I would want to learn more about why this is happening real soon, but I stayed interested through all 13 lines.

I think the slip into a sort of 2nd person pov with the "You've had this argument" bothered me. A "we've" would have worked better -- for me -- there.

written later -- I have to agree with what skadder said.
I, for one, do enjoy the story unrolling rather than having all the who, what, when, where, why, and how in the first paragraph.

However, it is true that the slamming the door bit gave me the impression the pov was male while the internalization about emotional chocolate and ice cream seemed more feminine.

For me, to fix this conflict would make the story stronger. It seems to need either some way the slamming the door bit becomes more apparently female or the emotional chocolate (love that!) becomes more male either by rewording or change to beer or steak something that he would regret.

[This message has been edited by arriki (edited November 06, 2007).]

I have to say I hate the present tense, especially when used with the first person. It feels so artificial, as though the guy is writing or dictating whilst doing what he is doing!

I say this because I know the present tense is generally seen as harder to sell. If is a good reason for the present tense, certainly I can't see it in your 13 lines.

That aside, the voice you have used is quite cold and clinical. I am unsure of the sex of the narrator, at this stage. You may feel the reference to 'she' would lead me to believe that her 'partner' may be a he -- that would be erroneous. The line about 'the ice-cream you know shouldn't have' felt more like a female thought to me. I know men think about ice cream too, but without the explicit reference to the narrator's gender, I am left to mis-interpret things.

>‘That won’t solve anything,(INSERT NAME),’ she says from behind the slammed door.

I am not getting much in terms of description at all: I don't know any names; my gender; her name; where in the world this is;what the season is (February is warm in Australia); what the weather is; how old either of us are; is it a house or flat?; is it in the city or country? I know you may think that it's only thirteen lines, but you could easily have some of these questions
by the end of the 13.

You do establish a voice but it's quite cold and fairly (so far) unappealing to me. There seems to be no clear hook. A tiny one is what is the story, the narrator mentions, about?

I would possibly continue, because I like the tone of the writing. To stay with it, though, I would want to feel more immersed within the scenes.

Putting that aside, the argument doesn't entice me. As the narrator states, we've all been there. Thus, there is little to care about. I might care about that if I had a chance to know more about the characters and the argument, though. Otherwise, it's everyday.

Setting: I saw the "door" as an inside door, and not an external one until the comment about "walking through the...night". A few comments about surroundings would be nice (cold, misty, warm, dark,etc.)

Story: I really have no idea what the story is about, based on the prose. I have to assume that it's about ghosts at this point because of the title, and no allusions to them as of yet in the text. The story opens with "an argument" though, and if there's going to be any conclusion to this 'eternal argument' (which is what the opening implies the story is about) then it seems odd to me that it might be resolved in 12(?) pages.

On the whole, I wouldn't say that I'm really hooked. I agree with the comments that have been made above that the 2nd person reference really damaged my opinion of things. Instead of bringing in a comparison to the reader and making them feel "familiar" by using this method, it usually just rips them out of their possible immersion (which is bad).

It seems to me that the MC is walking away from the door at the end of your 13, and I don't really understand how this (or telling him/herself a story) could be construed as immaturity.

I've found that emotional beginnings are usually bad. There's no connection to any of the characters (without knowing them first) and so phrases like "For now, I storm out" that denote an emotional response are wasted, when instead they could make a great impact if the reader first knows the character. The outburst also seems like a jump in "tone" to me. First 3 lines (as written below) are detailed very calmly. Then the MC "storms out". Last it shifts back to a calm detail of what he/she is doing (I say nothing, in the mood for, feels like emotional chocolate). I like the tone/feel of the piece, but the emotional response of the MC seems out of place. I think I'm repeating myself.

Hope this is helpful.