posted
Professor Brookfield stood behind a tree in the park and watched Professor Koesler, who was sitting in his third story office across the street. Brookfield lifted his new sniper’s rifle, took aim, and fired. His shot hit the window, but missed Koesler. Brookfield had learned the necessity of killing Koesler, but a corresponding skill in assassination had not come with his horrible awareness. Brookfield was already at his car on the far side of the park when he heard Koesler’s laughing voice in the still, evening air: “Give it up, James! You only keep proving my thesis!” Brookfield cursed, got into his car, and drove away, muttering to himself. One way or the other, he was determined to stop Koesler, and to prove that madman’s thesis false.
posted
Interesting hook. First sentence a little cumbersome. Maybe divide it into two...? I didn't understand how the shooter heard the target's voice if the target was three stories up. A little fleshing out might be in order. For one thing, a comment after "across the street" that puts some, well, flesh, on the target. I did like the necessity and corresponding skill statement. Is this a novel idea (oooh...pun!) or a short story?
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted
Is this a Sci-Fi twist of the fantasy idea you submitted earlier?
The use of professor twice is a little bit much in the same sentance.
How about a litte more description to show us the timeframe and the setting. I am getting a picture of 1920's to 40's era, NY or Chicago gangster era. But I don't know if that is what you were intending. That is what I noticed right away anyway.
Interesting hook though, with a little bolstering could be a great begining.
posted
Not remotely related to the fantasy thing I'm flogging to death in the other posts. Frankly, I don't see the connection, but I'll look at it again.
Hadn't thought about placing it in the 30's, but it would work just as well there.
First sentence IS cumbersome - haven't really worked on it yet. I came up with a story idea yesterday, and spent a couple of minutes on this intro during lunch today.
Anywhere else I can dissemble?
Oh, yeah! Not a novel, Kolona, but what I hope will be an amusing short story.
[This message has been edited by ccwbass (edited January 27, 2004).]
posted
OK, if this is meant to be a humorous little short, and that appears to be your purpose, then I think you can get away with this beginning.
However, I would suggest that you consider starting at the point in time when Brookfield realized he would have to kill Koesler. I think that you can make it interesting enough as a hook that you don't need the sniper-rifle action in the first thirteen lines.
That way, you can show the gradual escalation of Brookfield's attempts, building toward the climax. If you begin with the sniper attack, then anything less radical that he tries first will seem unimportant.
posted
Well, this isn't a climax as much as just a kind of middle attempt. Starting with James discovering why he had to kill Koestler risks my revealing too much too soon - the last line of this story is already written and I want it to punch the reader in the gut, Philip K. Dick-like. I like the idea of starting with this because it says pretty much everything about the relationship: Koestler is working on thesis that Brookfield understands is worth committing murder to disprove, and Koestler is mad enough to find this all very amusing.
Can't say it all in the first 13 lines, but I can sure as heck hook a reader into carrying on for one or two more paragraphs.
posted
My opinion before I read e1 else's comments:
The writing is a little clumsy, but this did grab my attention. I'm guessing something to do with time travel? This also reminds me a lot of a story I read in a magazine once, a strange theory about a universal translation device.
I'm also wondering if you should take the paragraph a bit slower. Give us a little more of the main character's thoughts as he's doing this, and don't introduce two characters in the first sentence. (esp. when they are both professor such and such.)
Anyway, now I'm going to read e1 else's comments:
Nope, haven't changed my mind really. Be careful with that last line punching people in the gut thing...if it's too confusing and no one knows what's going on they'll never get there to read the masterpiece of a sentence.
When you get a working draft going, send it alonga nd I'll give it a read for you.
Now, everyone, correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the first 13 lines - as we use them here - is not necessarily to announce the story's plot, but simply to pull a reader in so they can, hopefully because they want to, figure the plot as they go, right?
That being said, I'm actually pleased at the reactions I am getting - you're asking questions which suggest interest in the story whether or not you approve of my sloppy grammer; therefore, though clumsy writing it may be, you're hooked.
I'm a-thinkin' maybe I'll give myself a pat on the ol' back.
And then work on the re-write. Can't be TOO proud.
posted
Oh no, you don't have to let us in on the plot at all, but I often find it useful to know what readers are thinking at various points in the story. Me thinking that this might be about time travel, even if wrong, does mean that I'm curious enough to think ANYTHING other than, gee you need help with this wording. Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
posted
This would make a good intro, set off by itself, as a way to intice the reader. This incident, it seems to me, should take place in the middle of the story. Thus, Act I (if you will) gives us what we need to understand Brookfield and Koesler's relationship. Act II begins with this incident (which you only have to remind the reader of), and marches on to Act III, where we get the resolution, of course.
quote:Starting with James discovering why he had to kill Koestler risks my revealing too much too soon . . .
