>>3348>This has definitely been the one thing you wanted to do before you went and checked on your camp again
Your phrasing is so offputting that I would swear you were being sarcastic if that made any sense. Definitely don't go with the present perfect, and maybe reasses again when you've changed that.>\"<i>Ah...</i>\" comes out of Marielle when you take your leave from her.
"Out of" is pretty odd (though I probably wouldn't complain about the one later).>their ostensive smoothness
Why "ostensive"? Doesn't seem very fitting to me.>time.isTimeBetween(7.9, 10.1)
I'm obliged to point this out, though you likely would have caught it.>light-blonde
No hyphen. You lost this fight last time, I'm fairly sure.>a bit of light-hearted fondling over and behind her ears to draw even the faintest reaction from the demure girl
I'll note that this "even" would mark that as an intention of the player's, not something that actually happens (though the purpose clause helps that along a lot too).>the seamstress's tresses
Lovely phrasing, but you did use "tresses" in this scene already, and I'd err on the infrequent side with that one, thought you're free to disagree.>and you let go of her and
Since the topic came up, this is another of the many of those you do. Most of them (like this) don't leave a bad enough impression that I comment, but they're just a bit ugly.>Her eyes though—lidded and directed groundwards—show no discernible expression in them
I'd recommend against the "in them".>It's not all there is
This statement confuses me. It's not all there is where? Depending on your answer, I might complain about the lack of an antecedent, though that's potentially fine.>you should be finding your way back by now.
Nix the "by" or make it "should have been finding" (though the latter's awkward). The current phrasing only works when the speaker doesn't know if the person is doing the action yet or not, but obviously that doesn't apply here.>Her mindful attentions aren't tantalizing, not in a negative sense,
I happened to think about this again, and I believe I can better explain some of the things wrong with it. Firstly, the reason I had to ask for clarification at first was because that sense of "tantalize" isn't really "negative". There are negative associations, potentially, but it's not negative with regards to the thing you're describing, or even necessarily with regards to the emotion itself. As a result, your meaning isn't super clear. Secondly, the entire format isn't very logical. In the statement, "X is not Y, not in a negative sense of Y," the first claim already implies the second, so it's entirely redundant. It makes sense to say, "X is Y, but not in a negative sense," or "X is not Y, especially
not in a negative sense," and maybe even, "X is not Y, not in the
negative sense," but not what you have. In the course of writing this, I've come to the conclusion that you probably just wanted the last one, where the additional information provides emphasis. As of now, your sentence is closer to meaning "not 'not tantalizing' in a negative sense", which I don't think is what you're going for based on the next part/your earlier explanation. I think I've graduated to whatever the next stage on the spectrum is.