Here are the first few lines. Do they hook you?
--------------------------------------------
"You shoot your own dog, don't you?" the old man next to me asked. "If he was doin' wrong, you wouldn't wait for others to kill him, you'd shoot him yourself, wouldn't you?"
My eyes went wide. _No one talks on the bus. Especially not to strangers._ I looked at him. I met his eyes, my first mistake.
He tried again. "If your dog went bad. If he went bad and was killing your neighbor's chickens, and if you raised him from a pup, you'd kill him yourself, wouldn't you? You wouldn't just let some stranger do it? What if they missed and gut-shot him? He'd hurt real bad!"
Leaning closer, his old blue eyes intent, he asked, "You're a lawyer, aren't you? Lawyers know these things, don't they?"
I had no real excuse for it, but I looked at him as coldly as my 30 years ever could look upon the aged. "Yes, but I practice corporate law. Corporations don't keep dogs.", and I turned back to my Barron's and hid there.
[This message has been edited by mikemunsil (edited April 21, 2005).]
I'll also suggest that the narrator is so repulsive I can't get past that to wonder wtf this old guy is talking about shooting dogs for. This may be a Southern thing: cutting old people slack is part of my culture.
However, the writing works and if I could get past this to wonder why the old guy's dog-obsessed -- unless he's crazy -- I'd want to keep reading.
[This message has been edited by wbriggs (edited April 21, 2005).]
I'd like to read it. You have me intrigued. I'm sensing a strong influence from Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men. Is this deliberate?
--Mel
[This message has been edited by MCameron (edited April 21, 2005).]
quote:
You only lost me on one thing: when the narrator thought, No one talks on the bus. It made me wonder if he's crazy, since I do hear people talk on buses.
I'll also suggest that the narrator is so repulsive I can't get past that to wonder wtf this old guy is talking about shooting dogs for. This may be a Southern thing: cutting old people slack is part of my culture.
No one talks on my bus! If you do, the stuffed suits look at you sideways, and lean away as though you are contaminated. It's very strange. Getting off the bus at the end of the day, when we get back to the park and ride, is even stranger. Everyone waits in dead silence while the first person aisle seat left side arranges his/her things and stands, then poses for a moment, then carefully nods at the driver, then gets off. Then it's the right-side aisle seat's turn, the left side window seat's turn, the the right-side window seat's turn, and it goes on from there. It drives me mad. I have been acused of scratching people to ensure that I get a seat near the front so I don't have drown in my own impatience before it is my turn, in turn (always in turn) to get up.
These people are so anal-retentive that they must schedule their bowel movements around their golf dates. Arghh!
quote:
However, the writing works and if I could get past this to wonder why the old guy's dog-obsessed -- unless he's crazy -- I'd want to keep reading.
Can you get past now? It's only 785 words!
MCameron
quote:
I'm sensing a strong influence from Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men. Is this deliberate?
If I could write like that I would have myself framed and hung.
On the wall! Hung and framed on the wall so I could admire myself! LOL
In a word, yes.
On the other hand, you don't bring up topics like shooting dogs without making everyone avert their eyes and scramble for something to pretend to be reading. I would say Mike's characterization is good.
The first line may need to be 'You'd shoot ...etc"
For a moment I thought 'shooting the dog" may have been a mechanical or oil-drilling term. This may be what OSC means when he says not to open with dialogue. Dialogue is meaningless without context. The dialogue could be much stronger if was preceeded by even a sketchy set-up.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited April 21, 2005).]
I love the title.
How'd the crazy old guy know the narrator is a lawyer?
I'm already committed to reading too many other things right now, but if you're not in a hurry, I'd be happy to read the rest. It's a good beginning.
My eyes went wide. _No one talks on the bus. Especially not to strangers._ I looked at him. I met his eyes, my first mistake.
NICE BIT HERE
He tried again. "If your dog went bad. If he went bad and was killing your neighbor's chickens, and if you raised him from a pup, you'd kill him yourself, wouldn't you? You wouldn't just let some stranger do it? What if they missed and gut-shot him? He'd hurt real bad!"
Leaning closer, his old blue eyes intent, he asked, "You're a lawyer, aren't you? Lawyers know these things, don't they?"
THIS BIT IS WEIRD, HOW DOES HE KNOW THE GUY’S A LAWYER? WHY WOULD HE WANT A LAWYERS ANSWER TO A MORAL QUESTION.
I had no real excuse for it, but I looked at him as coldly as my 30 years ever could look upon the aged. "Yes, but I practice corporate law. Corporations don't keep dogs." and I turned back to my Barron's and hid there.
THE FIRST LINE OF THIS PARAGRAPH IS COMPLICATED AND COULD BE SIMPLIFIED TO MAKE THE MEANING CLEAR.
[This message has been edited by limo (edited April 22, 2005).]
At under a 1000 words, sure I'll read it. I do agree on the "No one talks on the bus" nit. Something more specific and universal, like "you don't just ask a stranger if he shoots his own dog, that's well past eccentric no matter how old you are." And it is hard to believe in a character so dull he would try to hide behind a textbook in this situation. At the same time, there really are a lot of people that stupid.
I share hoptoad's concern about opening with dialogue. I'd be more comfortable with a little bit of context before the line. As it is, I picture a hillbilly in the sticks and then it's disorienting to realize we're on a bus. But for your narrator, he's on a bus and then it's disorienting for him to have this guy come out of nowhere asking about shooting dogs. It creates a disconnection between me and the narrator.
No one talks on the bus...while I know this isn't the case because I occassionally do talk to people, I know the image you are creating. If you had not prefaced this by saying it was literary, I could almost see it being a futuristic or alternate reallity type setup -- No one talks on the bus; [i]they[i] can shoot you for talking on the bus! Okay, my mind is way out there this morning .
I know you have plenty of offers to read, but if you need more let me know. Or keep me in mind for round two.
To me, either:
1) the old guy is just a loon
2) he's saying something prophetic to the lawyer
Having either of these confirmed in the passage via the lawyer's thoughts would make it more interesting to me.
Even good writing of very short stories(which I'm not saying this is) whould be hard to present in just a few lines, and this one is no exception. As you can read in the other posts, I should have set up the scene better before starting the dialogue. Thus, the hooklessness.
Can I?
Um, Mike...I didn't get it. Could you resend please?
--Mel
If you still need readers, I'm definitely interested.
Joe
This hook has two things going for it:
First, you've got immediate conflict. The narrator doesn't want to get involved, and we can understand why.
Second, you've got the promise of serious conflict later in the story. This is more than just a promise of violence (shooting a dog) but of moral conflict (shooting your own dog).
This promises to be a good story. I hope you deliver on that promise. I also hope you explain why these two characters found themselves on the same bus in the first place.
quote:
I also hope you explain why these two characters found themselves on the same bus in the first place.
You have pegged one of the weaknesses! Thanks for poo=inting it out.
mike
James Bond, that is.
Beyond that, I find this a strong and chilling hook, as I immediately suspect the old man isn't talking about dogs at all, but about killing a person - maybe his child.
I loved Of Mice and Men and I love how you wove the reference into the story. Very nice.
Raven, the bit about talking on the bus (or not) seems to be a bone of contention among the people who have looked at this so far. I guess the talking or not talking is a regional thing (perhaps even specific to a section of a city) and for that reason I may have to take it out. If I want to publish this, it has to have near universal appeal in the editor's eyes, OR be just the kind of thing they happened to be looking for at the moment.