posted
I am new to both fiction writing and this forum. I am not confident in my craftsmanship, and I feel fortunate to have found such a valuable resource as hatrack river.
Below are the first 13 lines of a story called (for now) Red-Headed Devil. I eagerly await your criticisms.
As I stood among the corpses, alone and alive, the irrepressible analytical animal in my mind hunted for reasons behind the gory chaos around me. Not why—no part of me remained naïve enough to care why—but the how of it. I needed to understand, because only by understanding could I make the one decision left to me. Still-warm blood pooled under my bare feet. My toes stuck together where it had begun to dry. An attempt to remember the location of my shoes was swept aside by more pressing mental processes as, finally, I began to act. The obvious conclusion presented itself as I stepped over Preston’s body, careful to avoid any contact between his dead flesh and my living skin. This happened because she spurned him. She spurned him and he went crazy and this happened. No. True, but not quite right. My mind automatically reclassified the conclusion as an intermediate cause and continued searching for something more fundamental. I sighed at my own obtuseness. Doubtless the horror of the last hour was affecting my thoughts. No conclusion could be sufficient unless it accounted for Gratia.
<As I stood among the corpses, alone and alive, the irrepressible analytical animal in my mind hunted for reasons behind the gory chaos around me.>
For an opening sentence, I believe this to be a little too long. Perhaps you could break it up into two sentences.
<Not why—no part of me remained naïve enough to care why—but the how of it.>
I believe it may flow better if the last bit is just '-but how.' and if you dropped the last 'why'.
<The obvious conclusion presented itself as I stepped over Preston’s body>
It's hard to get into this without knowing who Preston is. Maybe that's just me. I almost want to be introduced to him while he is alive. And then find out who the 'she' is.
It's interesting, so far I picture this character as an andriod or perhaps an alien. He thinks very analytical.
posted
It might be helpful to understand setting here. I don't know enough about the POV character to understand why he uses such stiff, formal language. It gives him a certain emotional detachment AND puts a barrier between he and the reader. Almost too intellectual to be sympathetic. Either explain, and very soon, why he is this way, or tone down the language.
Second, the POV is being secretive with the information he possesses. If he introduces a concept he needs to explain it. Not hide it. For instance, third line he says:
"...only by understanding could I make the one decision left to me."
What decision? He can't say something like that without immediately explaining it. My dad used to do that all the time. He'd be sitting there, reading or something and he'd say: "Huh!" But then he'd never say what had interested him so much to say something like that. It drove us crazy. And he knew it. It was a classic tease from him.
However fun it might have been for Dad, it was annoying for us. And thus it is true for a writer. Don't say "Huh!" without telling us why. It will only annoy and turn off your readers.
On the plus side, I'm kind of curious about what's going on. Standing among corpses is a great place to begin.
I also agree with what others have said. And I think this is wordy and could be tightened up a lot. For example:
> As I stood among the corpses, alone and alive, When I first read this, I thought "alone and alive" referred to the corpses, not the narrator, and had a brief "huh?" moment. I think you could cut "alive," since life is implied by standing (and by contrast with the corpses), and move "alone" to be closer to its object.
> the irrepressible analytical animal in my mind hunted for reasons behind the gory chaos around me. "irrepressible analytical" is too many adjectives in a row, and would be more effectively shown than told, I think. Attributing the curiousity to the "animal in my mind" is distancing, as djvdakota said (and besides, "analytical" doesn't really match up with "animal"). We already know that the narrator is surrounded by corpses, which makes both "gory" and "around me" unnecessary (although I think it sounds better with "around me" so I put that back in.) "Hunted" is good.
I would try something like: Alone among the corpses, I hunted for a reason for the chaos around me.
Not that that's brilliant and you should write like that! Just trying to illustrate my point.
How long is the whole piece? I might be able to read it this weekend, if it is not too long.
Edited to add that it is brave of you to post your work here despite feeling totally new and not confident! I hope you are able to get a lot out of reading and posting here.
[This message has been edited by Beth (edited October 13, 2004).]
As I stood among the corpses, alone and alive, the irrepressible analytical animal [A tiny bit too poetic] in my mind hunted for reasons behind the gory[Cut to keep text smooth] chaos around me. Not why—no part of me remained naïve enough to care why—but the how of it. [This sentence made me think for a second. You have a mind hunting for reasons, then you have a mind hunting for the how of the matter. Doesn't seem to go together] I needed to understand, because only by understanding could I make the one decision left to me. Still-warm blood pooled under my bare feet. My toes stuck together where it had begun to dry. An attempt to remember the location of my shoes was swept aside by more pressing mental processes as, finally, I began to act. [What does this mean? Explain here! This will solve so many problems in your text that there is little reason (unless you have some narrative intent) for not doing so.]
[Here it is. This is the spot where, imo, your text unravels completely. Though not optimal earlier, it still is strong enough to carry reader interest. It promises enough and has a vivid setting. However, time is fading fast! You need to smooth into something that offsets the problems of reflective openings -- namely that of lack of rational action.
But you don't. In fact, much of the next part is confusing. The problem could be that you're trying too hard for mystery. Keep some of the vivid, reflective opening and then slip more rational action + movement and what not in.]
The obvious conclusion presented itself as I stepped over Preston’s body, careful to avoid any contact between his dead flesh and my living skin. This happened because she spurned him. She spurned him and he went crazy and this happened. No. True, but not quite right. My mind automatically reclassified the conclusion as an intermediate cause and continued searching for something more fundamental. I sighed at my own obtuseness. Doubtless the horror of the last hour was affecting my thoughts. No conclusion could be sufficient unless it accounted for Gratia.
Good luck! This is a great, great start and much much better than anything I wrote for a while. (Most, say 90%, of my earlywriting completely sucked. I did have, however, several parts which were done amazingly well on a near genius level. I take pride in those ^^.)
[This message has been edited by Phanto (edited October 14, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Phanto (edited October 14, 2004).]
posted
I'm sorry, but I don't think standing among corpses is a good place to begin. For one it necessitates a great deal of flashback or info dumping so that we can find out how they got there. Basically it looks as if you have started the piece in the wrong place.
I don't think there is too much wrong with your style, just a need to rethink where the story starts. Starting before this scene would probably make the story flow better.
Welcome to Hatrack, and please remember this is just an opinion.
and work the rest of the information into it as I went along.
One of the hardest things for me to deal with is to receive conflicting impressions on my work. Surely they can't ALL be right? The good thing about conflicting feedback is that it makes you think, seriously, about the craft of telling the tale. The bad thing is that it can confuse you, or make you back off a bit on your writing.
Only you can write this tale. Listen to critiques, suck the good out of them, and then go on writing what you have to say.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
