John had never flown in a helicopter before and so far he didn’t like it. The constant whining of the twin rotors overhead irritated him to no end, even though he wore ear plugs and a ridiculous helmet that looked like a fat turtle’s shell. He couldn’t complain too much though, the poor guys in the flights suits had to do this every day. Then again, they also got equipment to help drown out the noise; either that or they had developed the ability to studiously ignore the most annoying of sounds. They must have kids, John thought to himself.
With the small amount of light in the cabin John could see that, his camera man and sound guy were studiously ignoring him; he couldn’t blame them. John would have ignored a
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited October 28, 2008).]
You said it felt forced, but I wasn't sure if you were referring to the first 13. I would ask whether the noise in the copter plays a role later? If not, then you've devoted a lot of valuable first 13 real estate to it, including an aside or two. (I.e., is that where the feeling of forcing it came from?) If the noise doesn't play a role, you might want to trim that a bit and move the story ahead. The radioactive dude is a good hook, though.
Did you really mean that the cameraman and soundman 'ignored' him? I don't quite get that. I can understand them avoiding him, which is difficult to do in a helicopter. But why ignore him?
Studiousness has to do with intense study, which doesn't seem to fit the contexts in which it was used, twice.
Nit: ignored a radioactive journalist two [too].
Good luck
There are a few things I could say about this. One is I would consider reworking and try to open with dialog to show it is loud in the copter (the old show vs tell issue). But what is far more pressing is the plausibilty issue.
Why is a radioactive journalist flying a copter for the first time, and why would the cameraman and sound engineer be in it with him? They're would be no way in the world I'd be in that chopper, job or not.
Perhaps you should back up a bit and explain how these characters got in this situation in the first place.
[This message has been edited by snapper (edited October 28, 2008).]
Those are great suggestions thanks for the ideas.
[This message has been edited by jpdunham2 (edited October 28, 2008).]
The problem with using the word "radioactive" is that it made you lose that little bit of credibility with me as soon as I read it. You might win me back later with an explanation that he is politically radioactive, but why run the risk of turning the reader against the story? Show me how uncomfortable they are around him and then you don't need to use a loaded word. It's speculative fiction, so anyone who reads the story in a magazine would probably take you literally when they read "radioactive".
The suggestions about show versus tell are good ones.
Regards,
Nick