(I don't personally think you can derive much from 13 lines but since I'm new I thought I'd lay my fragile heart on the line and perhaps you can prove me wrong by analysing it to the extent where you really can understand my writing!)

The door to the building was partly open. Hogarth walked in to the dimly lit hallway and climbed to Reingold’s first floor flat, the door of which was also ajar. When calling out got no answer he drew his .38 Detective Special and pushed the door, hitting the light switch as he did so. The carpet was littered with clothes, tin cans and A4 sheets of text. Two feet protruded from beneath the duvet. Hogarth peered around the door. Reingold was in bed with a book lying between his open hands as if he’d fallen asleep whilst reading. He would do no more reading; not with the two red sockets where his eyes should have been. There was a gash in his head, a deep red fault line running from above his left ear towards his right eyebrow. Hogarth leant down to look at the book.

[This message has been edited by Slim Jenkins (edited September 30, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by Slim Jenkins (edited September 30, 2005).]

I don't think it's a bad idea to place a character somewhere without immediately giving the reasons why, but I would hope that the reader is curious enough to want to find out.

Bird,
You presume too much. What makes you think the victim died from two bullets? The eyes were missing, not necessarily through being shot.

He can look at the book because it is open and doesn't have to touch it. Telling the reader that it was open would help, of course, although they may be able to work that out. The victim looked as if he had fallen asleep whilst reading, which implies that the book would be open.

My mistake regarding the 'apartment'. I called it a 'flat' when it's actually a bedsit, ie one room, hence Hogarth's ability to see that there was no-one else in there. That's why he was not afraid.

You assume he's a police detective; is that based on the name of the (real) gun model? He's a man with a gun discovering a corpse and that's all I want to reveal in the opening. Suffice to say that he does not work for any branch of the government. In the rest of the scene, however, he does refrain from touching anything or trampling all over the room.

The novel is nothing like a police procedural, by the way.

I recommend making less assumptions.

My apologies that I assumed a story written in a Mickey Spillane prose style is not a detective/police procedural.

My apologies that I assumed the protagonist was a cop/detective when everything you do in the scene paints him as such.

My apologies that I assume the man died of two gunshot wounds to the eyes when all you described them being is "two red sockets" and a gun would be the only logical weapon to do such a thing

My apologies I assumed Hograth had to pick up the book to examine it, especially when people who are lying on their back reading normally have the books they hold be pages down, and not up when they fall asleep

My apologies that I presumed you would be straight forward to the reader.

My apologies that I actually assumed you'd want real probing into the plot to help you and not a simple ego boost.

Thankfully, even though I felt that I didn't have much to say about the text itself, Slim's response illustrates something. This opening text is surprisingly light on necessary POV information. Some of SB's misunderstanding's could have been avoided by more careful reading, but it isn't like they weren't understandable mistakes.

You introduce the damage to the eyes out of context, and it was necessary for me to carefully visualize the gash on his head had put out both his eyes. Even at that, this is not a fatal injury, not if the gash is shallow enough that the damage to the eyes could be described by the phrase "red sockets where his eyes should have been." It is a painful and panic-inducing injury, so it would definitely be improbable that Reingold could have stayed in the bed after being cut like that. So there is even more to the injuries or scene you're not telling us.

You don't tell us what relationship Hogarth had to the deceased, nor what meaning the open book might have to either. We might guess that Reingold was a writer...but Hogarth could just tell us something like that.

You also don't say anything about Hogarth's reasons for having a gun and examining a crime scene. It isn't abnormal to think perhaps a person who does such things is in law enforcement.

Bird,
Ego boost?

I should use smilies more often to indicate feelings because I know how words can be misinterpreted online.

No intention of being offensive, but defensive? Yes! Not that I consider my writing beyond reproach, you know. Christ, I just write - and sometimes it's pretty good and a lot of the time it's probably rubbish -ho-hum - what's new?

Something written in a style isn't necessarily indicative of its content, I'd say - not in these times when all styles are up for grabs, as opposed to certain eras when a style inherently represented content - er - if you know what I mean.

