posted
The crack of a 12.5mmm M1 Barret sniper rifle was unmistakable against the background noise of the rolling, tree-studded Oakland hills. Even over the noise attendant with the thirty-man Marine Reconnaissance platoon the report was clear and distinctly noticeable. The platoon’s three-man point element, just about to enter the line of eucalyptus trees along the roadway, stopped immediately, the men seeking cover at the edge of the road.
“Romeo-Three to Romeo-One, scratch one Spindly,” came the report over the platoon-net. “LT, I see at least three more in the trees, but can’t get a good bead on them. Possible nest, fifty meters north by twenty meters east. Hidden low in the brush.”
posted
So...what's going on? It's a recon platoon, assumingly on a recon mission, but that's about as far as I get. Who's shooting? Why? Personally, I'd read on just to find all this stuff out, but as many are fond of saying, tell us what we need to know and tell us when we need to know. I assume we don't need to know what's going on...yet.
posted
Thanks for the feedback. It's difficult to set and explain the full plot of a book in 13 lines, especially the first 13 lines. I really cannot put all of my research and materials and the entire story background into the first 13 lines IMO - it wouldn;t be much of a book at that point.
Incidentally, changed Marine Recon to National Guard recently though I may change it back since the story is being told in a series of flashbacks and realtime venues.
I don;t want to say too much about it at this time, just looking for feedback on the entry lines.
posted
This flows, has punch and goes somewhere fast. I didn't feel I needed to know everything up front and I would have kept reading, even though it's not my kind of material per se. I can't see a single thing wrong with it as a genre opening. Whoops! Forgot to add, as long as the very next sentence is something like 'Platoon Leader Jonathan Grouse glanced haplessly at his chief scout.' That is, next sentence would need to give us the POV via the story's focaliser (or main character).
[This message has been edited by jenn (edited December 08, 2006).]
posted
it works well enough, though the military fiction bit probably isn't my thing
one wording thing, though: "The platoon’s three-man point element, just about to enter the line of eucalyptus trees along the roadway, stopped immediately, the men seeking cover at the edge of the road."
nothing that happens nineteen words into a sentence happens "immediately". that kind of adverb needs to come sooner. plus, the "just about to enter" phrasing establishes a certain timeframe as to the now-ness of what's happening. all that is to say, you don't need the "immediately". and, the men could get an "and the men sought cover at the edge of the road" bit at the end, for another active verb* rather than putting it in an insubordinate clause
* for anyone who's seen my other comment(s) today, apparently i'm in a destroy-all-"ing"-verbs mood
posted
The military fiction bit is my thing, and this fails rather badly partly because it's trying too hard to be "hardcore". Nothing about the voice comes across as natural, and that's a big turn-off to readers who like military detail.
Enough of my special criticism as a fan of military description. Moving to more generally applicable suggestions, establish and utilize a definite POV to give your narrative focus and context.
posted
jenn said: This flows, has punch and goes somewhere fast. I didn't feel I needed to know everything up front and I would have kept reading, even though it's not my kind of material per se. I can't see a single thing wrong with it as a genre opening. Whoops! Forgot to add, as long as the very next sentence is something like 'Platoon Leader Jonathan Grouse glanced haplessly at his chief scout.' That is, next sentence would need to give us the POV via the story's focaliser (or main character).
The next few sentences expand on the POV definitely - and it is not the platoon leader.
posted
Survivor said: The military fiction bit is my thing, and this fails rather badly partly because it's trying too hard to be "hardcore". Nothing about the voice comes across as natural, and that's a big turn-off to readers who like military detail.
Enough of my special criticism as a fan of military description. Moving to more generally applicable suggestions, establish and utilize a definite POV to give your narrative focus and context.
I'm not arguing with you or defending my point, but the point is in the story at least, to establish a "hard core" POV right at the start.
I'm also a fan of military fiction, but this is scifi mixed with military and the main POV is not military (revealed in line 14 - the Lead is actually a grad student who knows what he's doing and has an axe to grind). I'm not certain where the "hard core"-ness of the idea is or where it would turn off fans of military detail (though it's not intended to be "detailed" military fiction, the details are, to the best of my knowledge, accurate).
Please feel free to email me off-list with your observations in this regard, Survivor. I'd appreciate your viewpoint(s).
posted
I felt the first three sentences lacked efficiency. I did like the way you established the setting, but mentioning the noise twice seemed a little much compared to the other information. I think you could somehow make those three sentences into two, which would allow you to bring up the Lead being a grad student earlier and establish the POV.
Posts: 162 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I didn't really understand your response perfectly, but I'll clarify my point.
If you want to establish "credibility" in your narrative, then you cannot force your voice. If you phrase things in unnatural language, then it gives the impression that you are working out of a pile of reference books rather than "writing what you know". Even if there is nothing stilted about the natural flow of text, a lack of definite POV and contextual relationships between the various events being described will leave the impression that nothing is really being described.
Your opening currently has both problems. The lack of POV makes it fairly difficult to figure out the action being described. Even when we do figure out that a "Spindly" has been eliminated by the shot which opens the narrative (and I doubt many readers figured that out on the first readthrough), we still have to guess at the significance of this fact. You also use a number of terms in misleading, apparently contradictory, or simply unconventional senses. Several of the sentances are composed with confusing or awkward syntax.
These basic problems highlight apparent difficulties with the details of the events being described, which is sort of a finishing blow to the fan of a particular sub-genre of SF. Most readers of military SF, whether or not they have a lot of tactical experience themselves, want to feel confident that the writer at least knows the difference between sound doctine and idiotic improvisation. Without good POV, you can't even signal which catagory you believe an action to occupy. Without clear, unambiguous language, you cannot describe the action well enough for the reader to tell which it is either. You currently have neither.
posted
I was really confused with the 2nd paragraph. I'm guessing it's a guy from the platoon talking, as snipers generally have the "nests." But what's a spindly? Is that an ally, because you don't have the platoon firing yet.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
