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?

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.

"belligerent" lower lip. "famous" journalist. "hot" fury. All in the first sentence. You're trying too hard.

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...))

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:

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.

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.

"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."

Night has fallen over those times, and new trends have appeared.