Okay...here we go...
Reaves, you have a great story here...your characters are real, your environment is rich, and you seem to have a good plot driving the story. When you write, your descriptions are well-thought out and convey your settings very effectively. Good job!
Here's the nit-pickiness...then I'll cover a couple areas for improvement for you...
Slowly, the desert receded
For the first line of your chapter, you can do better. It seems you want to paint a calm tone to the chapter, and i think your instincts are right on that, but this line at the very beginning seems to act as a tranquilizer rather than a calming agent. It may work as the last sentence of the first paragraph...but play with different ways to start it. I like the "meet them where they're at" method...your reader is in the "expect action" or movement mode...immediately starting with this line is like pushing them unexpectedly off a cliff. Instead, start with maybe a description of something calm and subtle Aermyst is doing, then gradually walk the reader down to "Slowly, the desert receded."
desert dragonlizards and night owls, and of course the ever-present sand panthers.
I really think you can do better on the naming of your creatures. So far, it seems the majority of your names are simply two English words put together. Come up with names that don't immediately show me what they are...then, at some point (it doesn't have to be early), describe the creatures in a way (maybe a painting, statue of them...or an encounter...) that makes me as a reader compare them to creatures I know in my head. It's okay to expect the reader to do a little work...in fact, it is better, sometimes.
It was an odd question, one Aermyst had never before considered
I really think he would have considered it before. For example, Stonehenge is something everyone knows about...it's part of history, culture, stories, etc. And I have yet to meet someone who hasn't asked the question, "I wonder what happened?" Instead, maybe Aermyst's reaction could be that it was something he had asked himself, or something he thought he had the answer to because of storytelling he had always heard from someone...not sure about the chapters i haven't read yet, but i know Aermyst would have considered the question before...
The patina of age sat heavily on it; Aermyst could almost feel that this thing was old
You state the same thing twice when once would do...you don't need the second description. However, if you cut it, you may add just a few words to the first part...or rewrite the sentence after it for pacing.
[quote
]"It flies!" he said. "What the hell is it?"
This reaction would have come after it first took off...not after he reached a second time. Maybe he can say "It flies!" when it first takes off (with maybe a subtle recoil action...?) and then "What the hell is it?" after he reaches the second time...although I would add just a bit (one or two brief sentences) in between to show the two watching it...taking it in...wondering "what the hell is it" briefly before asking.
Aermyst took another look at the skitterfly. It was roughly angular, and had the look of something carved; he could see tiny blue symbols etched into the ivory-colored object.
Excellent description!!! (I think you want a period...not a semicolon) This description really made it snap into focus in my head. Good job.
The skitterfly seemed almost sad, disappointed
How? Show us how it seemed sad/disappointed...maybe it turned a bit, looking for the dragon fly...maybe it hums and it hummed or glowed a bit less or lower tone...maybe it hovered lower or briefly dipped...
It's alone, Aermyst realized. It's been alone for hundreds, thousands of years, its creators are gone and it is alone
The last part is unnecessary and weakens the thought dialogue by over explaining it.
Also, at one point after that part, you say it "looked"...but it has no eyes...I would say it "turned" towards something/one...
The scene where the two decide to follow the skitterfly is too easy...Aermyst seems to just shrug his shoulders and follow this thing. You might build up to it somehow...I don't know...I think I would introduce the thing in one scene...then have it lead them to the wagon in another scene...having it do both makes it seem like you ONLY introduced the skitterfly to have a way to get them from point A to point B in the story. Readers usually see through that.
Only a few gawked at its swooping antics
Really? Why? This tiny blue thing is glowing and flying around...and it's no big deal to them or the guards...did they mistake it for a dragonfly? I just felt like either more would be looking at this thing...or there is a reason I don't know about that they are not...
At one point, you refer to the face of the skitterfly...maybe I missed it...I don't remember it getting a face...maybe if you refer to a part that Aermyst has decided to think of as the face and say that somehow...
Come, let us find our beds
At times, Tristan's dialogue seems inconsistent...sometimes, it's uptight and lofty...other times it is laid back and very common...for example, the line above didn't feel like he would say it to me...meaning either it or the dialogue before felt out of place...
Ultimately, I didn't feel like the guards would have been fooled by these two. They just claim they are also guards - special, secret guards - and they believe it...I don't buy it.
I think the one thing you could really work on is your dialogue exchanges...you're a good writer, but your dialogue stands out as less than your exposition and description (quality wise)...you want your conversations to sound like real conversations...and there are a lot of aspects to conversations...pacing, meaningless words, dialect, etc. Also, I think we've jumped on the "Late in, early out" philosophy a bit too much...but perhaps more in the dialogue, here...what I mean by that is this...your dialogue, every line, always seems to have a purpose it is trying to get across...like it's not a conversation but more of a "I have to tell you something - here it is - that is all"...not sure...When it comes to dialogue, I usually credit J.D. Salinger's Catcher in the Rye as one of the masters...along with Ernest Hemingway...you might review their dialogue structure, conversation exchanges, etc. And remember...sometimes your dialogue adds to the scene and characters but may not further the plot much...
Anywho...very good job, Reaves...I think the chapter needs to be fleshed-out a bit more...a bit more meat on 'er bones...but a good framework.
