Please note that a revised version has been posted below.

quote:

---

Karl Hernmann was a mathematician.

Looking at the statement above, the lawyer in me rears his head and reminds me that it could interpreted in several ways. He might have been a mathematician who had since given up the calling in favor of other pursuits, or equally possibly, he may have passed away. In point of fact both readings are correct, so I will let it stand.

Before his first accident, Karl was not just a mathematician, he was close to being hailed as the mathematician. His work on Yang-Mills theory was fundamental and had earned him the title of Professor Emeritus at Corpus Christi College in Oxford, as well as the quiet, unassuming adulation of a generation of number theorists.

---

[This message has been edited by Toby Western (edited May 07, 2008).]

quote:

---

Karl Hernmann[Too many mnnn's] was a mathematician.
Looking at the statement above [Above what?], the lawyer in me rears his head and reminds me that it could interpreted in several ways. He might have been a mathematician who had since given up the calling in favor of other pursuits, or equally possiblyIs this the right form? perhaps; possible? It just reads awkward], he may have passed away. In point of fact both readings are correct, so I will let it stand.

Before his first accident, Karl was not just a mathematician, he was close to being hailed as the mathematician. His work on Yang-Mills theory was fundamental and had earned him the title of Professor Emeritus at Corpus Christi College in Oxford, as well as the quiet, unassuming adulation of a generation of number theorists

---

This didn't really grab my attention. Perhaps it is that I am terrible with math

I actually enjoy reading about math related speculation, but this seemed to lack the speculative element. As I have learned and likely failed, this element is crucial to flash stories. It must be present very early in flash.

I simply didn't know what to think of the first line.

quote:

---

Looking at the statement above

---

I was unable to determine whether it was refering to: "Karl Hernmann was a mathemetician" or something unseen by me.

I thought about it too much.

quote:

---

In point of fact both readings are correct

---

I am about a quarter through your other story, but you can send this one if you like. I should be able to get them both by Friday.

quote:

---

I am about a quarter through your other story, but you can send this one if you like. I should be able to get them both by Friday.

---

quote:

---

Karl was not just a mathematician, he was close to being hailed as The Mathematician. His Yang-Mills theory earned him the title of Professor Emeritus at Corpus Christi College in Oxford along with the unassuming adulation of a generation of number theorists.

---

It felt like all three paragraphs were saying the same thing. Perhaps starting with the 3rd paragraph will allow you to move into another element of the story.

Some reasons in no particular order and meant to just give you some insights into what a reader sees. Take what works and helps you refine your story. Leave the rest.

- Writing about lawyers and mathematicians is a bold move. However, to make it interesting, you can't write it like you're either a mathematician or a lawyer. This opening reads a little too...lawyerish?
- I question the purpose of the entire second paragraph. Do you need us to know the MC/POV character is a lawyer? Who isn't sure whether Karl is dead or doesn't do math anymore? I suspect neither of those points is particularly relevant, but you're trying to set up the reason WHY you're telling the story. In my opinion, this is a common mistake - writers trying really hard to explain to their readers why they're writing. Sometimes it takes the form of a "Frame" around the story, the most obvious example being the pseudo-journal of a character, which gives the writer a "reason" for telling the first-person story of someone. Truth is, we tell stories to tell stories. To entertain, enlighten, communicate, commisserate. We don't have to explain ourselves. Good stories get published and read by others. That's enough. If you weren't doing a frame here and know all this, I apologize for the mini-lecture.
- If you ditch that second paragraph, you'd have more space for something much more hooky than Karl's resume. Presumably Karl is involved in some sort of intergallactic mathematical heist or a love triangle with a robot. Don't bury the lead. Tell the reader right away (this is URGENT with flash, not quite as urgent but very important with 2-8k works. You have more leeway as you get longer) - get the reader involved with the story. Do the first line, then the third paragraph, then tell us how Karl's dismembered body parts were found spread out through the quad late last night and you're the detective assigned to the case. Or the cryptographer. Or the police photographer. Or the coroner. Or the cymbal player for the backup band for Sam's barmitzvah and just happened to be passing...
- Mechanics are OK, though if you're in love with that middle paragraph, I suggest reading it through to yourself - ALOUD. And see what needs to be changed. I think telling that para in mostly present tense is not necessary (I'm also really anti-present tense in most cases.) The sentence structure is more complicated than it needs to be or should be this early in the story. And it's the POV character asking rhetorical questions for which he already has answers. That annoys readers.