I didn't say to start by explaining why Brookfield has to kill Koesler; I figured that was the twist for the ending. So you're purposely going to be obscuring that information. I still think you might want to start the story at the point when he realized he would have to do it, such as: "Professor Brookfield finished reading the draft of Koesler's thesis. There was no doubt about it: he would have to kill Koesler."
I didn't mean to imply that I thought the sniper attack was the climax. It's just that starting with the sniper attack means that you must escalate from there; to flash back to prior, less desperate attacks would weaken the story. I think you'd be better off building gradually up to the sniper attack, and from there build up to the climax.
posted
I can't give substantive criticism of a story that's supposed to have a surprise ending, so I'll pick a couple of nits (Hi ccwbass!).
First off, whoever critiqued two uses of 'Professor' in the opening sentance was right...okay, that's really more like third, but I said it first.
First off, maybe you should use a more descriptive verb than 'stood'.
Second, say 'campus green' or whatever instead of 'park' (if this is a campus green, then that will solve the problem of using 'Professor' twice).
Third problem already mentioned above (twice that I've noticed).
Name the building, the street, or something in the phrase 'third story office across the street.'
Don't call it a 'sniper's rifle', it is a 'sniper rifle'.
Tell us what happened to the window when his shot hit it.
Don't tell us that Brookfield had learned of the necessity of killing Koesler unless you're about to explain why. We understand from what he just did that he's trying to kill Koesler, and presumably thinks his reasons compelling. Unless you're telling us what the reasons are, then you're merely calling attention to the fact that you're not telling us (which is irritating). Besides, right now he should be thinking things like "(*&^!" and "$%^*#$@ stupid rifle!" and "I've got to get my (*& the *&%% out of here!" (of course, being a professor, he is allowed to think this in more elevated language). The time to contemplate the necessity of killing is before you pull the trigger, not after you miss your shot.
The line about his lack of corresponding skill is funny, but it would be funnier to extend his awareness of his limitations beyond the simple fact of missing the shot. I miss too, you know. It happens (except in lame movies where only bad guys...wait a second...okay, in real life we aren't such bad shots, but the point is that we all miss sometimes). Describe how Brookfield deals with missing his shot. That would be funny.
quote:One way or the other, he was determined to stop Koesler, and to prove that madman’s thesis false.
You are presumably aware that the only reason for him to kill Koesler to stop him from publishing his thesis would be that Brookfield knows darn well that it cannot be disproved (unless Koesler's thesis is that he is immortal or something). One imagines that readers of normal intelligence will realize this as well. In any case, publicly disproving Koesler's thesis wrong would involve publishing it...which Brookfield wants to prevent.
That also brings up the issue of how killing Koesler will prevent publication of his work...one would think that if a professor killed another professor over a thesis, it would become a lot more publicized then it otherwise might be.
Now it may so be that your surprise ending is that Koesler's thesis is that he's immortal, moreover that the universe exists in his own mind, and he is essentially God. If this is the case, then you need to make it more of a surprise, or choose a different surprise. The same applies if it turns out that it is Brookfield rather Koesler that is insane. That really exhausts all my powers of criticism of a surprise ending, though. All I know is that such an ending should be a surprise.
posted
You know, it's become apparent over the last few days just how silly it is for me to be engaging in ANY thread in this section when my only real experience is with college essays, the only one coming even close to fiction being the paper on the Wife of Bath that I had to fake my way through in few hours (got an "A" - I rule!).
I hereby forbid myself to do any more posting in "Fragments and Feedbacks."
I'm not having a hissy fit, by the way, but since the primary goal of writers here is to learn how to get read (and have one's stuff accepted) by editors, and since I certainly have no intelligence, or even bad experience, to offer in this kind of thing, well, I think I'm doing people favor by keeping my (virtual) mouth shut. If I ever get a few things published by actual paying presses, then I'll give my ego full reign and all will quail and tremble in awe before the awesome awesomeness of my most awesome opinions (dudes, totally!). Until then . . .
Doesn't mean I won't still go postal in another section of some doofus disses Dickens, dagnabit (say the last four words 10 times, real fast).
Cameron
[This message has been edited by ccwbass (edited January 29, 2004).]
posted
An interesting start. I think it has more impact, though, if you drop the first few scene-setting sentences, something like:
Professor Brookfield's shot broke the third floor window, but missed Koesler. He may have learned the necessity of killing Professor Koesler, but the corresponding skill in assassination had not come with his horrible awareness...
If its PKD you're emulating, I'm sure that's how he would have started it... of course we'd then later learn that the entire thing was a hallucination induced by the mind-altering drugs the alien invaders had been feeding us, and killing Koesler would be fatal to the future of humanity...
quote: the primary goal of writers here is to learn how to get read (and have one's stuff accepted) by editors,
It is? I'm here to learn how to write good fiction. Don't give a stuff about editors -- if they aren't good enough to recognise a good story when it turns up on their desk, they shouldn't be doing the job...
Printer-friendly view of this topic
I did like the necessity and corresponding skill statement. Is this a novel idea (oooh...pun!) or a short story?
