***
Harry King’s daughter wasn’t looking at the lovely park scenery. She wasn’t listening to the chatter of birds and squirrels or lying back on the manicured grass gazing at fluffy white clouds as they scuttled across a bluer-than-blue sky. She wasn’t skipping stones across the peaceful pond or returning admiring glances from passing young men. Lilah King was jacked-in to her MP3 player, blasting speed metal tunes through her brain to block out any stray thoughts as she glared into her handheld, cramming figures in preparation for the big meeting. She was only pacing the park for one reason. It was the last place anyone would look for her, and she could work in peace at last.
Who is Harry King? Since we don't know who Harry King is, I don't quite understand why you introduce the only actual character in the story so far as his daughter. I kept thinking throughout the first part of the paragraph that he might have been an observer to this scene in the park, but by the end of the paragraph I was convinced that he wasn't there at all.
Nit: I think there needs to be a comma somewhere in that looong second sentence.
Ohhhh...I know what the thing was that really got me about this paragraph. It's her age. When you introduce a character as someone's daughter, unless I have more information I tend to think of that person as young. When you go on to talk about the activities she's not doing in the park I am confirmed in the belief that we were talking about a child. Then she's not gazing at young men and I get confused. That seems older than I first pictured her. When she's listening to loud music I start to think that maybe she's a teenager. Then she's preparing for a meeting...which goes to a grown woman.
Finally, preparing for a meeting wasn't quite where I thought this was going. She was specifically not doing all these ordinary things so I thought she was doing something you don't do every day...but preparing for a meeting? I hope we find out in the next paragraph that she's meeting someone pretty exciting.
That said, I do actually like the dramatic potential of describing what a person is not doing. I find it can be quite a useful artistic device.
I think you could pack a lot more into this (info and attitude), in fewer words. As in: tell us her job ("Lilah King, CEO of Tiddlywinks Inc. ..."); tell us just a snippet of the park scenery, but from *her* POV -- give us her attitude. (You talked sneeringly of the scenery, but it seemed like it was narrator -- I want to be sure it's her thoughts.) If her father is relevant, you can tell us that, but I'll want to know as soon as you do why that's relevant.
I *think* I'm getting that she considers the scenery and the birds and squirrels to be meaningless fluff, and she's got *serious* work to do, and everybody's a bother. If that's true, that's a hook; she's an interesting character.
[This message has been edited by wbriggs (edited April 03, 2006).]
Or am I just showing my age?
So we know something about jimmy (he's five, in class) so we got some expectations, but those expectations are shut down by the "what-he-isn't-doing" technique, and thus his character is dramatically changed.
At the begining of your piece, we know nothing about Harry King's daughter, so the fact that she isn't doing all that stuff just kinda stalls her actual character development. I knew there was something iffy with this intro and it took me a couple of reads to come up with this, but I think I'm right. I don't know, any one else agree?
The writing is solid, just the method seems...out of place.
I like it, it's fast -paced, with an up to the second build up of something very important. But the wording through me off. I rewrote it just to understand what you were saying.
Well, to summarize, I think there are a lot of good comments here.
I would keep reading, but with the nagging suspicion that you were planning to betray me.
Secondly, I would like to warn you that I am going to address your questions/comments in order, as thoroughly as possible. Not really to be contrary, but simply because it's how I do!
So here goes!
Christine:
To reassure you, the fact that she is Harry King's daughter is *very* important to the story. I think I used the intro like that to express how *she* sees herself more as Harry King's daughter and less as Lilah. I have a terrible habit of inferring things like that to let the reader decipher, instead of stating it outright.
As to your nit- I tried it with a comma, and it didn't have the right feel. Thanks for picking up on it, though.
Her age is intended to be slightly ambiguous. As you read further you discover she has a brother who is just entering college and her father is in his late fifties to early sixties.
Don't worry about the meeting...she is most certainly going to have an *extraordinary* meeting.
Aaand...thank you!
wbriggs:
Not a whole lot I can say to this comment, other than apoligize for not being able to draw you in well.
As for her father's relevance, I think the comment I made above to Christine should explain a bit why I chose this introduction.
Your last comment is dead-on.
krazykiter:
Often when I write or need to concentrate on my work, I put on headphones and crank up the volume on some loud, raucous music that I don't give a fig about. I can't listen to music I like, because I have a tendency to become absorbed in the music, instead of my writing. The louder the music is, the less I pay attention to it.
It should be the opposite way, but it isn't. I guess I just gave her a personal trait of my own.
AndrewStein:
I feel that I disagree with your comments in general on that. To me, telling what she *isn't* doing *is* character development. It sets her apart from any average young woman walking through a park.
I would guess you are uncomfortable with the voice here because it is unconventional. But thanks for your comment!
Susannahj4:
Those are solid rewrites, and I appreciate you taking the time and effort to rework them so nicely. Unfortunately, the voice of the piece is lost in translation, and you totally lose the necessity of her father.
I'm sorry I lost you in the wording, but thanks for commenting!
sholar:
It is. Thank you. That was put succinctly. Aaaand...it's nice to know someone else uses the same method of concentration!
Survivor:
*grins* How could I betray you? I don't even know you? *laughs*
Thanks again everyone.
