There is a little bit of redundancy going on. I don't think you need to say "bringing my dad's king into check," because that's what the word "check" already indicated. Also, 'Not sure I want to Dad' seems unnecessary because we already know from what the father says that Nate doesn't want to.
There is no special interaction between the father and son that characterizes these people for me, nor are there any clues from the setting. It could be any father and son chess-playing pair on the planet, from any decade. Because I have not yet seen anything to interest me in either character, I am not interested by their chess game or their predictable conversation. My suggestion is to introduce them along with some kind of interesting trait or attitude. What is interesting about either of them? Is there any importance to the fact that the son has put his father in check, or is it just a random move in the game? What are their attitudes toward each other and toward the game?
The part about Socrates being something the boy has to fix and *also* something capable of having an affair is just interesting enough to possibly make me want to keep reading out of curiosity.
I agree with much of what DevinAethnen said. I'll just add few nits. There are three run-on sentences; the commas in the snippets should be periods or semicolons:
...me all night, time to spit it out.' ...chess pieces, he has managed.... ...how to fix it, I think....
And using a complete sentence as a dialog tag seems 'wrong' to me, and may need a period:
He pushes the board aside, 'Do I...'.
Might be nice to know Socrates' relationship to Nate and Dad.
Chess rant : close to 100% of chess scenes I've seen in short fiction are 'Check!' situations, even though that is not necessarily a significant event. Nate could conceivably lose the game on his father's responsive move. There's nothing wrong or inauthentic about it, but it's a bit of a chess clique in literature. For something different, consider something like: I moved my knight, putting more pressure on Dad's kingside.
Another chess rant The king moving behind the pawn can be read to imply an attack on a line. That means the attacking piece should be a queen or a rook. (Of course the move behind the pawn could be incidental, but you may have stopped some chess players by then.) By changing the first line to what Wouldbe suggested, then the second chess line makes perfect sense.
Posts: 789 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |