posted
Thank you, Survivor. I felt something was missing from the story, and now I see it is acknowledgeable of the fictional audience. My narrator had no motive to recite the story. Is it alright if this acknowledgment occurs after the thirteen lines, or should it be established immediately?
Moreover, that "Fate" nonsense was a big mix-up on my part. My original intention was to express the POVs disbelief that his caravan managed to break down just within seeing distance of the body. He wanted to think its nothing more than a coincidence because he didn't believe in providence. However the present narrator has mixed feelings.
Lastly, they know Dresner is a POW because two of the men in the opening scene were present at his capture three days prior, and they were aware that he had escaped. Should I lay out all that information immediately?
Anyhow, Thank you again Survivor. I learned a great deal from your comment which I'm sure took a great deal of energy to write. I was up all night brewing over it and this was what I salvaged. However I fear this opening might be a bit cliche. I don't expect anyone to write a lengthy exposition, but please tell me if you agree with my assessment. ------------------------------- I was the first to spot him through the hoary storm. He was laying face-up on the gully that ran alongside the road, barely protruding from the snowy surface. His hands, bruised and stained, rested one over the other binding an Iron-Cross to his lower-left chest, and his eyes were lit-up like iridescent black pearls. I wanted to believe that it was a coincidence; the accidental outcome a busted fan-belt en route to Roanne. It sure as hell seemed like a fluke in the natural order – our truck breaking down just within seeing distance of his body. I can’t recall if it was fear or confusion that made me give-in to that theory, but now I can hardly stomach our crossing to be anything less than providence.
[This message has been edited by Green_Writer (edited January 27, 2007).]
I think you did a good job... this is the first version Ive read. Im moderately hooked, I'm not confused, and I don't have to strain to suspend my disbelief. These are all good signs of a good story opener. But it doesn't have anything in it precisely that I could say, 'this part right here hooked me'. As for cliche , that is up for debate. My personal take is that it isn't, Yet. So don't let it get that from here on in. Something about the last sentence feels a little contrived to me. Why is the narrator so worried about providence? If he is an atheist, why would he be thinking about god at all? To me your setting this story up to be about his transition from an atheist, to a believer in at least something paranormal. The next line is going to be something like, "It all started when..." Now that would be cliche.
posted
Eh, it took a lot of time for my thoughts on that opening to jell, but didn't take a lot of energy once I figured them out.
Most real first person narrators will address the audience almost immediately. A few don't, launching into narrative without preamble. It isn't a definite rule, but an introduction is just as helpful for a fictional narrator as for a real narrator. And a real narrator would usually want to be...realistic, uh...you know, would want to indicate that the story is true and happened to the writer.
Your descriptive language is very interesting, but still somewhat confusing. It takes some effort to figure out what you're saying. In this particular version, I think the hardest bit is when you say that the narrator gave in "to that theory," without specifying which of two contradictory theories is being referenced. On the other hand, this does seem to come closer to providing a motive for the narration, though the order is off.
posted
What does "hoary" mean? I've never actually taken the trouble to look it up, and tonight I am curious enough to admit that I haven't the foggiest idea what the word means, in hopes of rectifying the situation.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"hoary storm" isn't a very clear image--is it a grey/white storm or a frosty storm or a foggy storm or what? Fog might be better (clearer, so to speak) than "hoary storm."
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the whole I thought this was pretty strong. The first line is great and really grabbed my attention.
However, there were two parts which jarred abit with me. Firstly, the description of the hands and cross - "His hands, bruised and stained, rested one over the other binding an Iron-Cross to his lower-left chest". I think a comma after "rested one over the other" would help the mind to assimilate the description. Other than that, is "lower-left" needed? If the placement will be significant later on, then fair enough, but otherwise I think it's a detail that might be better removed.
I also got a little confused what "coincidence" you were referring to - I thought for a second you were still talking about the body! Perhaps if rather than saying "it was a concidence", you gave more specifics (eg, "the breakdown was a coincidence") it might be clearer?
These are minor niggles though; on the whole I thought it was good and I'd certainly read on.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