I don't think it's half as tough as Spillaine, but then others read our work in ways which we cannot predict, don't they?

I reckon, without being either a doctor or a killer, that eyes could be removed in various ways (with a good knife, screwdriver, scalpel etc) - a bullet would make a mess of them but not automatically remove them, I imagine.

We could nitpick all day about how a book falls when one goes to sleep reading it. I'd say the odds are 50/50 it will drop back or forwards, depending on the angle it is being held. I must stress, though, that the victim only appeared to have fallen asleep whilst reading. Having created a corpse, the dastardly fellow(s) who did so may have all kinds of fun positioning it. In this case I wrote that the book was clean, from which some readers may deduce that the victim was not actually reading it when he was killed.

Forgive me but I can't beleive you're actually arguing about the way the book fell!

Being 'straight forward to the reader'? No, sir! Never! I refuse! They don't deserve something as mundane as straight forwardness, not my readers! My readers can think for themselves and possibly even read between the lines and work things out from small clues. My readers are both extremely intelligent and insist, actually, that I write nothing like:

'Hogarth was visiting a man who had provided him with information regarding certain suspiscious activities and he carried a gun even though he wasn't a cop or a private eye and he found him in a single room, which didn't scare him because it was a single room and he could therefore see that the killers had fled etc'

Oh, sorry, I'm sure you didn't expect something quite that...'straight'.

I don't mind a good probing...of plot? style? content? whatever. (Oh, the plot involves a conspiracy, aliens, guns, alleyways, time&space&the illusion of reality...addiction...lethargy...possibly a giant rocket used to fire a man to the moon...& all kinds of textual(?) trickery which plays mind games with the reader in order to reflect that nature of the story (but you'd probably hate that, sorry)).

Nice talking to you, really.

As for the other injury, it isn't necessarily the one that lost him his eyes, is it? I'd better not suggest you're making assumptions (:eek but I must say that the victim could have been killed anywhere in the room (or some place else) and then tucked up in bed. Again, I must stress that Hogarth says he looked as if he had fallen asleep reading. Perhaps the corpse was arranged in such a way? Perhaps the painting in the book is significant symbolically? That painting does exist, by the way. Perhaps the post-execution pose is a sick joke? All is gradually revealed, of course.

As for Hogarth having a gun, does the reader need to know why he owns one? All he needs to know for now is that he does the kind of work that requires some serious self-defence (self-evidently). What Reingold did, how or why he ended up dead and what Hogarth is doing there is soon revealed, of course. I really don't hold with the idea of constant explaination, which you can call a fault if you wish. What needs to be explained is explained through the unfolding of the story.

Hogarth doesn't examine the scene. He simply discovers it. The obvious problem here is that the few lines I've been able to post cannot possibly reveal everything.

As I'm sure you're aware, there are organisations in the world who are neither police nor private eyes - and some of their employees may well carry guns.

On you final points, I apologise for seeming snappy regarding assumptions...I suppose they annoy me more than questions. I can't guess what the reader may or may not 'understand' about the brief passage above other than the obvious mysteries of the situation. I would hope that they do want to understand what happens and why. I'm simply (with deliberate simplicity) describing a scene. If a reader wants the who/what/why straight away, yes, they'll be disappointed.

If you declined to think much of this snippet, that's your choice. Thanks for your input, anyway.

Oh, I don't want the reader to understand anything other than what is described, by the way. A corpse, a painting in a book...um...discovered by a man with a gun...that's about it.

[This message has been edited by Slim Jenkins (edited October 02, 2005).]

quote:

---

In summary, you ask SB not to make assumptions. But you don't make it possible for your readers to do anything else, because necessary information is missing from your text. I avoided making assumptions by declining to think much of your opening. But that's not a response you want either. You want the reader to understand your writing. But for that to happen, you must write something understandable.

---

I'm not going to tell you that you must be utterly and totally honest with your readers and tell them every pertinent fact up front. Writing without some capacity for surprise is unlikely to be interesting writing.

