posted
"A Thousand Poppies Bloom" rejected by Analog: "Didn't grab and hold me ... too "choppy" (at least in part due to long expanses of dialog with no description) ...and the early parts gave little or no indication of where it would eventually wind up." I put Poppies on the shelf to send out to the next sf market I hear from.
Here is the first 13 of the story I'm working on now. "Place your hand on the Bible and repeat after me, I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.” Twelve year old Tom Sevier said, “If it’s ok with you, your honor, I’d rather not.” Judge Lubbock leaned forward on his bench. “What’s the matter with you, son. You’re in court, now. You must tell the truth.” “Yes, your honor. But I’ve read that I don’t have to swear on the Bible, that I can swear by affirmation. Is that right?” “I never heard of such a thing. Now, you put your hand on that Bible and swear, you hear me.” "But, I don't believe in God," Tom said. "Well, by God we believe in God here in Texas," said the Judge.
posted
Great job Rick! This opening is very well done. I know an opening really has me hooked when I try to imagine where the author is going to take the story from the first 13 - and I am very curious now where this is going.
Everything about this works for me - characters - conflict - dialogue. Nice going.
Posts: 409 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hello! So I've only just joined and this would be my first comment... Nothing grandiose - just a quick note that for my 2nd read on here, I was most impressed. I liked the quick back and forth and the mounting tension (maybe not lots of it but enough) between the two characters and while I thought I had a general idea of what the kid was going to say, he didn't say it quite the way I expected! So that's good.
My only nit/crit would be that the final statement by the judge - I totally hear it when I read it - but there's also some sort of hiccup there as well. Not sure why. I think I hear it with a pause between 'by God' and the rest... Or something. LOL Best I can do for now. Thanks for the read - I'm keen to know more.
Also - I can toss out there that this snippet makes me think the tale is going to be about the kid but it could also be about the judge or just the case overall that underlies this scene (i.e. why they are in court).
posted
I think its a good first 13. I would read more.
There was, however, one thing that tripped me a up little.
quote:"Twelve year old Tom Sevier said,..."
MY mind read "Twelve year old Tom Sawyer said,...". The age of the boy and the similarity of the name has made it impossible for me to get Tom Sawyer out of my head. I realize this may be exactly the image you wished to create, or it may just be a gli-gli-glitch in my brain box.
Gordon
[This message has been edited by puppysnot (edited November 08, 2007).]
quote:"Place your hand on the Bible and repeat after me, I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.”
Nice familiar opening. I like that you don't include a tag. The bailiff is anonymous and most everyone knows who it is that will be speaking those words. Since the bailiff isn't going to be doing anything in the story (apparently), you wisely choose not to draw attention to him or her. Well done.
Just a nit: I think you should have a period after the me. Make it two sentences. (Some might go for a colon there, but I think it's unnecessary.)
quote: Twelve year old Tom Sevier said, “If it’s ok with you, your honor, I’d rather not.”
I like that you put the tag before the quote here. That puts the boys age into my head before he speaks. It lets me properly visualize the speaker. (Otherwise, I might have visualized someone else speaking until I got to the tag after the quote.)
I think I would have preferred okay to ok, though I hear one of the manuals of style actually say OK is the correct spelling.
I agree that Your Honor should be in caps.
quote:Judge Lubbock leaned forward on his bench. “What’s the matter with you, son. You’re in court, now. You must tell the truth.”
No tag here and none needed. Very nice. The judge leaning forward to speak to the witness is a familiar one, so no need for extraneous details. (Also, at this point, you haven't burdened me with useless details of the courtroom. I gather it is a courtroom from the dialog; I don't need anything else. I (and most everyone) knows what a courtroom looks like.)
The use of the word "son", the short sentences, and direct approach to dialog give me a good opening image of this judge. (And I'm not disappointed later.)
quote:“Yes, your honor. But I’ve read that I don’t have to swear on the Bible, that I can swear by affirmation. Is that right?”
A twelve-year-old who has read that? Given his respectful dialog up to this point, it helps paint a solid image of Tom.
quote:“I never heard of such a thing. Now, you put your hand on that Bible and swear, you hear me.”
This did stand out a bit, that the judge had never heard of it. It paints an image of a small-town judge who does things his way--it fits with what was previously shown about him. Again, nice work.
quote:"But, I don't believe in God," Tom said.
