in for something's memetic properties. Why not just:
as fear infected every guest.?
Given what I said two comments back, you might see the issue in slightly better light here. Because "party" is singular, and therefore denotes a single, unified body acting (more or less) as one, there is a problem when the unity is suddenly broken and several exceptions run contrary to the previous action. That or, once again, the event is supposed to be fleeing. You already have my opinion there. Instead, you can say something like:
Only a few of the guests remained calm amid their friends' panicked flight. (or something less flowery--sorry, trying to type this quickly). Just try not to let the reader get confused as I am above. Notice that in my example I skip the part about the "hedonistic locale," because the first word hovers over the whole story just fine on its own, and because the second word is too much. I'm also a programmer by trade and we use that word in a different way, so it might just be me. Still, I think you'll do OK without these two words.
I think "terror" is the better word here. The "horror" would be the murders themselves, or the stuff that we're about to see happen, while "terror" indicates these kids' fear. Try:
They were aware of the spreading terror,.
- If you do nothing else here, note that "the domain" is the thing that is "fueled by their lust." This is a syntax problem. You probably mean to say something like Fueled by their lust for pleasure, the remaining few further wrecked the domain.
- Note that I also added a comma. I don't think it should be omitted between these two phrases, however you look at them.
- "Domain" usually refers to something more extensive than a house, no matter how large. When used for buildings, it's often meant to be an exaggeration, or to suggest how limited the occupant's world is (i.e. the entire area where they belong or that they control is just one enclosed space). If you choose not to follow the next few suggestions, there are probably better words. Even "grounds" might suffice.
- More passive voice. Could be eliminated.
- "Wrecked" doesn't fit the formality of "domain." It's much too casual a word.
- With all the above in mind, you can try something to this effect: Fueled by their lust for pleasure, the remaining few continued to desecrate the old house. You get the idea.
If you want to fit with the rest of the story's tone, use something else. Since you've already given the reader hour/minute time spans (~11:00 and ~1:00), you can boost the parallelism to three counts, even if you're not that specific. I personally like
On the last hour because you get the sense that the story is going to end, and that the party probably didn't wind down on its own.
This tells me that the door itself was enraged. Probably not what you meant. Even if you wanted to personify the door or the fashion in which it was opened, I find this description comical.
an enraged kick cracked the door open.--or "enraged man" or something like that.
Awkward phrasing. Compare to:
No psychopath stood at the door. Instead, the students recognized the father of one of their own. My own solution here is kind of clumsy. The important things are to get rid of the "what was at the door was" construction and the "but instead". The former is repetitive and even hard to understand when you read it, although we speak aloud like this all the time. I believe a key to writing well is drawing a distinction between one's written and one's spoken word. There are cases when you'll write in an attempt to narrate using normal speech, but you haven't done that so far and this is no time to start. The latter change removes redundancy; you can use "but" or "instead" alone, but together they kind of cancel each other out. People often do the same thing with "but yet." Both note an exception to what was previously said; only one is necessary.
I think here you're trying to capture this man's zeal by invoking the word "Pentecostal." Of course, the Pentecost and actual Pentecostalism literally indicate glossolalia, marked by a Biblical event in which people were able to speak in the tongues of many nations by the power of God, as opposed to their own understanding of languages. Pentecostalists, while known for evangelical zeal and perhaps even "Bible-thumping," are by definition believers in the literality of this and possibly other Biblical events, and believe that these things are possible to those who believe in the power of God. (True Pentecostalists, forgive me if my poorly-informed summary is inaccurate or offensive.) All of this to say that I think you chose the wrong word to describe this man. I think you should leave out "Pentecostally," for two reasons. The first, and best, is that "baptized in a sea of rage" is a fine phrase on its own. The second reason is that "Pentecostally" is a clumsy adverb. If you want to continue in a religious vein, you can say that
He was zealously baptized in a sea of rage, but I think "baptized" goes a long way on its own in implying the man's religious nature. Plus we'll see what he thinks about all this stuff in a few sentences.
Aside from the requirement that interjections like "Alas" should either be followed by exclamation marks or commas, I think you would do best to drop this sentence.
"For" should only stay if you really want to keep the "Alas" sentence. Otherwise, replace as noted. Also, as I read the story, I came to think of these partygoers not as children, but as young punks, etc. I think "children" implies an innocence, and of course youth, that is out of place with prior characterization. Find another word.
I promise, I'm not getting lazy. I want to quote this in its entirety. This part is the best thing in the whole story, but you can execute it far better. Although we do reach the story's climax, the event around which it centers, prolixity is not warranted. I don't like H.P. Lovecraft often, but when I do, it's not because he writes purple prose. You can be more effective if you cut down on the dramatic language. The following is just one example.
As the small conclave looked on, the arm became a living, breathing aberration of its owner. Before they could think to look away, it multiplied, splitting itself a thousand fold. The man's ancient, forgotten power seized each of the students in turn, crushing them in a sea of their own flesh and bone.
I've also eliminated some minor grammar/syntax/usage issues. I tried to preserve some of the tone I think you want, but also cut back on the wordiness and the thesaurus language.
Good last sentence.
I'm pretty sure this isn't part of the story. If it is, see above.