Besides, I find it amusing that you should consider 'misdirection' to be a crime in writing. This being 'speculative' fiction I take some artistic liberties which may well upset the author police. By which I mean those who appear to have very conservative views of what literature 'should' and 'should not' do. Scattered throughout my work there is even some plagiarism - SHOCK!

Fear not, though, it soon becomes clear to the poor misdirected reader that Hogarth works for an organisation on the fringes, shall we say.

Contrary to what has been suggested, I'm interested in literary discussion rather than an 'ego boost'. For that to be the case I would have to assume that my feeble efforts are so damn good, and I certainly don't. I'm just a humble scribe who's trying and feels free to use whatever literary styles and devices I want. Even if that means 'fooling' the poor reader for a while.

To recap:

I don't think my work is brilliant.

I have challenged a few criticisms thrown at me. But with a view to clarifying my position and not because I think my work is beyond criticism.

I've no qualms about misleading readers for a while.

I don't believe the name of a gun should upset anyone (although there's no accounting for taste/judgement).

If anyone's concerned about the idea of a stylistic device deemed inappropriate with regards to content etc - I'm willing to discuss that.

I may be completely wrong in everything I say but I've said it anyway (a philisophical point could be raised about opinions and how they're formed in relation to intellect, emotion and psychology but I'm not smart enough to make it).

Your approach to critiquing appears to consist of the following approach:
Ask for comments.
Receive comments.
Reject all comments, in a style that certainly veers into both vehemence and sarcasm (particularly ironic, given your initial plea of "Please be gentle with me").

Perhaps you should remember that people who are critiquing your work are using their time on your behalf.

Personally, in your case, I'm afraid I no longer feel inclined to do so.

(PS - posted at almost the same time as your response to Beth. You don't seem to have understood why I made my point about the name of the gun. I really give up)

Tcherno,
I don't understand why you don't understand my points about the gun, it's make and meaning (or lack of). Obviously its name will 'fool' a few readers but...oh I've said all that once.

Of course I can see why people would make assumptions and perhaps I could have cleared them up in another way but what's done is done. The points I was trying to make way back in this discussion relate to practical matters regarding how a book may fall and how a man may lose his eyes.

Perhaps another point relates to the 'evidence' in text as well as at a crime scene. Man with eyes missing - must have been shot! Man with head wound - that's what took his eyes out! There's some very poor detection work going on around here - ha-ha (non-sarcastic laugh).

I haven't rejected 'all comments', simply responded to them in a manner which some of you find disagreeable. Sorry 'bout that. I did say I was wrong not to clarify the nature of the room, if you recall.

I've raised issues about truth and deception, style in relation to content - but all some people seem to want to do is bang (pun intended) on about gun makes and whether, technically, a book can be read.

Some people have used their time on my behalf, that's true. I hope they don't feel it was totally wasted. Time, after all, can appear to have been spent with no return but then it becomes apparent that it wasn't if the person you spent it on proves to be, in your eyes, a complete fool/vehement character etc. This experience reinforces one's own place in the world, to some extent - and may even make one feel superior (compared to them at least).

I haven't got one vehement bone in my body, by the way.

Beth,
Is arguing with those who critique really frowned upon? Christ, if I commented on someone's work and they argued against my points I don't think I'd sulk about it.

If so, I want to congratulate you and suggest that you say a sincere "thank you" for the help. It isn't required, but it does help people to know whether they've helped at all. If not...well, that's too bad. It was what I suspected would be the case from the start, which is why I initially didn't bother to waste my time. I just stepped in because I didn't want this to turn into a fight between you and SB.

Here's a topic that goes into it in tedious detail:

http://www.hatrack.com/forums/writers/forum/Forum1/HTML/001622.html

and now I am done explaining the culture here. I am tired of new people not bothering to try to understand how things work here and then getting all pissy when people who have been here for years don't give them exactly the kind of praise they want.

When someone critiques, they are just stating their perceptions as a reader. In this particular forum, the idea is to state whether or not an opening is interesting enough to keep reading further, as well as to sometimes explain why or why not. But the purpose of all critiques differs from normal media criticism.

