I have approximately 3500 words completed in a contiguous structure, and other portions are written separately. Most of the story is outlined. My original opening wasn't immediately gripping, nor did the setting come across as strong, so I tried this. Again, Scifi and Military, probably YA audience.
Scott Burke was the only survivor and yet, still a massive failure. The objective was never to survive, but to thrive; to overcome the limitations ingrained in the human genome. He understood absolutely none of it, he wasn’t a scientist, though he made a mental record of every change he felt. Scott knew he accomplished more than the others, but the malfunction during his fifth procedure was catastrophic. Before the damage was even assessed, the war was over and there was no need to continue the project.
If he stayed with his battle group instead of accepting the position in the project, he might have made a difference in the front, but probably not. The Tovians always had better weapons and since all Paragon did was take away good soldiers and turn them
All comments are welcome, of course.
Posted by Denevius (Member # 9682) on :
Sounds like this would have been really interesting if it was shown us instead of told us.
What you have here is basically a summary of events. This type of narrative is always going to have trouble pulling readers in. Your first line by itself could be a chapter, with the second line being the character motivation, and the malfunction the chapter's conclusion.
Anyway, what you have here reads like the outline you mentioned, and feels like warmup writing that needs to be unraveled and told in an active manner.
Posted by Mecopitch (Member # 10173) on :
I see what you're saying and of course agree, after the fact. I usually have a problem with including too much detail. Clearly, I over compensated. I will work on this.
Posted by shimiqua (Member # 7760) on :
Yeah, the setting is still not coming through strongly. Where is Scott during the opening of the story? I have no clue, and before I understand who, what and where, you pull away and say "there was no need to continue the project."
This might just be personal opinion, but I generally don't like when the author tells me to not keep reading in the first thirteen lines.
I'm wondering if you're starting in the right place in the story. If you feel compelled to start after the war, then this background info can be shown organically. If you want to start at the second of the disaster ( which I suggest) then let us sit there. Let us see what's happening, let us feel the medicine in our veins, and let us get to know who Scott was before he was a survivor. There is so much interesting you can put in there, about the loneliness of trying to survive on his own. About trying to be precise about measuring his own body's changes, and the fear that he'd end up just like everyone else. Let us live through the malfunction, and then see the frustration that after everything and everyone who died they just were going to abandon the project, and now what was he supposed to do with his life.
It feels like you're holding back information, and I council to not do that. Give us everything you have. Let us live inside your story. Let it take time.
This is a cool idea and your writing is clean and engaging. The issue is that it's so far away from the POV.
Posted by Thengel (Member # 10175) on :
Great first line! It made me want to keep reading to see what the background of the story was going to be and how this seeming contradiction could be true.
The rest of it I started losing interest. You threw out a lot of references to names, events, and things that meant nothing to me.
There's nothing really in the situation anchoring me into the story.
The pieces you give seem to hint to rich background, however.
Posted by Mecopitch (Member # 10173) on :
It looks as if detail is my best friend, after all. Thank you guys,