------------------------------------------------------------
“Have a seat. I won't be a second.”

Patrick Becker sat, sardonically watching his life drip down the drain by seconds. With one doctorate under his belt, he felt like a twice-fooled volunteer, subjecting himself to yet another cantankerous doctoral adviser. The present one was Professor Emeritus Dylan Freedman, psychologist, philosopher of mind, and snubmeister of doctoral candidates.

This start establishes the two characters, geeky Patrick and the cantankerous Dr. Freedman. (Careful here calling electrical engineers geeky.(JK)) Those two characters are fine, but who's Claire?

Patrick is watching his life drip down the drain. Isn't this alarming? Is he bleeding? Being sucked dry? Oh, wait. You're talking about the waste of time while he waits. The point is that the wording took my mind somewhere else. At the same time, it hid the aspect of Patrick's character that he's annoyed at having to wait.

References to sensitive signal measurement and the mind, along with well-read proposal, bring in the scientific aspect. That's as much of a hook as I see. You describe the story as crossing between scifi and medical. The medical aspect shows here. Scifi and 'thriller' don't - yet.

In new-guy mode now. The questions raised in these reviews often form a checklist of the things that need to be covered soon, but not necessarily in the first 13 lines. That's how I mean the points above.

I get the set up, but don't think there's much of a 'hook'. Having your character begin the story by thinking he's wasting his life isn't going to encourage the reader into wasting his/her time by reading his story. I think also that the dripping away imagery is inserted a little too soon into the story because the reader doesn't know what the scene is and may think Patrick is literally looking down a drain (at least that's what I originally thought) and be a tad confused.

The first 13 isn't a large writing sample, but from this, I would warn about sentence length. You have a lot of extra long sentences. Variation of sentence length helps a reader move more quickly and smoothly through the text. That last senstence is 38 words. I'd reccomend splitting it up or cutting it down.

Also, I'm not sure what a philosopher of mind is - too vague - since it seems to me a philosopher of any discipline could be defined as being a philosopher of mind.

Ok, I apologise but I couldn't resist since your character and mine have the same surmane.

To your thirteen:

The first piece of dialogue would benefit from a tag so we know who's speaking.

I'm confused by the reference to a twice-fooled volunteer when was he fooled twice?

I'm not sure of your hook? Is it

quote:

---

a geeky electrical engineer with a penchant for sensitive signal measurement and a budding interest in the machinery of the mind?

---

First off, welcome to Hatrack. Watch your step, and keep your hands inside at all times. There's bound to be Vampires, Laser Blasters, Wizards, Psychics, Monsters, and the occassional Mad Scientists/Mathematicians.

My take:

quote:

---

Have a seat. I won't be a second.” [Who?]

Patrick Becker sat[Where?][, sardonically watching his life drip down the drain by seconds.<--The anti-hook. Much more of this, I'll yawn. With one doctorate under his belt, he felt like a twice-fooled volunteer, subjecting himself to yet another cantankerous doctoral adviser.[Why?] The present one was Professor Emeritus Dylan Freedman, [psychologist, philosopher of mind,<--is there a distinction between the aforementioned?] and snubmeister of doctoral candidates.

Patrick spotted his consciousness research proposal on Dr. Freedman's desk, dog-eared and adorned with sticky notes. That [Deleted eased Patrick's fear that [this patriarchal philosopher<--Redundant, you said this in the last paragraph.] would not bother reading a research proposal from a[n] [geeky<--Does he think of himself this way?] electrical engineer[,] with a penchant for sensitive signal measurement and a budding interest in the [machinery of the mind<--This is becoming euphemism-thick].

---

There's no hook. Unless anyone's interested in the student aspect of this character's life. I need the hint of something more. And, I can't tell it's Sci-Fi.

But at the same time, you suffer from too-many-adjective/adverb-itis. Sardonically, twice-fooled, cantankerous, dog-eared, patriarchal, geeky, sensitive, budding...

This sentence repeats the same thing 3 times: "With one doctorate under his belt, he felt like a twice-fooled volunteer, subjecting himself to yet another cantankerous doctoral adviser."

You see my problem? I am wondering what is going on, because I almost feel like you are deliberately introducing a repetitive voice. Is that the kind of writing you want to convey?

Could you begin closer to the action or in a situation that clearly illustrates the conflict central to the story?

"I'm going to Walmart for some mung beans and tartar sauce. I'll help you with your homework when I get back, if I'm not scooped up by a space ship...you just never know...."

I tend to worry more about character development than plot, so if I start at or near the accident, then it sucks the oxygen out of character development (without a flashback).