Critiques are not arguments at all. If you want to argue with a critique, see if you can construct a compelling rational that says, not how the reader should have responded (in your view), but that the reader actually responded in a manner utterly different from what was said in the critique.

Try to argue that the first time I read your opening I simply had no interest in reading more or even in saying why I wouldn't. Or try to argue, not that we should appreciate how you're arguing with us, but that we actually do.

I've also learnt that some of the Wise Council, despite their pacifist aspirations, are quite capable of insults by implying that I'm so egotistical as to think I'm a genius. You should all be tolerating my rampant egotistical behaviour and recommending meditation or something.

It sounds as if you made up your mind about me from 'the start'. Well, we're all capable of mistakes. I try not to judge people too much unless I've heard a lot of what they got to say, but we're all human, eh? If those who know me heard what I've been accused of here they'd laugh their heads off, knowing full well that I'm a self-effacing, modest...genius - and not someone who thinks they're so great.

I didn't come here to 'fight' but I didn't realise debate or (whispers the word) argument aren't allowed.

The truth is, I haven't made up my mind about you even now...but mainly in the sense that I now suspect you of additional things that hadn't immediately occured to me before.

You are the one that suggested that you might be gaining some benefit out of the argument by way of confirming your feelings of superiority. Or perhaps you were suggesting that we should welcome having arguments with idiots for that reason. But I already felt superior to you by means of having read your opening, I didn't need to argue with you to get that

Or are you saying that we're all so stupid that being utterly superior to us doesn't make you a "genius"? That's really quite an insulting thing to suggest of an entire forum. Not that there are no forums on the internet of which that could be asserted. But it's still insulting to say it.

quote:

---

Shall we all return to our cosy rooms and their ceilings painted with fluffy clouds now and pretend we live in a cuddly universe where nobody disagrees?

---

I have to say, given that the whole thing started because you couuldn't handle having people disagree with the choices you make in opening your story, I think that this was either a stock phrase or a prepared response. And you're so limited that you didn't realize that it in no way supports your position in this case.

Survivor,
I'm glad you responded, although I would have understood totally if everyone concerned had decided to ignore this fool from now on. To a lot of you I probably look like a troublemaker who must have nothing better to do than join a forum, post some fiction and relish in a fight.

Your line about suspecting me of other things is intriguing but I'm not probing that because I'm not here to have my character investigated.

My idea of gaining something related to the notion of 'wasted time', if you recall. I think that point is valid, but you may disagree. Adopting a master/pupil relationship is beneficial to the master as well, isn't it?

In relation to writing fiction, I've read stuff that makes me believe I've done better, along with stuff that makes me feel totally inferior/inadequate. Don't most of us have similar feelings? The point being that there's always someone 'smarter' or 'dumber' and whatever stage we're at the experience can be beneficial.

I'm pleased for you that you feel 'superior' to me. If I can make someone feel that good about themselves then I haven't totally wasted my time. I appreciate your honesty too because I'm damned if this particular egotistical genius would say such a thing on a public forum.

Have I said that I believe everyone here to be 'stupid'? I wasn't aware of that. Now that would be stupid.

Stock phrase, or prepared statement? No, sir, I made it up on the spot. I just got the impression that this area was extremely fluffy and didn't like what it considered to be 'bad karma, ma-a-an'. I don't like bad karma myself. Contrary to the impression I've given, I'm not confrontational. I think there's a difference between 'not being able to handle' and simply challenging, but that's open to interpretation. I go to a writer's group where people make suggestions about my work and, blimey, would you believe that I don't stick a (verbal) knife in them!

You're right, I am limited, but I'm working on unlimited powers of intellect right now. Perhaps you could help?

You take your craft seriously? Well done! I don't, of course. To me it's all a right laugh mucking about with ideas, stories and all that crazy fun-filled kind of behaviour.

Oh, now, what is it you're good at? The fighting or writing bit?

Your time is appreciated.
Ta-Ta