posted
Kyle Miller, one of the many responsible for the great destruction, stood atop the mesa and looked down at the familiar green valley. Slowly, he scanned the area, searching for any signs of them. There was a depth of hope in his eyes, and something else, something he tried to deny – his guilt. He had been here a month now, and the early evening was like any other, a warm breeze gently blew through the valley, caressing the treetops below. On the horizon, the moon slowly rises, extinguishing the fire red sky. This place – this strange and beautiful place – had taken the lives of hundreds, and kept just as many from returning. He looked deeper into the valley, as the thunder rumbled in the distance – he smiled, looking up at the dark purple sky thankfully. The Anatotitans are coming. It was hope. A hope that keeps him coming back. For two long years, he has searched, using that hope to drive him, but his hope fades each time he visits here; it’s getting difficult to find them. It was hope. A hope that the Order was wrong, for years they’ve argued that the Service was responsible. It was his life, and the life of those before him. It was a life that began with hope.
This is the first thirteen lines of the opening scene, directly from the manuscript. Have at guys and gals. And thanks for the assist. Mav
posted
There were some odd tense shifts - "he stood atop the mesa" - but later you use present tense - "hope that keepS", "his hope fadeS".
The sky is fire red then dark purple. Is this change happening because the sun is going down?
I like the imagery, especially the wind "caressing the treetops", although since you're already describing the valley in that sentence I would leave out "below".
I found the sentence "A hope that the Order was wrong..." confusing. It references the Service in relation to the Order, but neither term is explained. What was the Service responsible for? (The 'great destruction'?)
posted
With 13 lines, you're really not going to understand what the Order is and it's relationship to the Service. The reader will learn who the Order is and why they oppose the Service, within a page or two.
And yes the Service is responsible for the great destruction, however, the reader won't know what the destruction is until later in the story. I'm still debating w/myself if I should rewrite the first line to: "Kyle Miller, one of the many held responsible, stood..." I, like any other writer, am attempting to draw the reader into the story, I want him/her to wonder what's going on, but also retain the interest in the story. I don't want to give too much away at once, but also don't want to leave too much out initially. A delicate balance to say the least.
Yes, the sun is setting. The sentences states, "On the horizon, the moon slowly rises, extinguishing the fire red sky...he smiled, looking up at the dark purple sky..."
The present tenses you pointed were errors and have been corrected. I tend to just spew the words out, not worry about present/past tense until I'm ready to edit.
posted
Too much deliberate information withholding. If you're not going to tell us something, then don't mention it.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
I don't know if "Too much deliberate info withholding" is directed at the first paragraph or my subsequent response to the previous critique. Could you be a bit more specific? The scene is the opening paragraph of the story - how much more info is needed to draw the reader in?
If you're interested, I'd be willing to email you the first page or two of the story. Mav.
[This message has been edited by maverick (edited January 17, 2005).]
posted
I'm referring both to my initial impression of the first paragraph, with the amplification "deliberate" added in recognition of the fact that you're doing this on purpose.
Also, you don't want me to read this unless you really fix the withholding problem. It would be difficult for me to give a useful critique beyond saying that I don't believe information withholding serves the story, which I've already told you.
posted
I have rewritten the scene repeatedly and am still working it. I really don't see the withholding of information you described. Again, I ask how much more description is necessary, in an opening paragraph, without giving away too much information?
I've gone through some of the books in my library and read some of the opening paragraphs. This is what follows:
The opening paragraph of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" reads: '"Who is John Galt?'" "The light was ebbing, and Eddie Willers could not distinguish the bum's face. The bum had said it simply, without expression. but from the sunset far at the end of the street, yellow glints caught his eyes, and the eyes looked straight at Eddie Willers, mocking and still-as if the question had been addressed to the causeless uneasiness within him."
This opening scene does not initially tell the reader what the story is about, but it does withhold information. It does open with a question, which may capture the reader's interest. But the reader will learn more about Eddie Willers and John Galt as they continue the story.
Anton Myrer's "Once An Eagle" opening paragraph is a conversation, at the end of the second we learn that the discussion is about WWII. We're introduced to the main character, but we don't begin to know his motivation til later.
In various short stories, the opening paragraphs don't reveal a lot of info to the reader.
One that comes to mind is John Varley's "The Phantom of Kansas" "I do my banking at the Archimedes Trust Association. Their security is first rate, their service is courteous, and they have their own medico facility that does nothing but take recordings for their vaults."
