posted
First 13 of a WIP. Looking for feedback on the tone. I'm going for the feel of the transcript of a audio log.
I only kill Hitler on special occassions. No, that's not really true, killing Hitler makes any day a special day. I use it as a little pick-me-up, something to burn away the blues when I'm so far down in the dumps that happiness is the most distant of memories. Something about pumping a bullet into that psychopathic little painter just cheers me up. It doesn't change anything. If you do something big the universe just shrugs it off, resets itself. Time is incredibly durable. I killed a bunch of people to be sure. All bad people at first, Hitler and Ghengis Khan. Nothing changed. I nailed Napoleon. Nothing. Corked Churchill. Nothing. I started to get a little desperate and gunned down Clara Barton and Albert Schweitzer. Nothing changed. I'm still the sole survivor. Hah! Do you
posted
I must confess that I cannot help you on this. The problem is there is too little to go on. The 13 line rule keeps me from forming an accurate opinion on it.
The opening does sound intriguing but it feels as if it is starting too quick. A lot of famous people getting shot. This premise could be about a video game but I sincerely doubt it.
I'd need another 13 lines before I could decide if this works or not.
posted
It wouldn't have intrigued me, until the "I'm still the sole survivor" bit. So, if I had to guess, there was some kind of apocalypse that left this guy alone with a time machine, and he started off trying to change the past to prevent it. Over time, he realized he couldn't do anything, so now he basically kills historical figures for fun. Which, unfortunately, puts this back into video-game territory.
The actual problem I have here is that going back in time to kill Hitler really is cliche, which is what you're opening on.
posted
As I read, I was trying to figure out if this was a time-travel/paradox story or a video game. I'm hoping it's time. It may just be an accident of the first thirteen cutoff, but if he's the sole survivor, who is the "you" it ends with? Tone is okay.
Posts: 406 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've also heard that killing Hitler is a cliche, so I was worried when you started, but I actually really like the idea so far. I would suggest changing the Hitler in the first sentence to someone else horrible like Khan... or somebody else. It's hard for me to think of anyone though, Hitler really takes the cake on real life bad guys. I can't think of anyone more monsterfied.
I really like the voice, the casual nature of the first thirteen, and the hook for me is the sole survivor.
I like the tone. The tone is good. It's seems to me to be a bit Duke Nuke'm-ie but not in a way that is annoying or off putting.
posted
Would going in the other direction than Hitler mess it up? Gandhi, Frank Sinatra, Walt Disney, Michelangelo, Newton? The reason I ask is that there is no reason to explain someone killing Hitler, so I read it and I'm not curious. Going back and killing one of those would make me want to know the "why" behind it.
Posts: 388 | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. Killing Hitler may be cliche but it is what hooked the most for me. You could see from this small sample that this story wasn't about killing one man, but about changing the past. Let's face it. If you had the task of righting one wrong in the past, killing Hitler would be on the top of most peoples list.
Unless this is a story of killing Hitler, I suggest you keep that opening in. If it is about killing Hitler you better move on to the next project.
posted
Killing Hitler isn't the main focus. The story goes on to show that killing anyone in the past is hopeless as a means of changing the MC's present. He understands this, but as he mentions-it cheers him up anyway.
I've taken a not particularly bright MC and dumped him in a setup usually reserved for brainy types. I though it might be interesting to explore the psychological impact that has on him.
A subtle inspiration for this would have to be "The Quiet Earth." I still remember the MC from that movie going a little over the edge and pulling out a shotgun in church and demanding God show himself "or the kid gets it!"
posted
KIlling hitler is cliche. I would remove it or it may hamper your story's chances fo selling. It will more likely get rejected once those words are read.
I would also re-consider making your protagonist dumb--people like to identify with a protag, one who is dumb will be harder/unpleasant to relate to.
Following on from Skadder's post, it is possible (of course) to use both the killing Hitler cliche and a dumb MC, but it's harder than I'd be game to tackle (with admittedly limited skills)
If you're determined to go with the killing Hitler direction, I think the Desmond Warzel story "Wikihistory" (somewhere on the Apex and Abyss website) does it in a clever way in that it tackles the cliche head-on and makes a joke out of it.
