posted
Winston Rogers, dean of the university's college of sciences, thrust out a belligerent lower lip and glared at the famous journalist in a hot fury. Barnabas Taylor took that fury in his stride. In his earlier days, when his now widely syndicated column was only a wild idea in a cub reporter's mind, he had specialized in 'impossible' interviews. It had cost him bruises, black eyes, and broken bones; but it had given him an ample supply of coolness and self-confidence. So he lowered the outthrust hand that had been so pointedly ignored and calmly waited for Dr. Rogers to get over the worst. Scientists were queer ducks anyway and this one was the queer-duckiest of the lot.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
hrm... sometimes a few words can throw me off into a sort of internal-tailspin. Well right now those two words are "hot fury".
In the first 13 stuff is pointing, thrusting, sticking, breaking and blackening all in a big 'hot fury'. Oye! I think a bit much is going on but I still don't know what 'is going on'. Ya know?
[This message has been edited by halogen (edited November 13, 2009).]
posted
It is a bit confusing. I think there is too much back story right off the bat. The current situation hasn't sunk in and I'm hearing about when he was a cub reporter and he's getting black eyes and then wait, what was he doing again?
It's also a bit wordy for me. "So he lowered the outthrust hand that had been so pointedly ignored and calmly waited for Dr. Rogers to get over the worst." Very long sentence when you could condense it quite a bit by taking out most of the adverbs.
I like the characterization and I think it's the strong point in this, Winston Roger's personality comes across very well.
"belligerent" lower lip. "famous" journalist. "hot" fury. All in the first sentence. You're trying too hard.
I assume this is an alternate version of the other opening you posted. With no speculative element, this feels even more 40s-ish ("queer-duckiest" being the clincher.
posted
Actually, I liked it. Maybe there are a few too many adjectives in the first sentence, (and you repeat the word fury in the second. I think it belongs there, but maybe you could edit the first to show the fury, and thus when you label it in the second sentence we can contrast our reactions as readers to how the MC sees it...)
I like how you establish enough of his history in a way that is relevant to the scene I am about (presumably) to see. Since the first paragraph is a 'freebie,' its important to establish something valuable with it. I think you did. We have the MC's character roughed out (his willingness to take a few hits for.. what exactly? something he believes in? I want to read on to find out. His odd perception on scientists (queer duckiest. Great line...))
You've pulled me into this character that now I want to see where he goes.
Winston Rogers glared at the hand offered him by the famous journalist and refused to shake it. Barnabas Taylor withdrew the hand and waited for Rogers to get over his initial anger. In Taylor's early days, when his now widely syndicated column was only a wild idea in a rookie reporter's ambitious mind, he specialized in "difficult" interviews. This left his with a few physical scares, but gave him plenty of coolness and self-confidence. So he took Rogers' reaction in stride. Scientists are an odd breed anyway. And this one, the dean of the university's college of sciences, had a reputation for being the oddest of the lot.
posted
I have not had much recent success with addressing writers new to this forum, but hopefully this will help. I could say, "This is fantastic. Great job!" But other than making you feel good, my words would be unhelpful. Please let me make some suggestions:
quote:Winston Rogers glared at the hand offered him by the famous journalist and refused to shake it.[You begin with Winston's POV, creating an expectation for the reader that he will be the MC. The reader is thrown off by then switching to BT's POV - Begin with BT and ground the reader]Barnabas Taylor withdrew the hand and waited for Rogers to get over his initial anger.[This would be a good opening simply by changing "the" to "his"] In Taylor's early days, when his now widely syndicated column was only a wild idea in a rookie reporter's ambitious mind, he specialized in "difficult" interviews. [Good]This left his [him] with a few physical scares [scars], but gave him plenty of coolness and self-confidence. So he took Rogers' reaction in stride. Scientists are an odd breed anyway. And this one, the dean of the university's college of sciences, had a reputation for being the oddest of the lot.[This is where your opening falls apart]
I would suggest you address or refer to why Rogers is angry in one of the last two sentences. I have no idea where you are going with this, but this would be a good time to start a new dialogue paragraph with Rogers (at least) hinting at why he is angry:
"I told you over the phone, Taylor, I have no comment concerning today's failure of the Holston Particle Accelerator!"
posted
I thought I was speaking my mind. The writing itself is good - I'm just making a suggestion. I'm not sure what you mean by the above comment.
Posts: 2003 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant, I don't know what experience you've had with other new writers, but you're not wasting your time on me.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, in the next few paragraphs, Rogers rails against Taylor for the columns he's been writing about the his environmental research, labeling them personal attacks and taking Taylor to task for showing his face in Rogers' office.
Taylor counters by pointing out that Rogers has nothing to complain about, since he's never granted Taylor an interview. Then Taylor insists that, like all good journalists, he wants to present every perspective.
Turns out Rogers' chief researcher initiated contact with Taylor, has been feeding him information all along, and brought him to Rogers' office hoping an interview might result in fuller, more convincing, and perhaps more favorable future columns.
Taylor and the chief researcher finally convince Rogers to calm down and explain why he's convinces the end of all life on Earth is on the horizon.
posted
How many pages does all that take? You better wow me with the writing; it seems a little tedious.
It appears I have been running several new members off - not intentionally. I don't critique very often, but I like to critique when I see a writer who reminds me of myself when I first entered Hatrack. I have often disagreed with much of what is said here, but to my dismay, whether I like it or not, I'm often proved "wrong".
I enjoy the classics - even further back, but also including the 40's and 50's. I believe there is still a market for that kind of writing, but you're not going to get there unless you can write what's out there right now. - my two cents.
[This message has been edited by philocinemas (edited November 16, 2009).]
posted
Everything discussed so far, only a dozen paragraphs. Perhaps I should open this way:
"Barnabas Taylor? You have a lot of gall coming into my office after all the columns you've written about me."
"I've been writing about your environmental research. Don't take it personally."
"You've portrayed me as the 21st century's Chicken Little."
Turning to his chief researcher, Dr. Rogers said, "I'm sure you had good intentions bringing this tabloid journalist here."
Taylor took it all in stride.
"Uh, Dr. Rogers…I'm the one who told Mr. Taylor about our project and your predictions. I thought an interview and a visit to our lab would convince him."
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited November 16, 2009).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