I'm not sure you even need this tag, to be honest. That last time Tom spoke, he used "your honor" which let us know who was speaking. The previous dialog instructs Tom to put his hand on the Bible, so I think it's clear without the tag that Tom is speaking here. (More of a judgment call, though.)
quote:"Well, by God we believe in God here in Texas," said the Judge.
If the last dialog is tagged with a said, I don't think this one needs it, too.
I think I would like this line better if the "by God" was moved to the end of the sentence, after Texas.
"here in Texas" tells me that the boy isn't from Texas?
The beauty of this line is that it tells me where this is happening without slowing down the action.
Even though I don't know what the story is about, I would easily and happily keep reading. The conflict is minor, since the boy seems respectful enough to go along with the Judge's orders in the end. What hooks me is solid characterization and great writing.
Overall, great opening. If you're looking for readers, I'll be happy to volunteer.
[This message has been edited by lehollis (edited November 08, 2007).]
quote: "Place your hand on the Bible and repeat after me[Period or colon here, IMHO.] I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.” [Twelve year old Tom Sevier<--[Who's PoV? Also, I agree with puppysnot on the "Tom Sawyer" issue.] said, “If it’s ok with you, your honor, I’d rather not.” Judge Lubbock leaned forward on his bench. “What’s the matter with you, son[?] You’re in court, now. You must tell the truth.” “Yes, your honor. But I’ve read that I don’t have to swear on the Bible, that I can swear [by affirmation.<--Doesn't sound like a twelve-year-old's voice. Doesn't sound like a twelve-year-old's fight.] Is that right?” “I never heard of such a thing.[<--Huh? A judge hasn't heard of this?] Now, you put your hand on that Bible and swear, you hear me.” "But, I don't believe in God," Tom said. "Well, [Seems redundant-->by God][,] we believe in God here in Texas," said the Judge.
1) I'm wondering whose PoV this is.
2) It doesn't seem feasible that a judge--although he may have a distaste for it--wouldn't know about "swearing by affirmation" instead of "on the bible".
3) Maybe I am just not your target audience, but it seems like this is going to be a showcase for a political/religious argument, and it has (IMHO) a preachy tone.
posted
Thanks to all. Skadder, you're right, two for two. The "he said, she said" are there because of the comment from Analog inserted above the first 13.
Posts: 557 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny, I thought "Tom Seaver" instead of Tom Sawyer. It actually distracted me (but that's just me, I'm not recommending a change).
I went back and forth on the "?" (after "What's the matter with you son.") I read it and thought it needed a question mark, but then re-read it, imagining a non-question intonation, and liked it. Perhaps some other punctuation that joins this sentence with the next (like a semicolon) would get that same intonation but be less distracting (assuming that is what you want and the lack of ? isn't just a typo)
I like the building tension and would be glad to read if you are looking for readers.
[This message has been edited by Jon Ruyle (edited November 09, 2007).]
posted
I have a hard time accepting that a judge wouldn't know about "swearing by affirmation" instead of "on the Bible." I also would wonder at a judge (someone whom you hope is logical) forcing a witness who doesn't believe in the Bible to swear on the Bible since the swear would be useless. Granted, some people might act that way, but you'll have to work very hard in the story to sell these points to me as realistic.
Posts: 357 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I interpreted the judge not accepting swearing by affirmation as meaning that either we're in a future time where Texas has adopted an extreme version of Christianity and suppressed some history, or we're in an alternative history where affirmation was never an option in the first place.
I like the last line.
I'm not sure I'd read on; it gives the feeling of the start of a polemic, perhaps because the boy uses a term familiar to the reader ('swear by affirmation') yet the judge hasn't heard of it.
(But as I write this I wonder, if the boy has read of it, how could the judge not have?)
posted
I had a different view of the affirmation statement. I felt the judge had heard of and knew damn well what it was - the judge, being a twit and wanting to get on with case, swept the request aside.
Posts: 409 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was assuming the judge was so bigoted that he just refused to admit that affirmation could be a possibility.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like it. I actually feel that there are numerous hooks here that are being mistaken for "mistakes." "How can a 12 year old know about affirmation?" "Why's the judge being such a putz" and the obvious one, "Why's a 12 year old in court in the first place?"
I agree about Tom Seiver/Tom Sawyer confusion. It is mildly distracting, but not a stopper for me.
Also, the judge's tone, if he's being portrayed as a curmudgeon and a "suthun' gen'l'man" is a little inconsistent between his first set of dialogue and the second two sets.
Judge Lubbock leaned forward on his bench. <CUT |“What’s the matter with you, son.|> You’re in court now, <BOY>. You <HAVE TO> tell the truth.