As for dumb MCs, they can be frustrating if you don't give them something else to compensate. Homer Simpson is loveable despite his stupidity, but there's nothing worse than a character who's flat out stupid and doesn't take the obvious course of action.
posted
There seems to be some confusion. "Not particularly bright" is not a euphemism for dumb in my book. Perhaps a clearer statement on my part would be - he is not the blindingly brilliant sort usually featured in these stories who figures everything out right away.
As far as advising me not to write the story - I can't go along with that. Sometimes an idea gets into my head and just won't go away. I have to write it down and work it out if I want any mental peace. I'm not arguing the merits of the story one way or another with this point. I just have to finish some stories.
posted
Were they really telling you not to write it, TaoArtGuy, or were they commenting on the approaches you've shown that haven't worked for them?
I agree with you that if a story insists on being written, you probably aren't going to get much of anything else done until you write it. So go ahead and finish it, and then see if it will work for readers.
posted
Despite the cliched nature of going back in time to kill Hitler, I think this works, because you get over the killing Hitler thing in the first paragraph which is clearly going to allow you to move on and explore something different and deeper. I do think you might want to reconsider on the lit of "evil" people - Napoleon may have tried to conquer Europe but he was hardly a mass-murdering monster, and Genghis Khan is still a folk hero in Mongolia. And I'm afraid I don't know who Clara Barton is so that reference was lost on me (I assume she's someone with a saintly reputation, judging by the Schweizer reference).
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Napoleon is on the list of evil people, as he's included right after the MC says "nothing changed," which in my reading told me the MC then changed his approach. But, that's another point. The transition from killing evil people to just killing anyone of historical significance should be clearer, if my reading is correct.
Posts: 388 | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, the list of "evil" people may actually be enhanced by including figures that people might see as heroes:
"I killed a bunch of people to be sure. All bad people at first, Hitler, Stalin..."
"I killed a bunch of people to be sure. All bad people at first, Kenneth Lay, Bernie Madoff..."
"I killed a bunch of people to be sure. All bad people at first, Orwell, Heinlein..."
"I killed a bunch of people to be sure. All bad people at first, Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr..."
"I killed a bunch of people to be sure. All bad people at first, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates..."
"I killed a bunch of people to be sure. All bad people at first, JFK, John Lenin..."
Just look at the difference that list makes in knowing something about the character or the story. So, yeah, he can go around killing Ghengis Khan, and calling him "evil." So long as TaoArtGuy is aware that it says something about the character, it can be an extremely effective device.
posted
I actually think you need to start with the cliche. First of all, the first paragraph is a freebie, so you are allowed that cushion. Secondly, I think you handle it well "psychopathic little painter" great language, helps keep it fresh. And since you immediately move from the cliche into showing the futility of changing the past, you move into deeper matters.
Third, the main thing most of us would do if we could change the past is to kill the little painter, (or maybe, at least foiling his attempts at power if we are more hesitant to murder) it is the perfect into because you are identifying with something that immediately tells us it is a time travel theme.
Also, your voice is wonderfully sarcastic and fatalistic in this. I love it.
However, it may also work to use another example if you are scared of cliche, it would also have that hooking power:
I only kill Walt Disney on special occasions. No, that's not really true, killing Disney makes any day a special day. I use it as a little pick-me-up, something to burn away the blues when I'm so far down in the dumps that happiness is the most distant of memories. Something about pumping a bullet into that chirpy grinning optimist just cheers me up. It doesn't change anything. If you do something big the universe just shrugs it off, resets itself. Time is incredibly durable. I killed a bunch of people to be sure. All bad people at first, Hitler and Ghengis Khan. Nothing changed. I nailed Napoleon. Nothing. Corked Churchill. Nothing. I started to get a little desperate and gunned down Clara Barton and Albert Schweitzer. Nothing changed. I'm still the sole survivor.
posted
By the way, send me this story. This may be the most powerful intro I've read in... well... ever. I can't recall something I liked better.
