posted
Here are the first 13 lines of a Sci-Fi piece that I have been working on for a while now. Comments and critiques are appreciated. ---------------------------------------------------
The Oscgill stood near an outcropping of rock chewing on a dry thistle bush. He caught a smell on the air. Something was dying.
Near by, another Oscgill stumbled through the rocky desert. Its front legs buckled as it fell to its knees. Its hindquarters gave out and the animal fell to its side, gasping for breath.
Generally speaking, the Oscgill were as much herbivore as carnivore, but living in a desert meant that the animals didn’t always have a lot of choice in what they ate. In this case, the healthy Oscgill that had been munching away at a dry twig now saw a much better meal, even if it did involve a little cannibalism.
[This message has been edited by chuck7 (edited September 25, 2005).]
posted
Sorry but there doesn't appear to be anything here to cause me to want to read on. This may mean that the story is begining at the wrong point. Perhaps what happens next would be more enticing.
Posts: 62 | Registered: Aug 2005
|
No, the Oscgill are not named after Orson Scott Card, though I can see where you would get that Idea. No, I am not married to the name, but I havent thought of one that I like better.
The question you asked about sentients in the Oscgill is a good one. Thats kind of the point At least later on, that is a big part of what the story is about. No, the Oscgill are not the main characters, but they are a very large part of the plot.
The hook, as much as there is one, is about two paragraphs further down, which did not make it into the first 13 lines.
posted
In the first sentence, I couldn't tell what the osc was; maybe an animal, maybe an alien, maybe a military rank, who knows? The way you capitalized it made me suspect military rank. So I started out confused, and that's rarely a good idea.
The first OSC has a gender; the second does not. Why?
Your sentences have kind of a clunky rhythm to them; look at ways you can vary your sentence structure to make it flow better.
posted
What I really feel you could use is a point of view, a character. There is potential here, and I think the cannibalism has the most potential to hook me. Cannibalism could be a tough choice, but here the decision seems to be already made without thought. The other Oscgill is already dying, so there is no promise of physical conflict, either. In short, I think it needs something interesting in those thirteen lines, and I'm not feeling interested in it. I'm not wondering what is next.
I'm picturing an Oscgill as a shaggy cross between an elephant and an anteater that is about the size of an ox. How close am I? All I know so far is it has front legs, rear legs, it breathes and it can die. I also know it's an omnivore. Anyway, I think I'd rather see a little description of an Oscgill more than a name for it. It doesn't have to be much, but just something to build a mental image around.
posted
If the oscgill aren't sentient with a strong taboo against cannibalism, then it isn't exactly a big deal. Almost all known animals capable of eating meat will eat their own kind, sometimes their own offspring, under the right circumstances.
If they are sentient with a strong taboo against eating their own kind, then you definitely need to mention that.
In a more general sense, I agree that you need to work on your POV and identification. Even if "The Oscgill" doesn't have a name per se and isn't the actual POV character, it needs to be called something a little more different from what you call the other Oscgill. You could call it an oscgill bull or whatever. Just something different from what you'll call every other oscgill we come across. And don't capitalize it unless "Oscgill" is a name or title rather than a class type.
Probably the central issue is that there isn't any feeling that any of this matters at all to the narrator or even to the oscgills involved. Naturally, in such a case we feel little reason to care ourselves. Figure out what you want the reader to feel about this.
posted
It's certainly hard to invest, emotionally, in the opening of this story without knowing anything about an oscgill (and I agree with other comments; the name needs to change, just "oskill" or "osgill", depending if you want the s soft or hard). Neither of them gets a name, and I don't much care if one animal eats another animal.
But if something interesting has happened to kill the second oscgill, I want to know what.
posted
Tchernabyelo, I have taken your suggestion and dropped the “c” from oscgill. The pronunciation is the same with out it, and if I have learned anything from the wheel of time series it is that names shouldn’t be any harder to pronounce than they have to be .
I have rewritten the opening to move the hook further up, and to give some separation between the two characters.
Unfortunately, I still haven’t managed to get the “hook”, as it were, into 13 lines. In my editor its about 17.
The osgill lay dying in the desert sands. He had a good long life, bonded to the other in himself as he was, but now time was critical. He saw the other osgill lumbering near by chewing thistle and mewling nosily. They always did that this time of year. It was near mating season, and the bull was in rut.
The unbound dullard was taking too long, surely he had smelled him by now. His rut was the problem. Right now the big bull was more interested in finding a mate than getting a good meal.
Just then he raised his bulbous cow like head and looked over, snorting the air. He tromped his hooves through the sand on a bee line for the dying old osgill.
[This message has been edited by chuck7 (edited September 27, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited September 29, 2005).]
posted
Chuck, I think you're wrong. I think you have a hook in there. It might not be the main hook of the story, but it definitely gets me more interested in the story and wanting to read more, now.
Unless I misread something, it seems the dying one is the POV character, so far. I think you could save some space by not referring to it as much.
For instance, I think, "The dying one knew that surely this unbound dullard had smelled him by now." could easily be written, "Surely this unbound dullard had smelled him by now."
I think the phrase, "bonded to the other in himself as he was" is a little awkward. I'm not sure if it applies, but would symbiote or parasite work for 'the other in himself'?
[This message has been edited by lehollis (edited September 26, 2005).]
posted
Ah ah ah, don't get on KDW's bad side. And you're wrong, the hook is "bonded to the other in himselfas he was, but now time was critical." That already lets us know where the story is going.
There are some bits of clumsy language, like when you said "he raised its bulbous cow like head", that really threw me for a loop. But overall this opening seems to work better.
This didn't seem like much of science fiction, more like the introduction to an episode on a television documentary.
Starting out with a death is good, but it's got to be a better death than this. Make it violent, with bodily fluids flinging around. Make some conflict immediate.
This is more like, "some strangly-named animal flopped over, and another one considered eating it instead of a very interesting twig."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
At least later on, that is a big part of what the story is about. No, the Oscgill are not the main characters, but they are a very large part of the plot. 
