Good suggestion about the short sentences.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda was sure the man was following her. She glanced over her shoulder through the small crowd of people on their way home from work, standing at the train stop. She accidentally met his eyes, then quickly looked away. He had followed her from the office; she had no doubt of it. Yet, this was a different one than the man who had followed her yesterday and the days before.
He was watching her. She pushed her way past the people in front of her to get close to the tracks so she could hurry through the doors when the train stopped. Out from under the shelter, a cold drizzle dampened her hair, but it was just another of the interminable Portland rains. Better wet than near this new stalker...
You might consider using shorter, even very short (one word) sentences - which have the effect of increasing the tension - just a thought.
[This message has been edited by nitewriter (edited July 07, 2007).]
Interesting questions. I have tried to think what I would do in this situation. And, of course, I could decide to put in that she has reported it to the police.
My thinking has been that it is only someone she keeps seeing on the street where ever she goes. This isn't something she thinks the police would take seriously. I would probably think that.
As for putting herself in a situation, you can't stop going to and from work.
For most of us this isn't an option. Parking in the downtown of most cities is limited and expensive and you still have to walk on the street to get to the parking garage. Going through a fairly empty parking garage to a car in it would be even more frightening for me, I think.
At least a busy commuter train has a lot of people around.
They haven't approached her or made any action except to be there. She's not absolutely sure she's not imagining it. Changing your route taking the commuter train to and from work is hard to do. She might ask someone to walk to the train with her. I could put that in. But she would still have to wait for the train and take it to her car, then drive home.
Any suggestions on which of these would be most believeable? And is it believeable that she is still questioning that she may be imagining things, even though the men frighten her?
Good suggestion about the short sentences.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 07, 2007).]
Amanda was sure the man was following her. She glanced over her shoulder through the small crowd (of people on their way home from work,) standing at the train stop. She accidentally met his eyes, then quickly looked away. (Maybe you could tell us if he reacts to making eye contact or if he’s doing anything when she looks or give us a brief description of him.) He had followed her from the office; she had no doubt of it. Yet, this was a different (one than the) man than who had followed her yesterday and the days before.
(He was watching her.)(Maybe this should be when she looks at him?) She pushed her way past the people in front of her to get close to the tracks so she could hurry (through the doors) onto the train (stopped) and escape this (strange?) man. Out from under the shelter, a cold drizzle dampened her hair, but it was just another of the interminable Portland rains. Better wet than near this new stalker...
I am intrigued by it. I think nitewriter is right. Some shorter sentences could help convey Amanda’s panic.
[This message has been edited by Hunter (edited July 07, 2007).]
A number of ways you could work this. She is not followed as someone walks her to the train - then when she gets off - she is followed, so that someone knows her route VERY well. New quetions arise then. What else do they know? Do they know where she lives? Or have someone follow her when she gets in a car - where will she go? She would fear going home, obviously.
Lots of possibility here - would love to see where this goes.
[This message has been edited by nitewriter (edited July 07, 2007).]
I also agree that it is believable. The first time it would be scary. She might report that to the police, but many people would also assume they police wouldn't or couldn't do anything about it.
The second and third time, she might start to doubt because it *is* a different person each time.
This is the fourth time. Will she take action, do something different, etc?
However, I think it could use some word trimming. Get out a virtual hatchet and make each word justify its place in the story with an iron-clad reason.
As for the sense of anxiety? I didn't feel any. I agree that shorter sentences are a good step into that direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda was sure the man was following her. She glanced over her shoulder through the small crowd, standing at the commuter stop. He had followed her from the office. She had no doubt of it. Yet, this was a different man than the one who had followed her yesterday and the days before.
She accidentally met his eyes. A smile touched his thin lips. She jerked her eyes away. She pushed her way past the people in front of her to get close to the tracks so she could hurry onto the train. Out from under the shelter, a cold drizzle dampened her hair. It was just another of the interminable Portland rains. Better wet than near this new stalker...
its simply awkward for me to read it both ways. Especially since these sentences are back to back and are both short.
Also I might suggest changing the last sentence to "Yet, he was different than the man who had followed her every other day."
This for me shortens and simplifies the point. Not quite the same flourish but more utility.
Also I'd suggest you combine the almost last few sentences a little.
"Away from the shelter the cold interminable Portland drizzle dampened her hair."
Also, I'd begin the "better wet than near this new stalker" with a new paragraph because it marks a switch in the story teller/POV.
You're right about those two sentences. I don't like had in those in back to back sentences. I'll need to do a bit rewording on those.
Edit: However let me clarify this boring verb tense thing. I think we are all tired of the subject, but you are a bit confused on it.
Had is never present tense. Had is the past tense of the verb have. It is simply impossible for it to be present tense.
