quote:
The day after the storm, Tzichem, an officer of the Southport Police Force, risked taking his family out. It might not be safe, taking them through a city in anarchy, but he wasn't about to leave them alone.They stood in the flooded lot of a supermarket--he, his wife Dikayah, and baby boy Pio--watching a riot form.
"We aren't going into that," Tzichem told Dikayah. Too dangerous.
(The original post is below, for the benefit of---who was it, that liked to see the original? Can't remember.
[This message has been edited by wbriggs (edited January 11, 2006).]
I don't know why though.
Maybe I am not the most careful reader.
Maybe because I saw the name Dikayah near the dialogue tag. Also, maybe because, to me, Dikayah is easier to pronounce.
May sound stupid but that's what it was for me.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited January 11, 2006).]
Just to add, the word 'out' seems wrong.
Also by 'lot' I assume you mean 'parking allotment'. Is it colloquial or is 'lot' something else?
On the subject, what does 'lot' mean, as in 'sand lot'?
Is it a general term indicating a place set aside for a particular purpose -- what we would call an 'allotment', or is it an 'vacant allotment'?
Last: The words: 'Too dangerous', are they thought or said?
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited January 11, 2006).]
-------------------------------------------
This was my original posting:
quote:
Two days after the storm, Tzichem, an officer of the Southport Police Force, was out with his wife Dikayah and their baby boy Pio, in the flooded lot of a supermarket. They were watching a riot form."We aren't going into that," he told Dikayah. Too dangerous.
As to your question, the new version (in the top post) is much clearer for me.
If the words, 'Too dangerous' are thought, do we need them? His wife doesn't need them, I don't think we do either. You have established that it is dangerous. It seems to dilute the impact of the situation. We have figured it out already. It's like naming the joke in your story, suddenly it seems less funny/dangerous.
Is the word 'out' included to indicate that up until then they have shut themselves 'in' after 'the storm'?
I get images of the scene in War of the Worlds where the characters arrive in their van and try to move through a crowd on foot who want to take the van from them.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited January 11, 2006).]
For instance, instead of saying - "The day after the storm, Tzichem, an officer of the Southport Police Force, risked taking his family out."
You could start off with, "Officer Tzichem dragged his family from the storm shelter." Then show us the angry crowd - describe the scene instead of telling us a riot is forming.
Also, the officer tells his wife they "are not going into that." Too dangerous. If you are talking about the crowd which has already been called a 'riot forming', then it really goes without saying that they aren't going into it. I mean it's not like any sane person would say, "There's a riot forming. Let's wade into it! And let's take our baby in with us."
I'll agree too with what Silver3 said. To me this all feels very cinematic. I'm having trouble relating to your MC. I'm watching the intro from a distance. It's actually kind of like someone has handed me a stat sheet on the MC and his situation.
Maybe that's why I didn't feel hooked. An officer taking his family out into a city in the throes of anarchy after a storm...I should be hooked. And yet I wasn't.
Some of the problems with the opening might be resolved by:
1) giving more specific information about the nature of the disaster
2) smoothing out some grammar/style issues
For instance, the first sentence ends with a preposition, which is a grammar/style problem. He takes them outside, out of the house, into the city, out of hiding, ect. Notice that by refusing to end the sentence with a preposition, you also have the opportunity to give the reader more information about the locale or condition from which the family is emerging.
"It might not be safe, taking them..." could be more simply stated with the infinitive "It might not be safe to take them..."
"They stood in the flooded lot of a supermarket--he, his wife Dikayah, and baby boy Pio--watching a riot form."
The separation of the subject "they" from its identifiers "Tzichem, Dikayah, Pio" is confusing. Why not "Tzichem, his wife, Dikayah, and their baby son stood in the flooded parking lot of the supermarket, where a riot was beginning to form."
Or something a little more polished than that, but you get the idea.
I hope Tzichem and his family are going to be ok- you certainly did establish reader empathy for the characters.
You've definitely got us right in the middle of the action, which is good, but maybe there's a bit TOO much going on? You might try moving the encounter with the riot down a few paragraphs to let us build up a little empathy for the family before threatening them with a riot. The aftermath of the storm can be dangerous enough.
Try rearranging the first sentence a bit. I think the scansion is getting a bit broken up by all the clauses, which can make it feel choppy.
One logical issue: How does Tzichem know the city is in anarchy if he and his family have just emerged from hiding on the first day after the storm? The riots they will see along the way will show that well enough, so there isn't really a reason to tell the audience.
[This message has been edited by krazykiter (edited January 12, 2006).]