***

“Shut up! You’re wrong!” Xavier yelled, picking up the earthen sculpture from the side board and throwing it against the brick wall of his study, missing Nicholas’s head by more than a foot.

Nicholas winced, not from fear but rather from the loss of a valuable artifact. His employer must be in a particularly foul mood, he thought, if he was willing destroyed such an item. While not particularly careful, Xavier was still an archaeologist and usually demonstrated at least a modicum of respect for history.

“My evidence is irrefutable!” the graying aristocrat continued, stabbing the air with a finger and waving his arms. “How dare you try and detract from what I know is true, with supposition and conjecture? Unlike you and your evidence, I can read the engravings in the Loreen Caves. It speaks very clearly of a being of power and strength that once lived on this forsaken hunk of rock, a creature of such might that those who served him were blessed and exercised dominion over all others. When I hired you, I expected a scientist and scholar, not a superstitious weakling?”

Pretty interesting. I think that it should stand up to most of the people in here.
<crossing fingers > I'd definitly read on.

If you indeed mean to paint Xavier as such a total cretin, at least let Nicholas think of him how any real archeologist would.

POVwise, you start with a line of dialogue, then a bold action that is described without identifying the POV or revealing the true significance of the described action. Only in the second paragraph do you establish the POV and mention that the earthen sculpture is a valuable artifact rather than simply an unfired work by some amateur sculptor.

However, the prose is mostly solid and easily decipherable. Some of what is actually described doesn't make a lot of sense (like "stabbing the air with a finger and waving his arms"--these motions cannot be performed simultaneously by the same person), but the language is vivid and mostly correct.

Some exceptions are apparent. The phrase, "he was willing destroyed such an item" is perfectly clear in meaning but entirely lacking in proper syntax. Xavier says, "Unlike you and your evidence, I can read..." which doesn't make much sense, since one could hardly expect most conventional forms of evidence to be capable of reading. Still, Xavier's personal linguistic failings are perhaps not a reflection on the coherence of the text itself (even though his ravings provide the bulk of this fragment). More eye catching, you punctuate his final statement as a question, for no readily apparent reason.

But the main thing is still the bit with Xavier smashing the artifact in a fit of rage over being contradicted. If you don't intend to portray him as the sort of utter philistine that would do such a thing, then don't have him do it.

If you do have him do it, then Nicholas should react much more strongly. Either he already has an extremely low opinion of Xavier (such that the thought "Xavier was still an archaeologist" wouldn't even cross his mind even in a charitable moment), or he should be utterly shocked, as though he had witnessed a mother casually tossing her infant out the window of a moving car.

All in all, this is well written and makes me curious to find out what it's all about. However, if it is the beginning of the story, you're going to receive a great deal of objection to opening with dialogue. Set it up first, otherwise we feel like we're being forced to jump on the bus without the driver being courteous enough to actually stop it first.

The rest is nitpicks.
1. Who exactly has the evidence? First Xavier says his evidence is irrefutable, then he accuses Nicholas of using supposition and conjecture, then he refutes Nicholas's evidence. If Nicholas is using supposition and conjecture he wouldn't have any evidence, would he?
2. I am seeing Xavier as the old-style historian or archaeologist. I don't pciture a brick interior wall to such a person's study. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen or heard of or read about a study with brick interior walls. And Xavier states that they are on a forsaken hunk of rock. Would he even have a study? Or would they be in a makeshift project hut made of cinder block or something similar?
3. In the last paragraph you have a couple of question marks that probably ought to be exclamation points.

quote:

---

It speaks...of a being of power and strength..., a creature of such might that those who served him were blessed and exercised dominion over all others.

---

As to the destruction of the artifact, yes, that would be in Xavier's character. He's rich, self-involved, and, for all intents and purpose, unanswerable to any higher authority (again, this becomes clear in the next part).

Openning with dialogue is something I will have to give quite a bit of thought to.

All in all, though, thanks for the feedback. You have raised some very valid points, and I will need to make sure I adress those.