Note- If the text _reads like this_ - it is italicized.
-----
Officer Forrest Pratt evaluated the police radio dispatch. _Why would his suspect check into a motel room at 11:45 a.m.?_ When the motel sat twelve miles from home and four blocks from work, the answer was clear- adultery. He steered the police cruiser parallel to a twenty foot, poured concrete wall that separated the V.D. ridden lowlifes of the city from suburbia. Monogamy formed the last line of defense from the spread of infection. When that line broke down, Forrest stepped in.

People would never stop screwing, but Officer Pratt saw to it they didn't do a whole lot of screwing around-at least not after he caught wind of it.

[This message has been edited by Snowden (edited April 07, 2006).]

[This message has been edited by Snowden (edited April 07, 2006).]

The second paragraph might contain a little too much exposition too early in my opinion. Forrest's past is important as character development, but it could probably wait until a little later on. Consider sticking to what he's doing now, and avoiding what he's already done. Let's see him in action in the present for now. So, if his job is to combat V.D. by patrolling the Wall, then that is more than sufficient for my comprehension. Ideally, as I read further, I'll learn the society's rules, laws, and customs simply by seeing how it all works together in context with the Wall.

That said, give me a good reason to want to follow this character. Stopping people from having sex willy-nilly doesn't particularly engage me, but it might if it were presented another way. As is, it feels like Forrest is a vigilante of sorts, and possibly taking an extreme view. Now, if it's because the VD is ultra-deadly, far more virulent than say, AIDS, then we should get the barest hint of that (though save the exposition until it's relevant and necessary). We should know that what he's doing is more worthwhile than simply scolding people for not using condoms.

There's bit of confusion about what the city is and how it's laid out. If you said something like "the animals of society" instead of just "the animals" that might clear up a little of that, because initially it sounds like there are ferocious four legged beasts out there. You don't realize it's druggie until later, thus adding to the disjointedness (if that's even a word).

The topic seems very intersting. I wouldn't use "screw" and "screwing" though. It just doesn't fit the writing style in my opinion.

Assuming all that is correct and that there's nothing else I should have gotten from that opening that I missed, then the fuzziness comes from knowing, logically, after two reads, what is going on but not having a very good image of it. I'm not drawn in.

I'm having trouble pinpointing the problem, so I'm going to do a line-by-line here to try to identify what's going on. Hopefully, I'm not going overboard.

"Forrest steered the police cruiser along Plum Street."

So what? As an opening sentence, it is entirely devoid of conflict, characterization, or anything of the least possible interest.

" It ran parallel to a twenty foot, poured concrete wall separating the animals from suburbia."

For lack of a better word, I'd call this sentence static. While technically, there is interesting information here, it feels like a mundane description. I also think there could be something in here about what kind of threat the animals presented, however subtle. We don't have to have all the answers now, but can't we have a little nibble?

" Infrequent checkpoints stymied the flow of dopers, maniacs, bums and lowlifes from the city into the sprawling developments many city workers called home."

This is a point of confusion, now that I read it again. Are these the same "animals" you referred to in the previous sentence? If so, then I will make a general warning about metaphors in the opening os scifi or fantasy, before the world is understood. If not, then I'm not quite visualizing this correctly. Are they also on the other side of the wall with the animals? Is the wall to the outside and there is another wall to the inside where these people are? The first time, I visualized that last scenario but now I'm not sure.

"He spent seven years on the other side of that wall, but a pristine arrest record, two slugs to the chest and an award for valor earned an assignment in a more tranquil section of the city."

I think it should read "He had spent..." but that's just a nit. This is a bit info-dumpish and rooted in the past but in terms of clarity it does give me the clearest picture of who this guy is and what this world is about.

" Now he combated something the checkpoints couldn't stop- venereal disease."

This made me stop and read twice -- it was frankly unexpected but to be honest, it was the best hook in the opening.

" People would never stop screwing, but Forrest saw to it they didn't do a whole lot of screwing around-at least not after he caught wind of it. "

This sentence doesn't make much sense to me at all. Is sex illegal? Non-monogomous relationships? What, exactly, is Frank's role in this.

***************

Pristine arrest record threw me a bit until I figured out that Forrest was a cop.

It's a little complicated, had to read it a few times, but I got it. Maybe simplify it a bit without losing the edge it has.

People would never stop screwing, but Officer Forrest Pratt saw to it they didn't do a whole lot of screwing around-at least not after he caught wind of it. Infrequent checkpoints along a twenty foot, poured concrete wall didn’t stop venereal disease. They kept the flow of dopers, maniacs, bums and lowlifes in the city out of the sprawling, suburban developments; it wasn't enough.