He had followed her is not in the present tense. It is in a tense that is called Past Perfect. But it is still a past tense construction.
You are right that having the words used twice in sentences next to each other is a bit awkward though. I am not arguing that it would be better changed.
I just would like you to understand the whole past tense thing so that you don't think that past progressive and past perfect verbs are incorrect. At times, they are quite correct when they are properly used. They are a type of past tense. I can see that they can be confusing, though.
Let me post a link to a really resource for explaining verb tenses: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/esl/esltensverb.html
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 08, 2007).]
Because to use this in past tense is to indicate that she might not have no doubt presently.
Example
Why did you kill him?
I had no doubt of his guilt
But to phrase a response like that begs the question "Do you have doubts now?"
Thanks again for your comments.
---------------------------------------------------
Amanda was followed. Again... He was outside her office when she left. She didn’t look at him. It didn’t matter. She felt his eyes on her, watching. Fear drove her on at a faster pace. Too frightened to look back, she listened for footsteps. She heard nothing but the patter of the incessant Portland rain. She shivered. Tried to convince herself she was only cold...
She got to the commuter station, scurrying to lose herself in the crowd. He was there, leaning up against a railing. Waiting for her. He nodded cordially. She turned away. It wasn't the same man who had followed her before. She felt sure of it. Seized by panic, she thought only of escape. She shoved her way deeper into the crowd...
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 08, 2007).]
Hm, I liked the 7/7 (10:31pm) version best. This latest version feels too frenzied and paranoid to me.
I am hooked though, and would be interested in reading it. Just send it along at your convenience.
WAS. An awful, static verb that should only be slipped in when there just isn't any other possibility, and should be avoided like the PLAGUE, IMO, in the first few lines (paragraphs, even) of a story.
In the first version, first sentence, we get it twice.
In the latest version, first sentence, you've managed to pare it down to once, but in the next complete sentence there it is again.
Active verbs do a MUCH better job of drawing in the reader. Having her DOING something with an active verb in that first line is even better. You can let her 'think' or 'observe' later. Such as:
"Amanda glanced over her shoulder through the small crowd of people waiting for the train. She saw him, looking at her with the penetrating gaze she had felt boring into the back of her skull all the way from the office. He had followed her, just like the guy with the red tie yesterday, and the guy with the fedora hat the day before that, and the guy with the salt-and-pepper moustache the day before that."
There are a couple more 'had's than I'd like, and if it were my story I'd work hard to eliminate those, too. But there is not a single 'be' verb in that paragraph--as it should be for an opener, and most of the story.
Active verbs, active verbs, active verbs!
"This latest version feels too frenzied and paranoid to me."
Well, after all, it's NOT like this woman is, on a pleasant spring day, feeding ducks at the park now is it? When you say it is "frenzied" and "Paranoid" gee - do you suppose that just might be her state of mind?
I think it moves well - ominous - and, obviously, the paranoia and frenzy comes through.
nitewriter is correct that I am going for an atmosphere of extreme anxiety and even paranoia. I am very open to suggestions about improving how I do that.
Edit: Thanks, BoredCow. I want to give it an edit before anyone reads it. I'll send it off to you tomorrow.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 09, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 09, 2007).]
quote:
Amanda was followed. Again... He was outside her office when she left. She didn’t look at him. It didn’t matter. She felt his eyes on her, watching. Fear drove her on at a faster pace. Too frightened to look back, she listened for footsteps. She heard nothing but the patter of the incessant Portland rain. She shivered. Tried to convince herself she was only cold...She got to the commuter station, scurrying to lose herself in the crowd. He was there, leaning up against a railing. Waiting for her. He nodded cordially. She turned away. It wasn't the same man who had followed her before. She felt sure of it. Seized by panic, she thought only of escape. She shoved her way deeper into the crowd...
The first sentence establishes an omni POV in my opinion because how can she know she's being followed for sure? It also dissipates the anxiety because I don't see it from Amanda's eyes, but from above.
Same with the line Portland rain. It feels like a narrator trying to squeeze information into a narrative rather than what Amanda is experiencing. But if you reshuffle a bit...
Here's a little tweak by reshuffling your sentences:
Amanda heard nothing but the patter of the incessant Portland rain. She listened for his footsteps. He was outside her office when she left. She didn't look at him. It didn't matter. She felt his eyes on her, watching. She shivered. Tried to convince herself she was only cold. Fear drove her on at a faster pace.
I want to say the first sentence in the 2nd paragraph is a misplaced clause. But I'm no grammar expert.
I didn't understand the logic of being sure that it wasn't the same man, and then being siezed by panic.
Also, I do agree that you use quite a bit of "to be" verbs. While I agree that they may be the right verb to use in certain contexts, I suggest that you rethink it. This piece would be much stronger with the use of more vivid verbs.