"Rebels fight for causes," I noted. "You and the rest of your kin, however, fight for no discernable reason beyond chaos and anarchy."
"Bah," the rebel replied. "Propoganda." He frowned slightly as a grenade rolled to a halt beside us and quickly kicked it away. "But considering our current--" He paused for a second to shoot a young soldier that had attempted to flank our position. "--situation, why don't we cooperate?"
I considered. It was two of us against an entire company--half-company, I amended, given the bodies--of heavily armed soldiers, not to mention their rapidly approaching air support.
posted
I'm intrigued by the situation here. you have two people who aren't on the same side, getting attacked by the same enemy. So, there's a hook. I'm not picking up the speculative element, but that's a lesser point.
quote:"Rebels fight for causes," I noted. "You and the rest of your kin, however, fight for no discernable reason beyond chaos and anarchy."
This sentence is too constructed, too specific, too full of hedge words to be something uttered in a firefight. "You fight for anarchy" is more believable. Also, it seems to me that your MC views himself as part of the conflict, not merely an observer who got caught in the crossfire. So, why not "I fight for causes," or "We fight for x." It would give us a better understanding of what's at stake.
quote:"Bah," the rebel replied. "Propoganda." He frowned slightly as a grenade rolled to a halt beside us and quickly kicked it away. "But considering our current--" He paused for a second to shoot a young soldier that had attempted to flank our position. "--situation, why don't we cooperate?"
There's a grenade, but... Where's the kaboom? There's supposed to be an earth shattering kaboom. Right now it reads as though the character just kicked the grenade through a clipping error. So far, the battle isn't real to me. Your characters are treating it too nonchalantly. Plus, your MC, who is telling us this in the first person, just called this person a rebel, when he just got through saying that the guy wasn't a rebel.
quote:I considered. It was two of us against an entire company--half-company, I amended, given the bodies--of heavily armed soldiers, not to mention their rapidly approaching air support.
So... they've already taken out half the enemy forces, and they are just now thinking of teaming up? I'm not getting any tension here.
Posts: 388 | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I see the hook, but it isn't working for me.
I think you started too late. I feel like you are starting mid conversation, and I'd rather you start when these two first meet. There is also no indication of setting other than him shooting a soldier, which is wierd because I am wondering if the soldier was the narrator's comrade if not then why is the narrator on the battlefield, if that is where they are.
My suggestion is to start earlier, give us a sense of setting and show us how these two men end up in a conversation.
I myself don't prefer a dialog beginning. I want to see the landscape first, even if only a little. Otherwise these guys are talking in a void. Put me in a trench, give me smoke, red light from a flare overhead, night, day, hot, cold, rain...
posted
I disagree with some of the comments that starting in the middle of a conversation doens't work. If anything, it really sucks you in. I can give tons of examples of books that started with conversations. Rose Macaulay's The Towers of Trebizon and Katherine Dunn's Greek Love to name a couple. When it is done well, as this is, I don't think that is an issue.
Also, I liked the mood you set. It's obviously a serious, even deadly situation as evidenced by the granade the rebel had to kick away. But they are making light of it, which is never a bad thing. I mean, the rebel paused mid sentense to shoot a guy, then went right on talking. Your MC had time to consider the body count. I get the tension and I realize the stakes are high (there is half a company coming after them) but I also get that this is just a part of the character's life. I can tell they are both competant fighters: there are two against a half company and they're not throwing up the white flag. Both exhibit some good character traits: they aren't wimps, your MC fights with honor (you get that right away in his dialogue), they are considering putting their differences aside to fight together. I already like both of them.
I wish I had something critical to say. I just thought you could use some positive feedback because this is good. If I'm an agent or editor, I'm request a partial or full MS. If I'm in a book store looking at the first chapter, I'm getting out the debit card and this book is coming home with me. Good luck with this, I'm interested to see how it goes!
[This message has been edited by TrishaH24 (edited February 26, 2010).]
[This message has been edited by TrishaH24 (edited February 26, 2010).]
posted
I'm a total dork! I just remembered two other books that begin with dialogue: Enders Game (Orson Scott Card...duhhh-rrr!) and Beyond World's End (Mercedes Lackey and Rosemary Edghill).
Posts: 184 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
