Here's the first 13 lines (critiques on these welcome of course).
Let me know if you're interested to read. Thanks

Please, send it my way.

I thought this was a very good opening and well written with one exception. The beginning two lines are good to start with and have good description, but I would suggest taking out 'was' and 'had' from these. The words 'was' and 'had' by definition are past tense and the opening is something happening now, so just describe the old man and what's going on as if it is happening right before the reader's eyes in present tense. With this in mind, I'd also suggest taking out the 'I had given him' part altogether in the first line since that adds nothing to the opening and detracts a tiny bit from the attention to the old man.

Edit: Crap, I think my Hotmail expired...send it to delphikib@gmail.com, if you could.

I don't see that you tell us much about Moncredo by calling him "the old man" rather than "Moncredo" in the initial line. You could have described him a bit as the narrator watches him for cues. Describing the way he handles his cigarette gives a chance to look at his hands, which of itself could tell us his age. Watching him exhale gives a chance to describe any pertinent details of his face, particularly his expressions.

It would also help to have a bit clearer idea of the setting, something the narrator would definitely be thinking about, since this is clearly an interrogation under mild duress.

Regarding the verb tense, I purposefully chose past perfect for the first line regarding the cigarette, as Moncredo already has it and is smoking as the story opens. The story is all past tense. I could certainly use past tense here, but it does change the meaning.

After rereading and comtemplating it, I do have one comment. I found on subsequent readings that there was a jarring mismatch between the quiet, lazy image evoked by the old man's letting the smoke roll out over his lip and the description that he was nervous/fidgeting. One is slow and calm and the second seems to not be that at all.

Smoke, of course. Although maybe I need to portray the act differently to be consistent as you mentioned. Luckily it's easily fixed and a minor point of the story.

Thanks!

This is an interesting opening, and I'd keep reading. (Email
oliverhouse@gmail.com, if you're looking for feedback on the
rest.)

Here's where I see room for improvement.

> The old man took a deep drag of the cigarette I had given
> him and let the smoke roll out over his lip, savoring it.

"Savoring it" feels like a violation of POV to me. If I'm
watching him, do I know that he's "savoring it"? Or is he
stalling for time? Or is this a habit of his? Only he can
know if he's savoring it.

Maybe use a different word, or just say "roll slowly out
over his lip."

> He was uneasy, fidgeting in his chair and tapping his heel
> against the leg.

"He was uneasy" is telling. Maybe let the fidgeting and
tapping stand alone, or find a way to augment or replace those
to show that he was uneasy.

There's also a bit of a clash between the deep drag and
savored smoke from the first sentence, and the fidgeting in
the second. (Which also is a vote against "savoring" -- who
savors anything while fidgeting?)

> “I don’t have a story,” he repeated.

I like "he repeated" here. It's a little thing, but it
unobtrusively tells me that this has been going on for a
while, with tension building before I even started reading.

> I stared intently at him, but he wouldn’t meet my eyes.
> “Everyone has a story, Moncredo,” I countered.

You don't need to say "I countered" because your words do it
for you. If you believe the books, "I said" will be more
transparent to the reader, and therefore better, for this
line.

> I could play this game better than he. “Tell me how you
> got here.”
> “It’s boring. You’ve heard it before.”
> “Probably.” I watched him as he finished the cigarette and
> flicked the butt absently into the void. I wondered if he
> would be content just to sit and smoke a

I like the rest quite a bit, and have no other comments. I'm
interested in seeing what the guy's story really is, and why
the narrator is so interested in his particular story.

Isn't that the point of the whole POV issue? That you can _infer_ that they're savoring it by what the viewpoint character is shown, rather than getting directly inside the head of the non-viewpoint character by being told directly about it?

This is advice, and I'm perfectly happy to be ignored, but I'd be surprised if I were the only person who found it a little jarring.