The dispatcher came on the police radio. A long term suspect just checked into a motel. Since this was noon on a Tuesday, it looked like a promising lead.

Still, in paragraph 2, I want to know: does Pratt know the dispatcher? Like or dislike him/her? What's this suspect suspected of? What does noon on Tuesday have to do with it? (Of course, that might be the next sentence.)

(anyone may answer or comment on questions. The posts are referenced for clarity only)

Christine- no questions. Perfectly clear.
-----
Woodie- question. This may be faulty reasoning on my part. Adultery is illegal. Venereal disease is the reason. I do not wish to lay out a huge info dump, but-

Is the fact that this is "hidden" from the reader

A. confusing
B. intriguing

It will not stay a mystery much longer, but should this be clearer in the first 13 lines, or can it wait?
-----
wbriggs- the above applies exactly the same way to "checking into a motel on Tuesday". To Forrest, it implies the suspect is setting up a tryst-

Same question-

A. confusing
B. intriguing

Ie, should I just flat out say "this implies adultery"?
-----
wbriggs The dispatcher. In the original opening, people thought Forrest was "a vigilante". I wanted to establish immediately that he is not. Thus a call on the radio.

quote:

---

Adultery is illegal. Venereal disease is the reason. I do not wish to lay out a huge info dump, but-

Is the fact that this is "hidden" from the reader

A. confusing
B. intriguing

It will not stay a mystery much longer, but should this be clearer in the first 13 lines, or can it wait?

---

It can wait, in my opinion.... Probably should wait until Forrest is making an arrest. I think we only need to know that Forrest is after a wanted suspect -- maybe even saying that the suspect is wanted for adultery, if it you think it suits your story. That's intrigue. Consider giving us the need-to-know information only: Where are we? Who are we following? What is he doing? Where is he going? But consider avoiding introductory exposition about why things are the way they are. Only show them how they are.

I may be mistaken, but most-if-not-all US states have present-day laws that declare adultery is illegal, along with other laws that might surprise some folk. Albeit, prosecution is rare, but I do believe someone was prosectued for it within the last four or five years... in Florida perhaps -- not sure. Also, if I recall correctly, people have been prosecuted for passing on various types of V.D. intentionally, and in some cases prosecuted for doing so unintentionally, or at least sued in civil courts -- not including AIDS, which has clearly been sucessfully prosectued for passing on to someone else.

So it's not really a stretch (in my mind anyway) to see this taken to extremes in the future, although realistically, it seems unlikely to happen -- so there had better be a really good reason for these laws. I don't think this reason needs to be explicitly developed in the first 13, or any time soon. So long as things keep moving forward and things are explained when necessary, then I'll be a happy reader. Can't speak for anyone else.

Oh, do explain. Links, please (but also, please, be sensible with those links.)

More importantly: Federal law doesn't enter into adultery laws because marriages are state sanctioned, contractual relationships (foregoing entirely the religous aspect of marriage). Therefore, only state laws apply here.

(Note- the 2004 Supreme Court ruling struck down any laws that prohibit "sodomy". The reasoning? Govt has no business trying to police what goes on between two consenting adults.....

So, why should they care about what goes on between two consenting adults in the case of adultery?

This reasoning has been championed by the ACLU and is thus far unsuccessful. Adultery can (and still is in some places) still legally be illegal.

>Is the fact that this is "hidden" from the reader
>
>A. confusing
>B. intriguing

The answer to this is almost always A. OSC: if you want suspense, tell them 99% of what's relevant, and let them worry about the 1%.

>wbriggs- the above applies exactly the same way to "checking
>into a motel on Tuesday". To Forrest, it implies the suspect is
>setting up a tryst-

>Same question-

>A. confusing
>B. intriguing

>Ie, should I just flat out say "this implies adultery"?

It's confusin to me. Your world does seem consistent, but we're new to it. You can say something about "bringing up on charges of adultery." It just didn't occur to me that Forrest was suspecting this was a tryst. There was something about checkpoints, so I thought it was an immigration problem.

(Come to think of it . . . why would a by-the-hour hotel log this? It's bound to interfere with their business if customers keep getting arrested.)

>wbriggs The dispatcher. In the original opening, people thought
>Forrest was "a vigilante". I wanted to establish immediately
>that he is not. Thus a call on the radio.

>Is this line truly derailing the story to the point that people
>will assume the story is about Forrest and the dispatcher?

I didn't think the story was going to be about the dispatcher. Thing is, Forrest works for a police department. Wouldn't he know the dispatcher? If not, that's interesting information about his character: he's oblivious to the people he works with. (Or is there another reason?) If he knows the dispatcher, he would surely think of the person on the radio as "Helen" (say) rather than "the dispatcher." And again, if not, that's interesting, and you can tell us. "The dispatcher, whatshername ..."