If the rest of your story keeps to this standard, I'd say you have a surefire winner here. Definitely submit it to the hardest market you can, like WOTF or something.
posted
I thought killing Hitler was mocking the cliche, not following it. I liked it. I also figured that you were telling us that this story specifically was not about killing hitler and almost all time travel, while possible, was going to be incidental to the real story. If the time travel ends up being important, it is going to be something more clever. The other thing about killing Hitler was that it made a mass murderer more relatable. If he was killing Disney, I would wonder about a character that gets joy out of repeatedly killing a man that brought joy to millions of children. But killing someone who is considered by all to be evil repeatedly, well, that is just fun. I would read on.
Posts: 303 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Love it. Great tone, and I have to say, I read a *lot* of sci-fi and a lot of short-fiction in general (I'm a staff reader for Flash Fiction Online, and read a couple hundred flash stories a year, maybe more, I've never counted.) I've never encountered the "going back in time to kill Hitler" cliche.
But, even if it's the oldest and most tired of cliches, I think other posters are missing a slight detail, and that is that you're PLAYING it for the cliche value. The MC *knows* it's a cliche. Does it anyway. Result is - situation stays the same. Changes nothing. But the MC does it and we see his reaction (cheers him up.) Giving us the character's response to the cliche'd thing that is happening/he's done/etc. is, in my opinion, one way to play with cliches.
I'm reading a James Patterson YA book (one of the Maximum Ride books) and it opens with the protag (first person POV) telling us how running for your life really gets your heart pumping. And then a few paragraphs later, she wakes up. It's mirrored a few chapters later when the MC is running for her life while awake this time. It totally works, in part because of the irreverent voice of the MC, but also because he plays with the cliche by having her talk *about* the cliche. It's interesting, and compelling to read.
At any rate - onto some specifics of your 13:
quote:I only kill Hitler on special occassions. No, that's not really delete really, doesn't change meaning of sentence true, killing Hitler makes any day a special day. I use it as a little pick-me-up, something to burn away the blues when I'm so far down in the dumps that happiness is the most distant of memories.the rest of your writing is wry and funny and evocative. This sentence fell flat for me because, perhaps - and yes I appreciate this is ironic - of the cliche of "distant of memories" and "down in the dumps." I suggest rewording, and have a feeling you can find another way to say what you want there. Something about pumping a bullet into that psychopathic little painter just cheers me up.new paragraph It doesn't change anything. If you do something big the universe just shrugs it off, resets itself. Time is incredibly durable this is a really good word, but i have a feeling it's a good place to put in another descriptor or two for your weird time-traveling's world...analogy to teflon? flexible? like elastic - always snaps back?. I killed a bunch of people to be sure. All bad people at first, Hitler don't bother with Hitler again. Move on. Stalin is a good idea. You could go American cliche with Benedict Arnold. Modern with Qadafi, Hussein, or bin Laden, or old-school biblical Judas, Pilate, etc. and Ghengis Khan. Nothing changed. I nailed Napoleon. Nothing. Corked Churchill. Nothing. this bit is very funnyI started to get a little desperate and gunned down Clara Barton and Albert SchweitzerI also didn't get this reference, though I feel like I should. Maybe aim for someone more high-profile? Martin Luther King? Perhaps not someone who died by gunshot I suppose. Ghandi?. Nothing changed. I'm still the sole survivor. Hah! Do you
quote: I think other posters are missing a slight detail, and that is that you're PLAYING it for the cliche value.
I agree with Kay here, which is why I mentioned the wikihistory story (which does the same thing). However, I still couldn't get a good grip on the tone of the story (which is probably my fault). Guess it's a bit much to ask from a 1st 13, but that's what I wasn't sure about.
posted
This is probably the most enticing intro I have read in a month at a time whe I am reading hundreds.As I read for research I am finding less and less engaging intros, and it is almost impossible for me to read for pleasure anymore, but this was refreshing. Thanks. My advice, go with it I have seen a few publishers with "killing Hitler" on their list, but overall this may be a cliche that can punch through, especially if the rest is as well-written as this.
Posts: 1888 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that its obviously subverting the cliche and so I wouldn't worry about that at all(of course, I wouldn't personally worry about that anyway.) I also like the idea of someone who isn't a science expert or whatever being in this sort of situation. I also agree its very nicely done with good voice.
Posts: 2626 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
