posted
Okay, here's another crack at the first thirteen. And if there are any other takers for the whole thing, I'd be thrilled to get more input on the rest.
Sorrow's Shroud 9,000wds
Eli's feet wavered on the path and the guard sent him a warning with a whip. Shards of glass woven into the tails tore at his legs and Eli struggled to stand.
"Move, cow!" The guard spat. "Or your rations go to the man in front of you tonight."
He didn't look at the guard; he kept his eyes straight to the winding path ahead. Already he had gone without rations the night before. He wouldn't survive another day without water or food.
Eli didn't remember what it was to be free. He was born to the chain and so he would die; the only thing to clutch at for comfort, his own chest. It was the way of his tainted blood. A bastard of two worlds, belonging in neither.
posted
I liked everything until the last paragraph. It felt like a shift - we were moving along smoothly in Eli's PoV, but suddenly we're talking about things that he probably isn't thinking at that moment. It wasn't egregious, but it stood out a little.
The very first sentence felt a little awkward. "sent him a warning with a whip" was the phrase that troubled me, specifically the verb 'sent'. Sending implies distance, but the guard is within arm's reach.
This might also be contributing: both sentences in your first paragraph follow the form "Something something something AND something." Maybe vary the sentence structure?
Personally, I felt this was a fairly strong hook. I can see the conflict and I feel sympathetically towards Eli. I'd love to read it if you don't want instant turnaround. It could be a while...
posted
I liked it alot better than I did the original. although you kind of lost me on the last paragraph, I needed to re-read it a couple of times as it wasn't quite making sense. All told it is in my opinion, an improvment.
Posts: 60 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
• His feet would probably 'falter' rather than 'waver'. They are very similar but 'wavered' seems to indicate hesitation rather than stumbling, to me anyway. (grain'o'salt)
• I was a bit thrown by the guard calling him a 'cow'. It's usually an aspersion cast at a woman, especially in Britain/Australia etc.
Other than that, I think its fine, I would read on if that third paragraph was less opaque.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited December 12, 2005).]
posted
Thanks guys! Basically all I did was shift the paragraphs around. I can see that I may need to smooth them out a little. Posts: 811 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, is this better? I shifted them again.
Eli’s feet faltered on the path and the guard sent him a warning with a whip. Shards of glass woven into the tails tore at the back of his legs and Eli struggled to stand.
“Move, cow!” the guard spat. “Or your rations go to the man in front of you tonight.”
Eli didn’t look at the guard; he kept his eyes straight to the winding path ahead. Already he had gone without rations the night before. He wouldn’t survive another day without water or food.
He was losing track of time. It seemed to have slowed as the path lengthened before him. The pace hardened each day. The only sounds that followed them were the snapping of the whip and the heaving of breath.
[This message has been edited by pixydust (edited December 13, 2005).]
posted
A nice beginning, but a few minor points on the rewrite that might improve it.
Second sentence ending implies he is *trying to stand* but I think you intended that he is trying to *remain standing*. If you intended to show him trying to stand you might indicate that he faltered and fell to his knees...
The last paragraph talks about "them" but who are they? Eli and the guard? Are there more slaves/prisoners, etc.? This is unclear change.
Lastly for word choice in the last paragraph slapping does not fit with a whip, maybe snapping or cracking. The same with the heaving of breath - your chest might heave, but your breathing would be labored or heavy.
Also he was *losing* track of time
[This message has been edited by Omakase (edited December 13, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Omakase (edited December 13, 2005).]
posted
I'll throw in the voice of dissent and say I preferred the less cinematic version, mainly because I had more idea of what was going on and because the matter-of-factness of it was more effective. But I'm aware that I'm in a minority here.
posted
I think you're in danger of trying to please everyone and losing touch with what you want and how you want to write it. You need to look at how the sentence structure and rhythm has changed here. It's become choppy because of too many changes and you're still missing on those elements that will make us care.
Why, where and what are they doing? This shows in the fact you go immediately into a flashback after the whip scene. In many ways I too preferred the earlier version.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