If the story begins at the wrong time, then diddling the first 13 can improve it, but not entirely solve the problem. But here is some diddling:

-------
Patrick Becker worried that Professor Emeritus Dylan Freedman, psychologist, philosopher of mind, and snubmeister of doctoral candidates would not bother reading an exotic research proposal from an electrical engineer. But he saw his dog-eared proposal on Freedman's desk. Good, we got game. Freedman will plumb consciousness and I'll give him the mind-bending tools he'll need to declare victory.

Professor Freedman sighed. “I doubt I'll have time to chair your dissertation committee, but I'll tell you the most urgent failings of your proposal. It is a shame. My meta-swarm model of consciousness is really getting traction these days.”

Patrick panicked. For this, I quit my job at the NSA for a second doctorate?
-------------

If I start at the accident, it might be something like this:

-------------
Claire lay spread-eagled across the lounge chair while a torchiere rolled back-and-forth on its side on the floor like a beetle on its back. Her eyes were glazed and she looked quite unconscious. She was motionless except for a inconsonant tic in her thumb, the only part of her that showed any human motive force.

Patrick gasped when he saw that she was wearing the electrode array. The image was so disturbing and unambiguous that he did not even go to her; he turned off power to the instrument and immediately dialed 9-1-1 for an emergency medical response team.
-------------

In the present framing of the story, the accident instantly changes the relationships of Freedman, Patrick and Claire (Patrick's wife). This transition is the most interesting part of the story. But the strained relationships that occured before the accident are implausible afterwords...without a flashback.

I'm not really disagreeing with anyone; I just don't know THE solution.

Again, thanks to all.

How far into the story do you have to get before the 'accident' occurs?

I think you can start somewhere else and still produce great characterisation, but, it will require work and greater efficiency to achieve the effect you want and keep the reader feeling like the story is making progress.
edit:typo

Consider starting the story at a crisis.

Professor Whatasnozzle removed the electrodes from the bolts that his graduate student had placed in the Freshman volunteer's head. "He's dead, Jim," the professor said.

There is often a conflict in the beginning of a novel between developing characters worth caring about and getting to some interesting action. It is a good trick to do both at the same time. It can be good to just hint about the character early and deal out some action.

First, if you want to begin with a character, give them something worth caring about. I like Pat but the description Dr. F so far makes me bored.

Also, from your second scene, the device they are planning is dangerous, perhaps the type of thing only a deviant would pursue. Give us a sense of the deviance of the characters. You could add a small scale mishap; perhaps being the book with the guys accidentally frying a monkey - with of hint of what's to come.

===========================================

Patrick Becker worried that Professor Emeritus Dylan Freedman, psychologist, philosopher of mind, and snubmeister of doctoral candidates would not bother reading an exotic research proposal from an electrical engineer. [<- There is too much telling here. Hint at his character if you can instead of telling us about it. ] But he saw his dog-eared proposal on Freedman's desk. Good, we got game.[<-Sounds like Pat is a fighter. I like that. Notice how we can tell this about Pat just from his thoughts - points to you.] Freedman will plumb consciousness and I'll give him the mind-bending tools he'll need to declare victory.

Professor Freedman sighed.[<-A character that sounds bored can make the reader feel bored.] “I doubt I'll have time to chair your dissertation committee, but I'll tell you the most urgent failings of your proposal. It is a shame. My meta-swarm model of consciousness is really getting traction these days.”[<- Honestly, not the most exciting line. It is hard to get the voice of a stuffy Professor without being boring.]

Patrick panicked. For this, I quit my job at the NSA for a second doctorate? [<- This is a powerful line. His working for the NSA shows us that he's really smart without telling, and his mysterious work there gives us another reason to care about Pat. Also, he's a risk taker, which makes us want to watch him.]

=================================================

Two useful principles:
- Showing is better than telling. (Let us infer Dr. F.'s character by his talk and you win points.)
- Crank up the confrontation and tension

You could sum some of this up with a single statement by Dr. F., something like, for example, "I threw each of the latest seventeen PhD proposals in the trash just based on their titles." (mention the dog-eared pages) then "I read yours, but it was no better...." Something like this could make Dr. F. pompous and interesting, not just bored. Make him really arrogant and we'll all look forward to seeing him fall.

Then you would be set for a confrontation: Pat has to convince Dr. F against the odds that his work is worth something. Then you can introduce meta swarm models of consciousness and mind bending tools in the midst of an argument.

This is true presently and I appreciate the comment.

Rick Norwood: Professor Whatasnozzle removed the electrodes from the bolts that his graduate student had placed in the Freshman volunteer's head. "He's dead, Jim," the professor said.

But I hope the pages are considerably better than Star Trek dialog. And I hope I have four characters that are more interesting than any of the Star Trek characters. (And I would smile *a lot* if I made 1/1000 of the filthy lucre that the ST originators eventually earned.)

