This story actually does have a title, but I intend to submit it to WoTF so I have to keep the title hidden for now. Aside from any comments you have, please see my question at the end of the first 13.
----------------- Her titanium forearm strut. Spoons, forks, and knives fused together into warped balls of silver. A twisted chandelier stripped of its crystal trinkets. Clouds of fine china, shattered or vaporized. All floated past M.A.D.A. and across the perforated canvas of space, spreading out from the epicenter of the explosion she’d detonated.
The wrecked contents of Paradise Fugue’s banquet bubble spiraled out from the corporate luxury cruiser’s aft as it barrel-rolled through space.
Beyond the cloud of debris, a distant star blinked. Occam? Another blink, 1,500 milliseconds after the first. The flashing star split in two and the black expanded around them as they grew larger. Yes, she sighed, Occam approached. --------
Thank you for reading. My main question, probably hard to answer from just 13 lines, is if this story ought to start just before the event implied in the end of the first paragraph (the detonation that ruptured the Paradise Fugue). On the one hand, it'd give the story a more active start, but on the other, the event is actually tangential to the main story arc. At best, it'd establish 'the normal' for the protagonist, at worst it might make the story needlessly long.
[This message has been edited by Osiris (edited July 28, 2011).]
posted
Personally I think starting the story here is very compelling. Starting with an action sequence as big as blowing up a ship would take a lot of immediate backstory to make me care about those involved in it. Here I am drawn in by the aftermath and am immediately interested in the character who created it.
A few nits. I think it's 'past' and not 'passed'. The last paragraph seemed a little abruptly introduced when I was so preoccupied with the wreckage and wondering about this 'person' who triggered it.
posted
Thanks for your feedback Roxy. I can't tell you how many times I've googled 'Past vs Passed' lol. In any case, please do correct me if I'm wrong, but according to this website:
posted
I've gotta agree with Roxy on the passed vs past. The word is not being used as a verb; floated fills that slot in the sentence, and past is being used as an adverb to tell where things floated. Past is right.
Posts: 108 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be honest, I got whiplash reading this, but I am sensing that is what you intended (the chaos of the explosion). But for me it was so jarring I did’nt want to read on because I was expecting more of the same. Remember this is a comment on the scene you created (chaos) and not the writing itself. It almost reads like a piece of stream of consciousness.
For me some setup (one sentence hinting the why), might get me interested and past what follows. Maybe inserting brief MC comments as the space craft disintegrates around her.
I am not a grammar nazi by any stretch, as my writing sometimes shows, but I agree it is past in this instance.
posted
I see how I got confused about this issue now, I was thinking of passed as the verb and not an adverb. Thank you all for correcting me on this issue. Hopefully I won't have to google it anymore.
posted
Edited to try to make the transition to Occam's approach less jarring.
The fragmented sentences in the first paragraph is intentional, to give the feel of objects that once served a purpose collectively now being torn from their purpose. I can see how this won't work for everyone.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
