posted
At dawn, in a stuffy and smoky second-class carriage in which five people had already spent the night, a bulky woman in deep mourning was hoisted in--almost like a shapeless bundle. Behind her, puffing and moaning, followed her husband--a tiny man, thin and weakly, his face death-white, his eyes small and bright and looking shy and uneasy.
Having at last taken a seat he politely thanked the passengers who had helped his wife and who had made room for her; then he turned round to the woman trying to pull the collar of her coat, and politely inquired:
"Are you all right, dear?"
The wife, instead of answering, pulled up her collar again to her eyes so as to hide her face.
"Nasty world," muttered the husband with a sad smile.
Feeling it his duty to explain to his traveling companions that the poor woman was to be pitied, for the war was taking away from her her only son, he said . . . .
[This message has been edited by Enten-Eller (edited January 26, 2004).]
posted
Sorry. Here it is. Which war? Fantasy set during WWII.
Feeling it his duty to explain to his traveling companions that the poor woman was to be pitied, for the war was taking away from her her only son, he said, "Our son just left for the front. He wasn't suppose to--they promised us. But they sent him anyway. Three days ago."
[This message has been edited by Enten-Eller (edited January 26, 2004).]
quote:Feeling it his duty to explain to his traveling companions that the poor woman was to be pitied, for the war was taking away from her her only son, he said
Why? You were doing just fine, then you break into the "Let me tell you all about it". It apears at this point that you are fixing your pov on the husband, and he is going to go into a long dialog about something. Show it, don't tell it. If the wife is upset about the loss of a child it is easily show by just having the husband say so. Why do you need to tell the reader the reason and then you are going to put it in dialog again.
The begining was good, now you just have to keep showing the story. Telling is ok as long as it isn't long or boring. You dribble it in along the way so it doesn't interfear with the story.
quote:"Our son just left for the front. He wasn't suppose to--they promised us. But they sent him anyway. Three days ago."
This explains all we need to know, and it comes out as part of the story, not an explination. Skip the intro reason for the pending dialog.
Posts: 807 | Registered: Mar 2003
|
posted
Good opening. I agree about the explanation part from the husbands point of view. Let some one inquire as to why she is in such a state, even if he answers for her, I think it would still be ok. To back up a bit, I had a problem understanding a part of this sentance:
quote:then he turned round to the woman trying to pull the collar of her coat, and politely inquired:
I had to think of which woman you were referring to. I guess it gets cleared up in the next sentance, but it bothered me a little.
Change a few minor things, and I think you've got a ringer.
posted
First sentence a bit awkward, don't you think? Rather than two -y ending words, maybe "stuffy and smoke-filled."
quote:a bulky woman in deep mourning was hoisted in--almost like a shapeless bundle
Sounds like the woman was brought in with a crane.
Maybe the others could tell she was in mourning, maybe even deep mourning, but whose POV is this? If the husband's, then "woman" is too distant. Use of woman, his wife, the wife confuses the issue -- is it all the same person or more than one?
"Death white" is a nice reference to the son's death.
One of the hooks is obviously the woman's emotional pain, but don't lose it in long explanations in the paragraphs to come. Like someone wrote, show it.
The other hook, to me, is the husband, and his attentiveness to his wife. Is it genuine or is he simply fulfilling a role, either of which will get a different reader response, so be careful about choosing the POV character. Readers generally don't warm up to despicable POV characters.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited January 27, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited January 28, 2004).]
posted
Why were they travelling in a carriage if this is a WW11 scenario? Or is it a train carriage, because it did not have the feel of a train carriage.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted
Actually, it definitely felt like a train carriage to me. The suggestion that five people had spent the night in it kind of ruled out most other forms of carriage, along with the reference to second class...
Altogether a good start. The POV is a little confusing; it does seem as though you're concentrating on the husband, which doesn't fit in (as said above) with describing his wife as 'a woman'; if the POV is his you should really be using names... if the POV is one of the other people in the carriage, you obviously can't really explain his motivations for what you do.
In the phrase "then he turned round to the woman trying to pull the collar of her coat" it isn't clear whether he is trying to pull the collar of her coat or she is. I would rephrase this to make your meaning easier to understand. It might also be better to start a new sentence here, rather than have it as part of the previous one.
posted
I agree with everyone else that this looks to shape up well. Something I did notice- I'm not sure if this would count as an issue or not, since I haven't seen enough of your writing to be sure if it's a general trend, but all of your sentences in this example (except for dialogue) are composed of multiple imbricated clauses, even when you could change a dash or semicolon and a word to make a new sentence very easily. I felt like this was making it a bit more confusing to follow. You might consider keeping an eye out for sentences that are long without needing to be, or places where two seperate thoughts have been put into one sentence. A few simple declaratives can be more readable than an unneccesarily long set of clauses expressing the same information. But overall, this is an intriguing situation.
Posts: 253 | Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted
'Imbricated clauses.' That's a new one on me, Gen. Overlapping clauses. Is that an actual grammar term, or did it just seem apropos? (I've heard of New Math, but New Grammar? )
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted
"Imbricated" as a geology term refers to sediments or rock layers forced on top of one another by faults. And I like the word... Things pushed in together and making life confusing. At least if you're mapping faults they make life confusing.
I guess it seemed apropos...
Edit: I was using the word in terms of piling things together, not in terms of things being faulty... It's a pretty sad, but my primary definition of fault has to do with rocks these days. One of the unrecognized dangers of the earth sciences.
[This message has been edited by Gen (edited January 28, 2004).]
posted
Boy, forget a smiley face and see how crotchety a post sounds. (See newly-added smiley to crane comment above. )
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted
Shame on you, Enter-Eller. Shame on you! I suppose you think your Pete Rose -- you didn't think you'd get caught. What were you thinking? Shame on you!
posted
WOW!! All I can say is WOW! Good deducing Balthasar! Color me shocked. I guess all that book learnin' comes in handy sometimes.
You know what this means, we have a freak of nature right here on this BB. A real life IMMORTAL! Enten-Eller must be around a hundred and thirty years old. And to still be writing at that age is incredible, hell it is a miracle! I want to know your secret to long life "Luigi"!
[This message has been edited by TruHero (edited January 30, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by TruHero (edited January 30, 2004).]
posted
Book learning, eh? Well, I'm not quite that geeky. The story is in a book called Understanding Fiction (a book I'd highly recommend if you interested in studying the elements of good fictin), and it happens to be one of my favorite short stories of all time. It's a great story -- I hope you read it.
I also want to send some kudos to those who commented on the last sentence in Eller's post not making sense. The reason why is because he changed it -- he put in dialogue where Pirandello is still supplying backstory.
posted
It might have been to see if we would tear it apart as being an awful beginning, and then Enter-Eller would say, "Hah! Shows how much you know -- this is a published story by an actual author."
But from the comments, it seems most people thought it was a good beginning.
posted
Eric is probably right. Why else would Enter-Eller do it? He (or she) certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to send it off like that, but maybe I'm presuming too much.
Good work, Balthasar. I took your advice and read the real story. I'm not much into short fiction, but I liked it.
[This message has been edited by Jerome Vall (edited January 30, 2004).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
