quote:

---

“No water, Stefan, I am not thirsty, I am dying.” Father Francisco Matras pushed the glass away. The effort made him cough again and he cursed, silently--always silently--and sank back onto the bed, which was too soft, too clean and white. His rheumy eyes could barely make out where the pale, starched sheets ended and the white, starched walls of his cell began. Only the window was clear: a single dark slit, open to the night air through which the last red stain of evening drained and the song of the cicadas sounded.

The robed figure inclined his head, “Your will, father.” He turned to leave, but before he could step away, a gnarled hand caught his hand and held him.

“No. Stay a while. I would not be alone, tonight.

---

I don't see a high magnitude question posed in those thirteen lines.

What will happen to Father Matras is already answered in the opening: He will die. He is portrayed as an old man, so that's what I take as the answer to the why-he's-dying question. The most basic question of what will happen to Father Matras is mostly answered before the story's truly begun. Therefore, the basic question that presents to me is, what happened before he knew he was dying? If that's so, I'd like to see that question posed as early as possible.

Traditionally, science fiction's basic overarching question was what if. What if time travel were possible? What if vessels capable of traveling at superluminal velocities were possible? And so on. Fantasy, traditionally, similar basic what-if questions.

Mysteries, who done it. Psychological thrillers, who and why who done it. Adventures, will the hero succeed on an epic quest? Amatory romances, will they or won't they? And so on.

Minor personal nit only; I don't like dialogue openings, so I'd swap the dialogue and action, i.e.

quote:

---

Father Francisco Matras pushed the glass away. “No water, Stefan, I am not thirsty, I am dying.”

---

For me, the style and situation are enough to keep me reading.

To carry on along an interesting tangent, isn't the question a writer really wants to get their readers asking not so much what if, or who, or how, but rather: what then? Of course, its easier to spout fine theories about writing than to actual get something down – so I'd better get back to that.

Other than that, I am waiting for Father Matras to say his peace.

I think what is lacking, for me, is an indication of why he wants Stefan to stay the night. If it is to be with him when he dies, then the drama turns to personal sorrow. That's not going to interest me as much. I don't read to wallow in grief.

If he is going to say or do something vital to or for Stefan, then I think your hook has no barb. You have to sacrifice a little drama later for some drama in the first 13 lines and that sacrifice isn't yet there.

On the initial read, there were only a few minor nitpicks for me. One was Father Francisco. To me this alliteration calls attention to itself, and providing the full name is debatably unnecessary - Father Matras may work equally well.

The other was the 'white' of the bed and walls, and the ruddy sunset outside. I would expect that the ambient light would tinge the inside of the room with a touch of red hue - something that, since it doesn't happen, stands out to my eye.

The father in “Your will, father.” is a title and should probably be capitalised.

I'm not sure that Stefan being the robed figure is obvious enough. Then again, maybe it is. I'm just not sure about it.

Lastly, as an overall read, I didn't find this intro really grabbed me at all. For all I knew, Francisco could just be being a melodramatic hypochondriac with bad vision and not about to die at all. There is no exceptionally compelling reason for me to stay, just as there is none for Stefan.

The first paragraph is clearly from the dying priest's perspective.

However:

The robed figure inclined his head, “Your will, father.” He turned to leave, but before he could step away, a gnarled hand caught his hand and held him.

This line, if I read it on its own, would make me think the POV was the robed figure, as he is being grabbed rather than the priest doing the grabbing.

Skadder, I see what you mean about taking a step back from PoV. Would it help if I emphasized the tags, ie:

quote:

---

The robed figure inclined his head, “Your will, Father.” He turned to leave, but before he could step away, Francisco's gnarled hand caught and held him.

---

I think either version is probably omni, but perhaps the second inclines more towards Francisco?

BenM, I whitewashed the starched walls and fixed the “father”. Still the hook remains subtle and I understand the without a stronger speculative element, the intro isn't compelling for you.

Here's a second shot at the opening the skips the 'frame'. This one starts with action and keeps chronography, but might weaken the ending that focuses on a certain dying priest...

quote:

---

Francisco lay on the dirt, numb with pain. He fixed his eyes on the twin headlights of the jeep and tried to ignore the rest. The beating was pretty well over and the lesson learned: to move was to suffer. Every word, every gesture was met with an equal and disproportionate violence and so silence and stillness were the only way to bring an end to it. So he lay still and waited.

Silhouettes reeled between him and the light, forms blurred by the loose-fit of their fatigues: Everett and Maston. His buddies. His brothers. Two months into basic training and he had thought that he knew them. A mistake, that.

“How do you like me now, fagot?” A booted foot hit his head, snapping it back. Hot sand

---

I think perhaps it is the knowledge implied with the phrase '...he turned to leave...'. From the priest's POV this is a guess, the robed figure could be turning to pick something up or to look at something before turning back. The same stands for the 'before he could step away'--again knowledge that the robed figure would only know for sure. It is the the sum of all these POV uncertainties that make it seem like the robed figues POV.

-The robed figure inclined his head. "Your will father."
Francisco grabbed the man's arm before he could step away."No, stay a while. I would not be alone tonight."