There are two respones to a critique:
1. Thank you
2. A clarifying question
Arguments are right out. You did not do that, but your explanations are not useful either. You see, if we were reading this in a magazine, or if we were editors considering whether or not to put your story in a magazine, you would not get to add these illuminating "This is what I meant by..." statments.
quote:
To reassure you, the fact that she is Harry King's daughter is *very* important to the story. I think I used the intro like that to express how *she* sees herself more as Harry King's daughter and less as Lilah. I have a terrible habit of inferring things like that to let the reader decipher, instead of stating it outright.
This may be so but what does it say to you that so many people did not understand this point? In fact, many of us did not understand that the first paragraph was in Lilah's point of view at all. Keep in mind that we don't have your history with the story or its characters. This is why introductions are so tricky.
quote:
Her age is intended to be slightly ambiguous. As you read further you discover she has a brother who is just entering college and her father is in his late fifties to early sixties.
Intentions are tricky things. You intended her age to be ambiguous and I'm sure you had a reason, but by pointing it out to you I'm telling you that there is also a cost -- confusion. I may even be willing to read past this point of confusion, but I may get fed up with it and not give you that chance to clear it up. Once again, I don't have your history with the story so the dramatic potential of leaving her age up in the air is completely lost on me. This is what I mean by not responding with explanations or arguments -- you get the story itself to communicate with me. What you get from the feedback is no concern of mine.
quote:
Don't worry about the meeting...she is most certainly going to have an *extraordinary* meeting.
Once again, I don't know this NOW. As a hook, it failed entirely. I've been to meetings. They're not ineresting. Until you tell me she's meeting with the President of the United States, it's not going to be interesting or any kind of a hook. But going back to my earlier point, I wouldn't expect you to insert a note after the end of this paragraph saying "Don't worry, it's an interesting meeting!" Maybe if it was comedy.
Anyway, I hope I've made my point. Responding at all doesn't help you. And as frustrating as it is to hear things about your introduction that you know you're going to cover later, we don't mention them frivolously. They are of concern to us. You have to decide if they are of concern to you but responding to us doesn't make it better.
The first three sentences don't tell us what is going on. It tells us what isn't going on. I understand the reasoning behind the contrast, but it gave me nothing to latch onto.
The last two sentences are written in an "explanatory fashion".
As a "hook" it didn't seem to be much. However, you did paint a vivid picture of the park. You have the "hook element"- the meeting. There also seems to be undercurrents of other conflicts. All the pieces are there, just didn't quite gel for me.
Okay, I'll repost the comments that got lost in the internet (well, my local ethernet ate them, big difference).
Basically, if this story centers around her relationship with her father, and the way in which she is not enjoying the park as opposed to the way she is using the park speaks to a major tension in that relationship, and we're going to find out more about that in the next page, then I'm willing to accept this opening as written.
However, the current opening left me with the impression that you are planning to play dirty tricks with information withholding and deliberately misleading the reader. I don't know exactly what those tricks will be, how could I? But since you've confirmed that this is exactly what you regard as clever writing, my fears are justified even if the story meets the criteria necessary to use this opening.
There are ways to convince the reader that you, as the writer, cannot have written the story other than how you wrote it. Those methods are necessary to making the reader accept a story that springs unpleasant surprises. But you're not using them. Therefore any surprises you try to spring will be patent betrayals of the contract you implicitly make with the audience by the act of claiming to be a writer.
I will not make that mistake again.
[This message has been edited by Po (edited April 05, 2006).]
Story wise. Get to the action right away. We don't need to know what she is not doing -- we need to know what she is doing.
Chrissie
quote:Po, the board is for discussion, but Fragments & Feedback is a little different. If someone says X about your writing, and you aren't certain what they mean, you can ask them for clarification. Also, you can ask if a solution would resolve the concern they have.
I was also under the impression that a discussion board was for exactly that: discussion.
If you have to clarify the story to the reader outside of the story, then something is "wrong" with the story. It is your job to understand the feedback, and take from it the pieces that are helpful to you. You won't use everything people offer, but you should try to understand it.
Hope that helps.
[This message has been edited by pjp (edited April 05, 2006).]
One thing she says that I will not dispute. You didn't start an argument. Yes, your explanations skirted the line, but they were on topic and you only provided what was requested (though you didn't take time to understand all the requests).
Another thing. You're obviously a talented writer. But so are most of the other people on this forum. Several of them are more talented than you. Don't play "I'm a misunderstood artist" with us, we're all misunderstood artists here. Christine is among the most misunderstood of us
Our goal on this forum is to move from being misunderstood artists to being understood artists. If you don't agree with that, then you're welcome to leave, but I urge you to give our theory of art a try. Believe me, you won't become mundane by hanging out with us, we're pretty strange here
I also harbor hope that I could be a positive addition to this group.
They are not being asked because the critiquers want the author to satisfy their curiosity.
They are being asked so the author will know that those questions entered some readers' minds, and the author needs to know about them in case something needs to be fixed in the story.
This is why authors are discouraged from responding to critiques with more than "thank you" or a question about what the critiquer said.
If the author responds to the questions asked in the critique by answering them or explaining things here, then the author may feel there is no need to deal with them in the rewrite of the story.
And that might be a waste of good and useful feedback.