I think my lesson here is that a passage can be fun to write—but pure misery to read! I'm going to consign those first couple of paragraphs to oblivion and take it from there with one eye on a complete rewrite.

So don't sweat the small stuff, like jettisoning a few paragraphs that aren't working for you. Remember, though, to pay attention to what is and isn't working for YOU. Just because one of us points something out doesn't mean it's right or needs to be changed. You're the author. You get to decide (muahahaha, rubbing hands together...)

However, my experience in the last 18 mos here has been that when the critiquers point something out, about 25% of the feedback is about stuff I just completely missed, but seeing the feedback helps me identify it (typos, grammar issues, adverbs slinking in), about 25% is stuff that is nice thoughts, but not really relevant for what I was doing with the story anyway, and about 50% is feedback related to things that were just subtly *bugging* me about my story but I couldn't figure out why.

That stuff is solid gold, as often it's stuff I'm stuck on - a silly way of wording something that I was never happy with but couldn't come up with a better way of saying (and someone will pop in with a "I'd suggest saying X" and the logjams in my mind clear instantly.) Or some plot point that's been nagging at the back of my mind but I didn't know how to resolve, hadn't even really identified it as an issue yet, but getting that feedback helped me clarify it as an issue and then take steps to address it.

quote:

---

And KayTi, who told you about the robot? And the barmitzvah?

---

Hey! you just gave me an idea for a story-- a robot bat mitzva

quote:

---

Anyway - was feeling guilty for what may have seemed like a rough critique. Good luck with this!

---

A little rough never hurt nobody... well, the scars will heal and at least I got some excellent advice!

quote:

---

Hey! you just gave me an idea for a story-- a robot bat mitzva

---

No! Mine! I stole it first!

Well, I let it stew for a while and made some changes. The self-indulgent nonsense at the start is gone and I have cunningly changed the title of the piece to “Music by Numbers” in a pitiful attempt to fool folks into thinking that this is a completely different story.

I also somehow managed to add 800 words in my rewrite, so we aren't talking about Flash any more. So, any takers for an 1,800 word short story about mathematics, brain damage and music, with a lawyer lurking in the wings?

quote:

---

Before the accident, Karl Hernmann was not just a mathematician, he was close to being hailed as the mathematician. His work on Yang-Mills theory was fundamental and had earned him the title of Professor Emeritus at Corpus Christi College in Oxford, as well as the quiet, unassuming adulation of a generation of number theorists.

We met after a choral recital at the Sheldonian, one bitterly cold November evening. My wife, Pat, had been a postgraduate student of his. She tugged at my sleeve as we politely bustled our way down the steps and into the lamp-lit forecourt.

“That's Professor Hernmann! Over there, by the cycle racks.”

Surprised by the reverence in her voice,

---

Edit: obsessive tweaking.

[This message has been edited by Toby Western (edited May 10, 2008).]

You wrote the second version well also, and it answers my question about the first version. The second version paints a clearer picture for me, though.

Regarding the second version:

quote:

---

Before the accident, Karl Hernmann was not just a mathematician, he was close to being hailed as the [add emphasis] mathematician. His work on [the] Yang-Mills theory was fundamental and had earned him the title of Professor Emeritus at Corpus Christi College in Oxford, as well as the quiet, unassuming adulation of a generation of number theorists.

We met after a choral recital at the Sheldonian, [this comma unneeded] one bitterly cold November evening. My wife, Pat, had been a postgraduate student of his. [This data seems out of sequence. Judging by narrator's later surprise, I don't know if he even knew this yet. Perhaps just say that she attended with you or was with you or something, and add the data that she had been his student later on?] She tugged at my sleeve as we politely bustled our way down the steps and into the lamp-lit forecourt. [Good prose!]

“That's Professor Hernmann! Over there, by the cycle racks.”

Surprised by the reverence in her voice,

---