SF I want to see how this opening is received. I am looking to resolve clarity. Two main agendas should be evident, and a third, minor agenda. It's been quite a mental wrestling match.
Zach holstered his plasma pistol and his coat closed over it. The plan finally had a chance, but he had to keep Spike alive through the training contract. “Never yell when you gotta shoot. If these two had been armed, you’d be dead. Now clean up.”
Spike had been ordered to yell. Two brand new pistols in an unopened box by the door proved it. Spike didn’t know he was a loose end that Scroffa needed to tie up. He’d be dead if the two dealers had opened the box when it arrived. Time to plant a seed in the hundman’s head. “Spike, you’ll be lucky to make it through the night.”
“Mr. Scroffa says you’ll make me a hit man.” Spike shook the can of DNA Eliminase and started spraying both bodies as he’d been taught.
Posted by WolfCreature (Member # 9486) on :
A good tight opening. Had to read it a couple of times to wrap my head around the contradictory information that "Spike had been ordered to yell." It wasn't clear to me who ordered Spike to yell. The next sentence suggests that Scroffa did the ordering:
> Spike didn’t know he was a loose end that Scroffa needed to tie up.
I really like DNA Eliminase. Two words immediately bring to mind exactly what the stuff does. Excellent.
> Two brand new pistols in an unopened box by the door proved it.
If the box is unopened, how would Zach know?
How long is story? Would be happy to exchange full reviews.
- WolfCreature.
Posted by Denevius (Member # 9682) on :
Lots of characters introduced in a limited word count. Zach, who I guess the story isn't about, but we meet him first; Spike, who I think the story is about, though he's mentioned second; the two dead dealers; and Scroffa, who is a mystery so far.
Who knows, maybe the story is about Zach. I just realized you're jumping through POVs, which makes the narrative more confusing. Are we supposed to be following Zach or Spike?
Other than that, your opening is somewhat compelling. I'm curious to know what these guys are up to.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
Sharp, clean, clear style. A dramatic complication of appreciable magnitude. Empathy-worthy and curiosity-arousing tension development. And intrigue and mystery.
I had no problems following and realizing the viewpoint character is Zach, that all this is from his perspective, sensations, speech, thoughts, actions and reactions, etc.
The choice of "Scroffa" is an intriguing name for a crime boss. I know it to mean fat pig bitch in its Greek form and somewhat the same in urban dialect. I worked in Greek restaurants for a number of years.
I'm a little unsure about the unopened box being proof Scroffa told Spike to yell at the dealers, that Zach knows. I like what's implied though, that Scroffa made fulfilling the training contract difficult for Spike and Zach, curious that there's more of that to come and caring for Zach and Spike's well-being since the scrofa Scroffa has it in for them.
The first sentence is a little bumpy, not per se gramatically faulty, but a little at odds and run-on in the "and" conjoined two independent clauses not being parallel. I get that the coat is meant to signal the weapon is concealed, signal possibly a deliberate act meant to imply and pre-position nefarious acts are afoot. The issue is that the Zach holstered and coat closed acts are not concurrent, different ideas, different subjects, different predicates, and the only similarities are the sentence objects.
The first sentence of the second paragraph is passive voice. If Scroffa is who ordered Spike to yell, maybe naming him could be stronger and clearer implication that Scroffa has wicked intentions.
The last few words of the fragment are also problematic. The sentence starts in active voice and switches unnecessarily to passive voice. The final clause, "as he'd been taught," is passive voice. The doer of the action "taught" is left unnamed. //as he'd learned// would be active voice. Or naming who taught Spike how to use the DNA Eliminase. Scroffa, I'd expect, the scrofa is up to no good with his own crew, since Spike is a loose end Scroffa wants tied up.
I infer "the hundman" is Spike. The word "hundman" is a little too unconventional for it not to be clarified immediately. Maybe a regional reference, like the Merhabious hundman (hinterland-man?), which if a place is named might give a contextural clue at least that the hundman is a country boy come to the big city, or some such context or textural hint. Not much, maybe only one short place-name word.
For delightfully once in a long time and many fragments, by the way, grammatically correct use of "as".
"DNA Eliminase" is both extraordinarily descriptive naming exposition and a touch of amusing irony. Crime scientists use products with -ase names in their investigtaions, A criminal-use product name like that, that spoils scientific crime investigation, gave me a chuckle.
I know what's going on, who what's happening to, who's the viewpoint character, my caring and curiosity are aroused--tension development begun. Antagonizing event and character development are strongly and clearly begun, too, only setting that authenticates a narrative's illusion of reality imitation is I think a shortcoming.
A tidbit of setting development is I think called for in this fragment. One stronger "telling detail" than "by the door" could work miracles in that regard. What kind of place is this? An urban residence or apartment? Then might the box be on a foyer table? Or, horror of horrors, on a radiator? If an industrial or warehouse place, maybe on a shipping stand or desk. Etc. That one detail could evoke an image of the entire setting space: time, place, and situation.