MEMO: To: Pat Rose, Director, Alien Species Research, NASA
From: Francis Barnes, Senior Xenobiologist
Subject: Wild rumors
_____Pat, no doubt you’re hearing stories bouncing off
_____the walls at NASA. However . . . Damn! They’re true!
#
Dr. Francis Barnes could not write a lengthy e-mail with the director next door. He was poised to knock when Pat opened the door and pulled him in by his shirt sleeve.

“Tell me,” said Dr. Rose.

“We found a critter that defies classification. Some think we've a new genus, but the senior scientists think it's a new kingdom.

[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited August 10, 2007).]

That aside,

Aliens definitely spark the imagination. But, it was too darn confusing for me to figure out who was who. Is there some office politics/political intrigue you're playing out w/the director next door and one doc pulling the other doc into an office? Total nit - you've chosen somewhat genderless names, though francis = male form, but pat = left to guess. Using the Dr honorific prevents us from knowing if it's a girl or boy. It doesn't necessarily matter, except when it matters. Does it matter here? Well, it contributed to my confusion.

I could see this done w/o the email in a way that is a lot less confusing.

Dr. Barnes, senior xenobiologist at NASA, walked down the hall with purpose. He reached Dr. Pat Rose's office, his intended destination. Dr. Rose was head of Alien Species Research, and Barnes was bursting to tell SOMEONE the news. Barnes new Patty would appreciate the momentuousness (making up words here because it's late and I'm tired) of the occasion.

Bah, terrible try, but just wanted to give you some idea for what's up.

Nit, but maybe this has something to do with why I was confused. In the first line of narration, you refer to barnes as being poised to knock when Pat opened the door, but then Pat = Dr. Rose. Same person, I know (but had to go back and re-read the email from/to to remind myself) but it's confusing to use two different non-overlapping ways to refer to the same person just 2 lines apart. You could do "poised to knock when Dr. Rose opened the door" or "Poised to knock when dr. pat rose opened the door" but frankly, I don't think most PhD scientists at NASA use the doctor honorific much. <shrug> - might be simpler to stick to names. We'll get that they're all that and a bag of chips by how you describe them/what their roles are.

I found the e-mail odd. I don't remember the last time I saw one entitled 'MEMO'. It sounds like Francis was emailing Pat to say something like, 'However the rumours aren't true' when he was surprised, perhaps by an alien suddenly appearing in his office, hence the '... Damn! They're true!' But he wouldn't write that, would he? Surely he'd forget the email, deal with the surprise, then rush next door - and anyway, why write email when Pat is next door? Also, the scene seems to have a sense of urgency and it might be better to drop us straight into that, without the email, which realy only serves to tell us who the characters are, I think. Instead, for example, Frank might burst into Pat's office shouting, 'Those rumours - they're true.'

My Oxford dictionary says that genus is between species and family. I found the word 'kingdom' jarring, (I wondered, are we in SF or fantasy?) and I think scientists tend to use formal words consistently - especially when they might encounter 'official skepticism expected of the director of research.' Not that I want to force the story into a mental pigeon hole, I just need a reference point to know whether to expect magick or science, or both.

Further, I personally don't expect directors of research to be officially skeptical. Whatever their misgivings about new discoveries and their need for solid, corroborated evidence, surely they're leaders who greet breakthroughs with enthusiasm and encouragement? So, if Pat is a miserable director, I think it would come from his or her personality, not position as director.

Just a thought,
Pat

If you must keep the Email, I thought the subject line was a little vague, if it was about something so momentus as a "new kingdom" then that would be in the subject line.

I also had to look up to the Email to remind myself who was who.

1) you're assuming that an alien will have enough genetic similarities to terrestrial life forms that a species only investigation will not present startling differences in genome assembly, protein translations, DNA structure and syntax etc

2) You're using really generic words for scientists like genus and kingdom when a majority of readers know more than this (alot more)

3) Use of the word Xenobiology makes certain assumptions that there is in fact a xeno to study. Currently NASA has a focus on Astrobiology but not Xeno. However without more backfill as to how humanity finally stumbled upon a genuine xeno species then I'm going to have to say that you're being rather cliche and just assuming the reader wants to know about the aliens with out knowing how they were found and not how the world reacted etc.

Specifically speaking to your writing,

1) Your email/memo isn't a problem for me, its the way you choose to structure it. Its obvious to me that you tried to come up with officious sounding titles and a serious sounding hook in the email but all I get is a bunch of spurious suspense that annoys me for

2) Repeating the full name and Honorific of your MC after the email is annoying. Call him Frank or something more personable.

3) Same with "Dr. Rose" i don't care that these guys are PhDs (its not like they've got a degree in Xenobiology unless again you're cheating by not telling the reader something)

4)"Bouncing off the walls at NASA"? When the recipient of the email is close enough to walk down the hall? Why isn't this guy in on the gig to start out with? Also which research facility do you have these gentleman at? Ames is the one I assume since one of it's specialty is astrobiology but again your lack of research presents itself.

5)I feel that your description of Dr Rose's face in the last line (again with the needless repetition of titles) violates POV.

how does Barnes know that this is really beyond offical skepticism?

Bottom line:

This is not horrible but its not not horrible either. Generally I feel this story needs to be restructured or at least better researched to provide the reader a better picture of both the characters and the situation/milieu

One quick question: We've discovered aliens and have classifications for them, but we're still stuck with email, huh?

It has to be presumed that scientists with those titles are doctors, but it doesn't hurt to introduce them with titles or honorifics. The cost happens when you switch their dialog tags to the names they use for themselves or each other. Perhaps you could use the 'Dr.' in the email addresses along with their job titles as if they're automatically generated.

"Tell me," said Patken. “I've heard rumors.”

The V2 vessel found some exotic alien critters that defy classification. Some of us call for a new phyla, but the senior scientists are thinking new kingdom.

"A new kingdom? Hmmm." Patken Roseach's face betrayed the official skepticism expected of the senior director of research.

"I know what you’re thinking," said Barson. "You’re wondering why we should bother with a new classification when we can force-fit new critters into the present scheme."

I wasn't too keen on the use of "stoked" in the first sentence, maybe later on in the story wouldn't have been so intrusive but I didn't think it was the best introduction to a story.

In the third paragraph we have V2 vessels, phyla and new kingdoms. Speaking as a totally unscientific person who enjoys reading the odd sci-fi I was a bit lost here, perhaps a more gentle introduction was needed here to keep the interest?