Is the fact that this is "hidden" from the reader

A. confusing
B. intriguing<

quote:

---

Why would his suspect check into a motel room at 11:45 a.m.? When the motel sat twelve miles from home and four blocks from work, the answer was clear- adultery.

---

First off, the italicized line comes across as his own musing rather than a procedural assumption of the force. Both the phrasing and italics contribute to this impression. The second line follows suit. Also, you fail to highlight something you might want to bring forward, that they are getting information about this man's non-criminal activity and using that to profile him as an adulterer.

If you just summarized the content of the dispatch, it would probably tell us a lot more. Like "A married man[or use his name] had checked into a motel room only a couple of miles from his home, a definite flag for adultery." Don't refer to him as the suspect unless he's already suspected of something else. That way we know that this guy isn't under special surveillance or anything, he's only of interest to the cops because he might be commiting adultery (or, you know, his mother-in-law is in town).

I thought the set-up was pretty clear. The world you presented doesn't gel with what we know the world to be today, so I assumed it was some future where the authorities are trying to legislate the population's behaviour to protect a 'society' from catastrophe.

Some general comments: It is not clear that the intial despatch is what Pratt is responding to when he thinks: Why would his suspect check into a motel room at 11:45 a.m.?

The lines seem out of sequence. I would think about reordering them to help establish a sense of movement, passage, through the story. Maybe order them something like this (roughly):

Tiny Infodump: = Lawmakers agree that monogamy is the last line of defense from the spread of the disease... that and a twenty-foot-high cement wall. (Introduce up front the idea of the vd-ridden (lawless) 'dirty' society -- VS -- decent, (lawful) 'clean' society.)

Depsatch: = Pratt evaluated the police radio dispatch. Why would his suspect check into a motel room at 11:45 a.m.?

Drive to motel:= He steered the police cruiser and parked parallel to a concrete wall in a spot where he can see the motel.

Assess what he sees: = Motel — twelve miles from suspect's home and four blocks from his work.

Why is suspect here? = Only one answer : adultery in progress. -- Hah! Got 'im!

When sexual temperance laws are broken = Pratt gets out of his car and tucks his gun in his belt.

BTW:

The line: He steered the police cruiser parallel to a twenty foot, poured concrete wall... I could not picture whether the wall was twenty foot high or twenty foot long, the term twenty foot was rendered valueless. Is a 'poured concreted wall' the same as 'tilt-slab'?

V.D. ridden should be hyphenated somehow.

These comments are just about keeping the writing clear an unambiguous and sequencing ideas to be presented in a way that builds momentum.

Other notes

Characterisation:
Pratt ( I think) is an unfortunate name that carries a level of characterisation with it, which can work for you if he really is a prat. From the sounds of the "narrator/mc's" last line, I think Pratt has a pretty substantial opinion of himself, so maybe his name is appropriate.

Feel:
It has an Elliot Ness/Untouchables/prohibition feel to it. Which leads to ideas of organised crime, sex bootlegging (sounds weird and I won't go there), official raids on speak-easies, even down to prohibition on movies and magazines and anything designed to encourage 'youngsters' toward breaking sexual prohibitions. I can see Pratt busting street magazine vendors, threatening video store owners with raids, monitoring license plates of cars outside 'suspect' movie theatres, registers of premarital and extramarital sex offenders, cool gadgets--like infrared scopes that let you see what people are doing through walls. In other words, cool set-up.

2¢

After that, I am going to go ahead and submit it on Critters to get a full story critique.

Thanks again for all the help!

Snowden

The prose is a little haphazard, desultory. Probably because it's been over-edited, but my first issue is this: The first paragraph is "about" too many things.

We'll get the description of the wall later. I want to know about monogamy and Pratt. I'd start here.

"People would never stop screwing, but Officer Pratt saw to it they didn't do a whole lot of screwing around-at least not after he caught wind of it."

Give another sentence on how Pratt feels about the job, and then ease into a talk of killer V.D. Forrest isn't Sherlock Holmes and it doesn't take a genius to figure adultery, so I'd skip the build up completely, and instead, put the logical move into some dialogue. Having a prose build up makes me loose faith in the author. That way you don't draw too much attention to it.

As it stands, using the word lowlifes to describe the city dwellers says as much about Forrest as it does about the city people. It's great if that's part of his character, the problem is that thinking demeaning things about people who are already are dieseased isn't the most endearing trait, so I don't especially like Forrest after the snippet.