What do we know? The character banks at this bank. It's got great security - so what. Do I want to continue? Maybe.
The point that I'm attempting is that, in each of these examples, information was withheld initially. The goal of my opening paragraph is to peak the interest of the reader, without giving away too much information.
Mav
[This message has been edited by maverick (edited January 17, 2005).]
posted
I would be considering whether this is information that is in the POV character's mind at this moment of time. You do not have to explain everything unless it is something the POV character is currently thinking about.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted
"Withholding information" implies hiding it, not simply failing to reveal it. Your three examples all provide information--obviously not all possible information, and not even all possible information about the story. If they could do that in a paragraph, it would be flash fiction and the story would be over. But take the Varley story, for instance:
quote:...and they have their own medico facility that does nothing but take recordings for their vaults.
This is the hook, and it tells us quite plainly that this bank does not handle money (or at least that's not why we're interested in it) but some sort of medical recordings. (Personality brain scans, if I remember correctly). Nothing is being withheld, although there is plenty that hasn't been revealed yet.
quote:Again, I ask how much more description is necessary, in an opening paragraph, without giving away too much information?
You can't give away too much information (as a general rule; I won't say there are no exceptions). What it sounds like to me is that you've got these backwards. You want as little description as you can get away with, while giving away as much information as possible. The major constraint on information-giving, as Yanos points out, is POV. (Which is why Varley doesn't just start out saying: "The Archimedes Trust Association has its own medico facility to take brain-scan recordings. They are experts at this task, because it is all they do. And the proximity to the vaults ensures that the recordings arrive at their secure setting safely.")
[This message has been edited by rickfisher (edited January 18, 2005).]
posted
I think I see part of the problem here... Let's take an example...
quote:This place – this strange and beautiful place – had taken the lives of hundreds
You don't explain how or why this happened and yet you have indicated it is something in the POV character's mind. So as Survivor is suggesting, you are hinting at things which should be further explained. If they are not relevant to the story then don't mention them.
A few other obvious places this happens are:
quote:This place – this strange and beautiful place – had taken the lives of hundreds
who?
quote:for years they’ve argued that the Service was responsible
responsible for what?
The whole thing creates a real POV problem. We will have trouble sympathizing with him as we don't know what he knows are what has happened.
posted
Well the clarification helps. I see now what Survivor was driving at, but didn't throughly explain. I've rewritten it and still am rewriting it. Here's the current revision, and thanks. Your input please:
Kyle Miller, a Seeker, stood atop the mesa and peered through his night vision goggles, down at the moonlit valley. Slowly, he scanned the area, straining to find any signs of them. There was hope and guilt in his eyes, but his hope faded with each visit and the guilt only grew. He had been here a month now, and so far the night was like any other – silent. He wondered how much longer he would go on, before the Order of Cyrus had its way. It angered him that the Criers, as they were called, spouted lies that the Seekers were destructive to history, but most people didn’t care. It was how life continued after the Great Famine, and if it wasn’t for Janus Sebastian, the founder of the Seekers, Earth would have died.
[This message has been edited by maverick (edited January 18, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by maverick (edited January 18, 2005).]
quote:Slowly, he scanned the area, straining to find any signs of them.
Further to Survivor's comment, why are you not telling us who "them" is. "Them" who? What's so special about "them"? If it's to build suspense or some kind of anticipation, it doesn't work well like this. Readers such as myself will find it annoying -- at best. You know, your character knows, so why can't we know right from the beginning, too? Is there any harm in telling us? Is there a reason we can't know?
Note: I haven't fully read through the replies, so maybe it's been answered already. My comment is based solely on the latest revision you've posted.
posted
Right. I think I see where this may be going. If the inhabitants may be dead, then perhaps inhabitants isn't the right word to use. If they are merely injured, mutilated or mutated by radiation poisoning from his previous destructive actions (sorry, that's my sick mind at play), then it's okay, but slightly awkward to read without adding a bit more detail like:
"[...] the inhabitants among the makeshift shacks." (Not that there are shacks, but you know...)
In any case, there's little to nothing to be gained from hiding from us what he already knows. Delay doesn't necessarily equal conflict or tension. You can still intersperse his guilt and thoughts within the narrative easily enough and tell us what is really happening. That's good character development along with keeping the story moving, along with keeping us interested in both. Just my opinion, tho'... I've been wrong often (fair warning).
posted
Sorry about being unclear. I thought that you already knew what information withholding meant, given your posts. So it seemed to me that you just were of the mindset that it was a good idea, which is not a point I'm willing to argue, since it's a matter of taste (like most writing).
