Yeah, that's kind of what I pictured. I didn't expect it to be that size, but otherwise, I think you gave me an appropriate description

I thought about including the size--and if I were actually putting into a story, I would--but didn't think it had much relevance here.

Well, I'm just one response out of many, so take the majority vote

Others have mentioned the height as well, so I went and edited it. Not terribly happy with it but, it's something.

I think it's alright now. You're a better writer than I will be any day *hugs*

Some of it was really close, but I was imagining something different as well.

Mind if I ask what was close, and how you pictured things different? Not trying to scrutinize you or anything; just to help me improve my writing.

The blackened skin was on point, the scrawniness was also on point, but I was picturing something more animalistic vs a deformed human hunched over, the skin was picturing to be hanging freely vs popped out at the side of his head.

Size would have been helpful. I was also expecting something more...sphinx-esque I guess would be a good way of putting it.

I did mention it being human-like, though. "Humanoid in shape" and "human-like" face. And the skin does pretty much just hand, it's just in that second picture it's rearing up and slashing, so the skin is moving about. Perhaps you can tell better in the video?

Yeah, others have mentioned the size. I didn't think it was too important for this test, but I guess it is, so I'll go back and add it.

I saw human like but I thought of something closer to a sphinx, not something with physical hands and seems more like a human attempting to walk on all fours, but not like a baby.

If that makes sense.

Ah, I see. Well, if the lore of the game is to be followed, this thing was a human at one point. Perhaps I should add that somehow? "It had a mostly humanoid shape, as if it had started out as a human." Or something like that?

That would work or mutated from a human form, especially if it started as a human

Ooh, ooh, I like that. "The creature was mostly humanoid in shape, but mutated and bone thin, walking hunched over on all fours, it's arms and legs long and lanky." How's that?

EDIT
I liked it, so I just went a head and changed it anyway. XD

I would try "The creature walked as if on a pair of awkward stilts that were its limbs, the shape familiar and daunting as if some sort of mutated human, hunched over and walking on both it hands and feet." Or something like that, maybe use of the word demon somewhere might make it more foreboding.

I had some problem with "walking on all fours on (...) legs" because all fours implies that's not how you'd usually walk, and maybe it's just how I've seen the word used before, but isn't "lanky" a synonym of "tall" and therefore a property of the entire body rather than parts of it?

The rest of the description works fine , though I'd advise one less "as if." I think the second is a little awkward since you're describing how the creature could be replicated rather than something that might have actually happened to it or a similar thing the reader might be familiar with.

Hmm, well if I don't use "walking on all fours" how else would I indicate that it's not walking upright like a human, then? (Not trying to be snarky, just looking for advice.)

I've always seen lanky as being more like thin and scrawny, but I think it's often just paired with someone/thing that is tall. In any case, it works in all senses for this creature. XD

Also not sure how to rectify the second "as if"...

Oh, it's more the "legs" part, if it's on all fours two of its limbs are arms (it's a bit like how it bugs me when someone says a character has paws and then talks about their fingers, I guess). I got something in my mind very much like the body but kind of tripped over that part because I wasn't sure what I was trying to put it on top of. I think describing the skin as a like a jowl or or in terms of it wearing a cloak of its own flesh would probably work.

It does seem to have legs and arms, though. Particularly if you look at the first picture, you can see how its hind looks like elongated human feet, and the fore are definitely hands. It attacks with its hands, too. And if the lore of the game is to be followed, this thing used to be human.

Ahh, I think in my original take I had worded it somehow like that, as being a cloak or somesuch, but I was at work at the time I'd thought of this and lost my wording. Perhaps... "A cloak of raw flesh hung from its head and neck." ?

And how's this for a fix of the first sentence: "The creature was mostly humanoid in shape, but mutated and bone thin, walking hunched over on all fours, it's arms and legs long and lanky."

EDIT
I liked it, so I just went a head and changed it anyway. XD

It might work better to compare it to an ape than a human and bring in later that some of its features seemed human-like. If I were writing, I would then show I enjoy Lovecraft too much by constructing a sentence like "compelled to motion by something other than life, these were the shambling, filth-encrusted remains of some accursed troglodyte the grave itself had rejected." :P

One other thing I've been told before is to avoid using precise measured heights since it feels too clinical, especially for a monster, and to use comparisons instead.

The stalking part sets off my "as if" detector: I've been told to always make sure an "as if" isn't a description of what is actually happening. In this case the creature is stalking. "As if" should mainly be used to either use descriptions that are literally untrue ("the chimney fell as if chopped down with a great axe") or assigning dubious qualities ("the creature's face twisted as he spoke, almost as if it understood his words").

its a creepy burnt thing

Lol, yes but that doesn't really help me. XD Does it look anything like what you pictured in your mind?

yes I think its a great description maybe mention his skull face also

I did. XD "Its face was almost human, but skull-like with long fangs..."

oh sorry I must have missed that FA's words are pretty small for me

No problem. And to make the words bigger, hold ctrl and scroll up on your mouse wheel. It will increase the font for the entire page.

This works for all web pages. Just don't forget to change it back. XD

Hello dear, we don't know each other well, but we have met at a con or two (mainly via twilight. haha) As a writer I want to give you as much feedback as I can. Please don't take anything of what I say as an attack. It's only meant to help you.

First off your descriptive powers are well above the normal. I clearly got an image of a creature similar to the picture you showed. Maybe not exact, but pretty darn close. I loved the lanky, it gave me the full rail thin structure and it really stretched out in my head like the actual picture. I however would have described the skin/muscle a bit different. The charred part is perfect, but when I look at the second picture I see more gnarled and tree root like flesh, than the raged and torn description. Describing the movement of this creature also really helped form it in my head. Always keep in mind for descriptions, you are to show, not tell, and include all 5 sensory's. You did great with how it looked and moved. But what about smell? How would that flesh have felt if you would have touched it? What did it sound like? I can imagine when it moves that it's either super silent or screeching like a banshee.

Again though, you did a really good job.

I think touch in the instance of seeing a monster is more about what characters feel in response to it (retching, feeling cold, clammy air, feeling their hand reach for their sword, etc) rather than what it would feel like if you actually touched it, unless you're using third person omniscient narration. Even then it'd be a bit of a strange thing to have the narrator voice tell the audience since you can generally assume they don't want to pet the monster. :P

No but you can use textures to describe something. Whether you want to feel it or not. For an example (not even referencing the above monster) The creatures skin bubbled and slid down on itself. The oily mess pooled at it's feet before it took it's next step. Here I just described the touch and feel of the creature or at least part of it. That gave you a different image I'm sure than The creatures skin looked like a bubbly mess.

Now even if you want a first person view of my said above creature. "I could only watch in horror as the creature pulled itself up from the muck puddle before me. It's skin looked as if it was boiling water, but it didn't flow like that. It reminded me of the oil we used during the war to light our arrows a flame. The coating slowly flowed down it's drawn out limbs and it disrupted my view of it's feet. The wind shifted and brought forth the scent of the swamp. Rot and decay assaulted my nostrils and clung to my tongue. I didn't notice it at the time but it left a slimy residue in my mouth, I was too busy watching the beast take its first step on land. It moved awkwardly and at once I knew my agility would give me an upper hand, however even as I watched its horse-like nostrils flair, it was deathly silent."

See the difference? No matter what you always want to include as many senses as you can. Makes the reader actually fall into it and visualize everything. The first one just showed you the creature. the second one showed not just the same creature details, but the setting as well.

Ah, that's sort of overlapping with visual (since you can see it looks slimy). I thought you were talking about explicitly saying how it would feel to touch it, which like I said would be odd if nobody was.