posted
I'm having some problems with an opening. Here's the opening:
quote:The day after the storm, Tzichem, an officer of the Southport Police Force, risked taking his family out. It might not be safe, taking them through a city in anarchy, but he wasn't about to leave them alone.
They stood in the flooded lot of a supermarket--he, his wife Dikayah, and baby boy Pio--watching a riot form.
"We aren't going into that," Tzichem told Dikayah. Too dangerous.
What are your thoughts?
(The original post is below, for the benefit of---who was it, that liked to see the original? Can't remember.
[This message has been edited by wbriggs (edited January 11, 2006).]
posted
I think this is a bogged down beginning: too many names, too quickly. For what it's worth, however, it seems clear to me that Tzichem is the POV character. Everything is centered around him unless Dikayah bases her existence on being his wife.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it's a US English thing, hoptoad. A lot is a piece of land that either has a building on it, or will have one built. A "parking lot" is an area for cars to park.
------------------------------------------- This was my original posting:
quote:Two days after the storm, Tzichem, an officer of the Southport Police Force, was out with his wife Dikayah and their baby boy Pio, in the flooded lot of a supermarket. They were watching a riot form.
"We aren't going into that," he told Dikayah. Too dangerous.
posted
Sorry to be daft, but in the story, is the family standing on a piece of ground where a supermarket stands? I really thought they were in the carpark.
As to your question, the new version (in the top post) is much clearer for me.
If the words, 'Too dangerous' are thought, do we need them? His wife doesn't need them, I don't think we do either. You have established that it is dangerous. It seems to dilute the impact of the situation. We have figured it out already. It's like naming the joke in your story, suddenly it seems less funny/dangerous.
Is the word 'out' included to indicate that up until then they have shut themselves 'in' after 'the storm'?
I get images of the scene in War of the Worlds where the characters arrive in their van and try to move through a crowd on foot who want to take the van from them.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited January 11, 2006).]
posted
I think you just need to be clearer about what you're trying to say and condense the information into compact sentences that are full of useful words and active description.
For instance, instead of saying - "The day after the storm, Tzichem, an officer of the Southport Police Force, risked taking his family out."
You could start off with, "Officer Tzichem dragged his family from the storm shelter." Then show us the angry crowd - describe the scene instead of telling us a riot is forming.
posted
It's not exactly gripping me, but I'm still struggling to figure out why. I guess I'm missing a reason for him to want to get out and take his family with him, which sounds a singularly odd thing to do. Also, you might want to describe the riot a bit (noise, kind of people, etc.). I'm not sure a police officer would stand and watch so calmly, but maybe it's part of his cultural makeup.
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My thoughts: Your first three sentences are all about 20 words long, unless you count the double-hyphened sections differently. Though these sentences are well structured, they are dense. I know you are trying to "tell us upfront", (a philosophy I understand and agree with, btw) but I think your attempt to inform is interfering with pace. It would probably be different if the names were more familiar ones, but given the exotic names (I'm still not sure how to pronounce your MC), these sentences were hard for me to digest. I didn't bog down in them, since the writing is clean, but with a less skilled writer I would have. What I did feel after reading them is that I needed to stop and catch my breath.
Also, the officer tells his wife they "are not going into that." Too dangerous. If you are talking about the crowd which has already been called a 'riot forming', then it really goes without saying that they aren't going into it. I mean it's not like any sane person would say, "There's a riot forming. Let's wade into it! And let's take our baby in with us."
I'll agree too with what Silver3 said. To me this all feels very cinematic. I'm having trouble relating to your MC. I'm watching the intro from a distance. It's actually kind of like someone has handed me a stat sheet on the MC and his situation.
Maybe that's why I didn't feel hooked. An officer taking his family out into a city in the throes of anarchy after a storm...I should be hooked. And yet I wasn't.
posted
The impression of the opening scene is interesting. I understood that some big disaster has happened, and that this officer/family man would rather stay holed up with his family, but they have to eat, so they cautiously leave their hideout and begin to experience the aftermath of the disaster.
Some of the problems with the opening might be resolved by:
1) giving more specific information about the nature of the disaster
2) smoothing out some grammar/style issues
For instance, the first sentence ends with a preposition, which is a grammar/style problem. He takes them outside, out of the house, into the city, out of hiding, ect. Notice that by refusing to end the sentence with a preposition, you also have the opportunity to give the reader more information about the locale or condition from which the family is emerging.
"It might not be safe, taking them..." could be more simply stated with the infinitive "It might not be safe to take them..."
"They stood in the flooded lot of a supermarket--he, his wife Dikayah, and baby boy Pio--watching a riot form."
The separation of the subject "they" from its identifiers "Tzichem, Dikayah, Pio" is confusing. Why not "Tzichem, his wife, Dikayah, and their baby son stood in the flooded parking lot of the supermarket, where a riot was beginning to form."
Or something a little more polished than that, but you get the idea.
I hope Tzichem and his family are going to be ok- you certainly did establish reader empathy for the characters.
posted
Current events might be playing a role here. There was the tsunami about this time last year, if memory serves, and the Katrina-Rita double-whammy hurricanes that hit the U.S. gulf coast. Sometimes the oversaturation of events can turn people off to a story that has many of the same elements. Something to think about, anyway.
You've definitely got us right in the middle of the action, which is good, but maybe there's a bit TOO much going on? You might try moving the encounter with the riot down a few paragraphs to let us build up a little empathy for the family before threatening them with a riot. The aftermath of the storm can be dangerous enough.
Try rearranging the first sentence a bit. I think the scansion is getting a bit broken up by all the clauses, which can make it feel choppy.
One logical issue: How does Tzichem know the city is in anarchy if he and his family have just emerged from hiding on the first day after the storm? The riots they will see along the way will show that well enough, so there isn't really a reason to tell the audience.
[This message has been edited by krazykiter (edited January 12, 2006).]
posted
I'll just chip in my 2 cents to say I disagree with krazykiter about the current event problems. I live in France and heard of Katrina but not much more, and this opening is still not exactly working for me.
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