On an aside, if you wish to establish an omniscient POV you have to be upfront in establishing that from the off. Your intro starts with a close POV of the priest and so the expectation is that will be how you will continue. This can be considered off putting to the reader.

I read somewhere that when you start in omni you should start IN OMNI and not in a version of third. It needs to be clear exactly what POV you are using.

e.g. The priest lay alone on his bed and watched the morning sun rise, unaware it would be the last of his life. Outside his door, the killer silently screwed the silencer on his pistol

The above sentence clarifies, in a stroke, that the it is an omniscient POV, as the narrator is clearly identifying knowledge that the character has no clue about.

Another:

I think the fact that a lot of physical actions are directly associated with Father Francisco in the first paragraph firmly link the POV with him. As Skadder suggested, I think you need an indication very early on that the omni narrator is being used.

While there’s obvious action in the second version, I found it a little short of context. I wanted more grounding in who was being beaten and why rather than being thrown straight in.

The first version worked for me. Yes, there’s a lack of speculative element or obvious conflict. We don’t know what the opening promise is and I’d be disappointed if something spectacular didn’t happen *but* the prose was solid enough for me to trust you.

The narrative point of view remains in one place. I visualize the stage location of each focal item as follows,
Farther rank: Father Matras, the bed, the wall, the window, the outside.
Nearer rank: Stefan standing next to the anonymous objective narrator (me, the reader) taking in the setting without moving position.

I don't see the narrator as moving across the "camera" line between Matras and Stefan, either. The narrator stays in one fixed position, albeit psychically accessing Matras' thoughts.

A standing person turning away from a dying man is logically an indication to the dying man (and the narrator) that he, Stefan, is leaving. I don't see the narrator accessing Stefan's interior thoughts. Matras' grabbing Stefan's hand is a logical effect of Matras wanting Stefan to stay. Access to thoughts remains limited to Matras', which I don't see as omniscient, but as limited psychic access to one character, Matras.

I think the transition from outside the window to Stefan is a bit abrupt, though, mostly because it's not specific enough to show clearly that the narrator has pulled out of Matras' thoughts without a go-back reading.

I imagined both men are wearing monastic robes. The word cell immediately cued me in to that, as in monastic cell. Consider whether the window might be better as an iconic symbol rather than a slit, which would qualify the monastic nature of the cell more. A simple medical cross, a simple Coptic ankh (resembles the gender symbol for male sex), a Maltese cross which is the symbol of the Knights Hospitaler, or whatever, depending on what order Matras belongs to. If Matras is a Jesuit, a Spanish priest could logically be a Jesuit. The icon becomes more problematic, occasionally represented as IHS with a crucifix topping the H, but formally JHS with the crucifix above the H. The name Francisco suggests to me that he might be of a Franciscan order, though, which a simple crucifix could represent.

Something like below the quote might smooth out the abruptness of transition from outside to Stefan.

quote:

---

The robed figure inclined his head, “Your will, father.” He turned to leave, but before he could step away, a gnarled hand caught his hand and held him.

---

//Stefan bent over and set the waterglass on the night stand beside the bed. Robe readjusted, he bowed his head. "Your will, father." He turned to leave. Before he could step away, Matras' gnarled hand caught Stefan and held him.//

In my earlier life, my parents wished for me to become a priest. Traditional Irish Catholic thingy for a second son. I learned enough about the priesthood before that course had been forced upon me to get out of it. Same with a military officer's career, which they also wanted for me. One thing, a priest takes a new name, a saint's name upon ordination that precedes his given name as far as the church is concerned, same with nuns.

A baptismal name (first sacrament) is identical to a secular given name. Traditionally the second sacrament, confirmation, a middle name is given for the Sacrament of Chrismation. The Sacrament of the Eucharist is the third sacrament, another middle name is given that follows the second-sacrament one. However, in modern practice the Eucharist sacrament commonly precedes Chrismation.

Sacrament of Penance, fourth sacrament. Extreme Unction, annointing of the gravely ill, fifth sacrament. Holy Orders, ordination, sixth sacrament. Matrimony, seventh sacrament. Which sacrament comes when in the pecking order varies from religious order to order and parish to parish, but the general sense is there. The important point is that saints' names are traditionally given for baptism, Chrismation, and Eucharist, though in modern practice a supplicant may take a Chrismation name (sort of like a rite of passage into adolescence), and upon ordination a saint's name is taken.

A priest then might have a name something like this; Peter Francis Dominic Joseph Smith.

Edited to add: Oh, upon reflection, Matras not wanting to sleep alone is a brilliant metaphor for not wanting to die alone. In some Spanish cultures sleeping is known as the little death. Also, the question that the original thirteen lines raise for me is a subtle one, what will Matras say to Stefan that will set the plot in motion. As far as introducing Matras, I think the first note of the chorus is well and truly struck.

Omni was a red-Herring. Sorry. I should have known better than to bring it up. I guess I meant something along the lines of: moving out from a close(ish) PoV to something more neutral.

And thank you Extrinsic for the wealth of information and some neat suggestions. I guess I know who to come and bother for details about the priesthood, now!