Bill: I know the conflict between beginning with developing a character worth caring about and getting to some interesting action. It is a good trick to do both at the same time....It is hard to get the voice of a stuffy Professor without being boring.

Thanks. You feel my pain. If I were OSC, I could say in a prolog, "give me fifty pages and you'll hate the professor and then in another fifty pages you'll love him." OSC could say that and his readers would believe him...and it would be true. But dangit, Jim, I can't do that.

Sleepn247: But unlike the other people who posted, I do feel intrigue. I think it is the fact that I feel that you, the author, actually care about Patrick. That means he will be developed well. And that's what I get from this first 13. But I know for a fact that you could improve this a lot more.

Thanks. That is the trick. I probably don't have the skill, but here is an intermin attempt:

--------------
"Did you spend more than a couple of drunken Saturday nights on this research proposal?"

Patrick Becker knew that his second doctorate hinged on his reply. "They weren't drunken!" he said in mock seriousness.

Professor Emeritus Dylan Freedman, psychologist, philosopher of mind, and snubmeister of doctoral candidates nearly laughed, but that would have exposed a breach in the flanks of his demeanor. "You think I'll let an engineer of all people ride my coattails? Think again."

Patrick noticed his proposal on Freedman's desk, dog-eared and notated. Good, I got game. "Does anyone else have mind-bending skills enough to prove your flaky theory of consciousness?"

Professor Freedman turned from pasty white to pasty red and
-----------------

I just remembered that someone asked about "philosophy of mind." It is a term of the art. It is the study of consciousness. Similarly, there is a branch of philosophy known as "philosophy of law."

Game on.

A picture tells a thousand words, and good dialog tells ten thousand.

I guess I was a half-sentence long. Here is a slightly modified version as an offering to She Who Must Be Obeyed.

------------------------
"Did you spend more than a couple of drunken Saturday nights on this research proposal?"

Patrick Becker knew that his second doctorate hinged on his reply. "They weren't drunken!" he said in mock seriousness.

Professor Emeritus Dylan Freedman, psychologist, philosopher of mind, and snubmeister of doctoral candidates nearly laughed, but that would have exposed a breach in the flanks of his demeanor. "You think I'll let an engineer ride my coattails?"

Patrick noticed his proposal on Freedman's desk, dog-eared and notated. Good, I got game. "Does anyone else have mind-bending skills enough to prove your flaky theory of consciousness?"

I like the new dialog, but I still am not convinced that this is the best place to begin a novel. (I think you need some setting, at least a sentence, to give the reader something to place the discussion in.) I would keep reading for a bit, but I don't see a universally effective hook.

You might want to think about something like the opening to Micheal Crichton's Jurassic Park. If I remember right, there is a little girl who gets pecked by a poisonous little dinosaur, a foretaste of things to come. (Hence my fry-the-monkey suggestion.) In addition to being creepy in its own right, it makes the reader scared of what could go wrong with a big dinosaur. It's a promise of action if not action itself - fear of the unknown. Also, a frying monkey (or something of that sort) would give a visual object to stand for the abstract notions of meta swarm models, giving the reader a way to think about things that are probably natural to you.

I liked the last version the best.

Now I've got some connection between the characters and what the stakes are.

quote:

---

"Did you spend more than a couple of drunken Saturday nights on this research proposal?" Give me Prof. E's listing here. First it helps root the dialog and, second, it sets a tone for the narrative.

Patrick Becker's (knew that his) <-- delete this. I do this all the time but it doesn't help the flow of the story second doctorate hinged on his reply. "They weren't drunken! exclamation points are like . . . hum . . . very strong seasonings. Good when used sparingly but when used too much ruin any chance someone will take a bite. The dialog tag tells me what I need to know and it is unlikely Patrick would raise his voice to Prof E " he said in mock seriousness.

Professor Emeritus Dylan Freedman, psychologist, philosopher of mind, and snubmeister of doctoral candidates nearly laughed, but that would have exposed a breach in the flanks of his demeanor. NICE description "You think I'll let an engineer ride on my coattails?"

Patrick noticed his proposal on Freedman's desk, dog-eared and notated. Good, I got game. "Does anyone else have mind-bending skills enough to prove your flaky theory of consciousness?"
the wording is awkward. M'b - "Does anyone else have sufficient mind-bending skills to . . "

Professor Freedman turned from pasty white to pasty "livid"? red. "Can you work on your proposal a couple more Saturday nights?"

would that last line really be a question. Wouldn't Prof E just say "Work on it a couple of more Saturday nights." ?

---

I'd probably read on to see what mind-bending skills were.

Edited to clarify