Even with the revision, I'm still having some trouble because the POV isn't very solid. This is most clearly indicated by the hope and guilt being "in his eyes" rather than in his mind/heart/whathaveyou, but I think that a lot of the other information wanders in and out of the character's POV. Before, I assumed that it was FO with information withholding, but now I wonder.
Line by line, then.
quote:Kyle Miller,[cut this, it tells us nothing--a Seeker,] stood atop the mesa and peered through his night vision goggles, down at the moonlit valley. Slowly, he scanned the area, straining to find any signs of [As HSO says, who? them]. There was hope and guilt[why?] in his [POV problem--eyes], but his hope faded with each visit and the guilt only grew. He had been here a month now, and so far the["this" unless you mean "night" as in "night on the mesa" as opposed to night elsewhere] night was like any other – silent. He wondered how much longer he would go on, before the Order of Cyrus had its way. It angered him that the Criers, as they were called, spouted lies that the Seekers [still don't know what the Seekers are] were destructive to history, but most people didn’t care.[by now the POV flow is listing] It was how life continued after the Great Famine, and if it wasn’t for Janus Sebastian, the founder of the Seekers[still don't know anything meaningful about them], Earth would have died.[why?...but going on to answer this question will just break the POV flow even worse]
You might be running into a bit of a false dilemma here, thinking in terms of either POV or revelation. That is a sure road to uninformative POV segments laced with expository sequences that have no clear relationship to what the character is doing. I think that the natural thing for Kyle to think about as he looks for whomever he's looking for is whom he's looking for and why he's looking for them. But on this subject we are given absolutely no information. Instead we get a lot of information that isn't clearly related to the subject. It's a bit frustrating.
posted
Guilt and hope can be in one's eyes, as much in one's heart, and the reader will learn what that hope and the guilt are by paragraphs four and five, as well as their respective causes. Perhaps it may help to move it up to paragraph 3, but for now it appears to flow. Only time will tell.
The line "There was hope and guilt in his eyes, but his hope faded with each visit, and the guilt only grew." was changed to "There was hope and guilt in eyes, but his hope faded with each visit and his guilt only grew." Not a big change, but I like it for now.
The line somewhat follows the style of John Campbell's "Forgetfulness", first published in 1937 under his pen name Don A. Stuart. I read it some years back, and have reintroduce myself to it, within the last few days. I found that my opening paragraph is somewhat similar, almost too similar, to his. Totally weird and though I do like his style of writing,and have read some of his other short stories, I am not intentionally trying to mimic his style and this may be the cause of the problem I'm having with my opening paragraph.
Campbell has a line that states: "There was something of vast triumph in his eyes, and somthing of a sorrow." We learn what that sorrow and triumph are in the following two paragraphs. I may need to rework the entire paragraph or bits of it, though I'm still playing with it.
Perhaps it is the Campbell influence, but I do see what your driving at with POV and will continue to develop it. I don't agree with you on describing everything at once. To do so would mean a different story line than the one I have outlined.
Thanks and I appreciate your input Survivor.
Mav.
[This message has been edited by maverick (edited January 19, 2005).]
posted
So who is it, exactly, that's seeing the hope and guilt in his eyes? I thought you were telling this from Kyle's POV. Unless Kyle is whipping out a mirror and gazing at his eyes, you've got a problem here.
Posts: 1750 | Registered: Oct 2004
|
posted
Beth, you really need to read my previous post, if you've haven't already done so. The line stays for now. "There was hope..." is telling the reader what's in his eyes.
[This message has been edited by maverick (edited January 19, 2005).]
posted
Maverick, I see what you're saying and I see what they're saying. What they are telling you is that there is no clear POV. You can either narrate this scene from the perspective of an outsider looking in, which would make "guilt" in his eyes perfectly valid. Or you can tell this scene from Kyle's perspective, in which case Survivor's and Beth's points are valid in that you should use "heart" or whatever, but not eyes. Because Kyle can't see his own eyes, can he? And if he can, you better darn well tell us. But you can't have both inside and outside narrators.
Rereading, I notice there isn't a clear POV established quite yet, so it's possibly confusing to the reader, even tho' it isn't to you, the author.
So, the question to you is: Who is telling this story? Kyle or someone else?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