Then in the last line, use the "What's the matter with you, son?" said the Judge. "<YOU KNOW> we believe in God here in Texas."
Oh, and "...you hear me<?>" I think is an implied question, so you will want a question mark there.
That seems to make the texture of the judge's dialogue more consistent and less "formal" throughout (and more in line with my western Kansas upbringin'). :-)
posted
In Texas, county judges are elected and, unlike district judges, they do not need to be lawyers. They do not even need to be able to read and write. All they need to do is win an election. I've rewritten the opening to make it clear that Judge Lubbock is a county judge.
I've finished the story. I want to do one more draft, and then I'll send it out to those of you who have kindly agreed to read and critique.
I've got stories out at every respectable market I know of, now. Maybe I need to switch to non-fiction for a while.
posted
I'm coming in a little late on this, so there's probably not much I can say that hasn't already been said. I will say that I found it interesting enough to continue reading. Very simple and to the point, but it grabbed me.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:In Texas, county judges are elected and, unlike district judges, they do not need to be lawyers. They do not even need to be able to read and write. All they need to do is win an election. I've rewritten the opening to make it clear that Judge Lubbock is a county judge.
If he's a county judge, what's he doing in a courtroom? I live in Arkansas, and our county judges are also elected. However, they're administrators. They have nothing to do with judging cases in courtrooms. My pastor happens to be a county judge, and he complains that he spends all his time in meetings. If you want, I can find out exactly what he does do, but I do know that a county judge is not a courtroom judge.
posted
My impression is that in Texas a county judge does try cases, but if I'm wrong, I'd like to know it now. This case is a case brought before juvenile court, by the way, not a jury trial.
Posts: 557 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I live in Arkansas, I can't be certain about Texan county judges. I did a quick search and got:
County Judge The Texas Constitution vests broad judicial and administrative powers in the position of county judge, who presides over a five-member commissioners court, which has budgetary and administrative authority over county government operations.
The county judge handles such widely varying matters as hearings for beer and wine license applications, hearing on admittance to state hospitals for the mentally ill and mentally retarded, juvenile work permits and temporary guardianships for special purposes. The judge is also responsible for calling elections, posting election notices and for receiving and canvassing the election returns. The county judge may perform marriages.
A county judge in Texas may have judicial responsibility for certain criminal, civil and probate matters - responsibility for these functions vary from county to county. In those counties in which the judge has judicial responsibilities, the judge has appellate jurisdiction over matters arising from the justice courts. The county judge is also head of civil defense and disaster relief, county welfare and in counties under 225,000 population, the judge prepares the county budget along with the county auditor or county clerk.
So some Texan county judges may have some judicial responsibilities, but you might want to double-check that your story's case is one of the types that qualify.
[This message has been edited by DebbieKW (edited November 14, 2007).]
posted
Thanks for very useful info. It sounds like as long as I am vague about the county the story is set in, my judge can preside over a juvenile court.
Posts: 557 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:It sounds like as long as I am vague about the county the story is set in, my judge can preside over a juvenile court.
I still don't think so. Please understand, county judges oversee a county like mayors oversee a city. They're administrators.
I talked with my court contacts, and they told me that only legally-trained people can preside over a criminal court. To quote: "County Judge's are not attorneys and do not practice law. Not in Arkansas anyways. So there is no way a county judge could preside over a juvenile court. Juvenile judges are Circuit judges."
I don't see anything in the Texas County Judge description that would indicate that county judges can take over the circuit judge's job.
If you want your court judge to be pig-headed, fine, but (unless proved otherwise) it can't be because he's a county judge. If you want an elected official ignorant of the law to preside over a juvenile court, fine, but the story (unless proved otherwise) can't be set in a "real life" setting...unless you just don't care that it's incorrect.
Perhaps it is set in the fifties. I am English, and the southern judge ticks all my stereotype boxes.
By the way, in Britain we have magistrates, who are people of good standing (retired teachers etc.) the preside over magistrates courts, dealing with small matters when the crim goes guilty. If the crim wants to plead innocent, then it goes up to Crown Court with a legally trained judge. In the magistrates court although the magistrates 'preside' there is a legally trained court official who ensures everything goes according to the law.
posted
I should have known you were a Brit, Skadder, just because you write so well. How come Brits write so much better than Yanks, huh? How come?
The story is set in the near future, so it looks like I'm going to have to make my judge just bigoted rather than ignorant. I can do that. I'll probably be sending the story out to those who have offered to critique it later on this weekend.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
