O.K., here goes. My turn. I'm a bit nervous.

This is a novel. It . . . well . . . you have to read it. Basically, what I write in the first 13 lines doesn't reveal much. It is designed not to reveal much, but to make you want more.

Here we go.

Title: ZOMBIE VAMPIRE MONSTER THINGS
Chapter: “AFTER”
Sub-Chapter: TUESDAY THE 5TH

. . .

“Run!”

If you were here you would notice four things in reverse order, but almost all of them instantaneously. Forth, “it” is coming at you fast. Third, “it” is screaming. Second, “it” is not wearing pants. First, “it” has an erection. Regardless, all of these individually and collectively instinctively equate to “Run!”

The scene for the moment is set in a small town with brick buildings and brick houses and a block off a very traditional looking “main street”. It is night and has been for hours. The full moon rises over the mountains to the east casting pale shadows. The humidity would bother you if you were not more bothered by the circumstances. Luckily, this isn’t about you.

. . .

HARD to cut it there. This is an odd piece. The narration about "you" doesn't exist past these two paragraphs. However, it remains occasionally intrusive.

I think it is hard to judge it by these lines beyond if they are a pleasure or pain to read. BTW [as I said in my introduction], there are no Zombies or Vampires or Monsters or Things in this story. It in a lot of ways a hard Sci-Fi thing. Do you really want me to explain the pros and cons of the limbic system? I do, but not till page 125. There is some Latin. Freud is quoted. It is meant to entertain by refusing to be what you expect.

O.K. . . . I need to stop trying to explain it by not explaining it.

I look forward to feedback.

Happy to send folks the first 25 or 50 pages if they have a real interest.

Jericho

[This message has been edited by Jericho (edited July 08, 2008).]

Is the bracketed note("[You’ll hate him later]") actually a part of the text, or was that a note that you added for our benefit? If it's in the actual text, I'd cut it.

I find the list of four things to be jarring because you count down backwards; the list should go from "First" to "Fourth". I think I see what you're trying to do, by having the oddity of each of the things build in importance by having them counted down. But their oddity should stand on its own. Recommend:

quote:

---

First, “it” is coming at you fast. Second, “it” is screaming. Third, “it” is not wearing pants. Fourth, “it” has an erection.

---

Actually, if I were writing it, I'd do away with the ordinals completely:

quote:

---

It's coming at you fast. It's screaming. It's not wearing pants...and it has an erection.

---

You're breaking up the action with the way these paragraphs are structured. "Run!" starts us out with a sense of urgency, and then you go into a second paragraph that explains why we're supposed to have that sense of urgency, but the third paragraph stops cold and goes into unrelated scenery description. Is this important at this moment in the story? I can't tell; only you can.

"Hero" should not be quoted. Either he's a true hero, or the fact that he's not one needs to be demonstrated through the narrative; serving it up in quotes is too much tell and not enough show.

So far it's interesting enough that I'd keep reading, though I tend to shy away from conversational-style books.

-G

[edited because of erroneous finger-macro]

The "[You'll hate him later]" is part of the story and not a note. Much later there is a reveal that I don't plan to reference except there and the "hero" reference in quotes you pointed out. The fact that you hit on both of them might be a good thing or might mean I'm hitting it too hard too quickly.

Our "hero" did something socially "horrible" the day before the "before" of this story. It was something that then would matter to society, but might not have any real relevance anymore. It is so bad that when these folks later learn about it they exile him from their new society though he is and will again be their "hero".

The fact you found the counting backwards to be jarring was the intended point. It is a moment I was trying to create where the reader is wondering about structure and narration and even the author. However, I'm a believer that when you write you write what you love most, but when you edit you have to kill what you love most. So, I'll really be pondering your comment on losing the counting.

The move from the fast action to the peaceful description was also designed with a purpose. The fact I used 'brick' twice in one sentence is something that is there for a reason. Consider it an attempt to condition the reader to not expect what they would usually expect. It is supposed to be something you read and are aware you are reading at the start. There is a bit of style over substance here, but I try to move from one to the other quickly enough [first 10 pages]that you don't get annoyed with the style issues.

Controversial? The thing is that the story settles into not being controversial pretty quickly beyond the starting style. Basically, it is about people in an unexpected an exceptional circumstance and being revealed to not be who they were, but that doesn't change who they have become.

So, I hope none of this came across as defensive. I meant it to be descriptive. The issues you mention were mostly meant to be there. Yet, I do fear it is too much style [and maybe bad style] over substance.

Thank you again.

Sorry but this wouldn't make me want to read more.

I might like the voice in the second paragraph but the third paragraph turns me off the story. It sounds too much like screen play directions.

While you defend your use of the ordinals, Grovekeeper's version is more readable and hooks me better. Try not to argue with the responses as they are only our opinions.

What you have going for you is a good and novel voice. Your going to hook or not hook someone based on how they react to that voice. You either have to deal with the urgency "RUN" now or you have to convince me that the upcoming flashback will circle around to this moment again.

I work by analogy, so please bear with me for a moment:

I am a software engineer by trade, and one of the guiding principles of software design is that it should never be surprising to the user. What that means in practical terms is that the "Print" button should behave as the user expects; it should print the document or bring up a dialog that facilitates printing. If the program does something counterintuitive, it surprises the user, and frustrates him or her.

In short, the software must not get in the way of the user's intended work.

In a sense, your words as an author are the software with which you present an interface to your user, the reader; by reading your book, the user has a goal: to understand your story, to be transported into the world you have created. To that end, the interface that you present to the user should not be surprising.

That is not to say that the story itself should not be surprising; on the contrary, it must, or it will be boring. But every time the language you use requires the reader to go back and try and figure out what you, the author, meant, the universe that you are building becomes weaker.

I, as a reader, do not want to wonder about the author, or the structure, or the narration; they're not the point. If I'm wondering about the author, I'm not paying attention to the story. At that point, you might as well not bother with a plot, because it'll be lost in the telling.

This, for me, is why I cannot read books that are written in the present tense; it's impossible for me to get into them, because the tense keeps dragging me back out. That's a matter of personal taste, of course, and I'm sure that there are plenty who do not share it. But I would bet a shiny dollar that literary constructs specifically designed to jar the reader out of the story are not likely to attract a large audience.

Groverkeeper, I wish I disagreed with you.

Does a novel or story have to be easy? Shakespeare is now almost totally unreadable, but worth the effort. James Joyce, Philip K. Dick, etc . . . WOW, I sure just put myself in good company! Though, it could just be bad writing.

Most of the things I write have always been traditional or "conservative". The reason I came here was this thing is just so damned difficult and . . . idiosyncratic [idiotsyncratic?]. That doesn't mean I'm not looking for or taking advice. The idea to take out the counting is one I am truly considering it.

There is a story. There is a style. It sounds like I need to separate them. I'm not sure I can, but I sure am thinking about it.

It ran fast, screamed, was not wearing pants and had an erection. None of it seemed to fit the brick buildings of small town America behind it. A full moon rose over the mountains to the east casting pale shadows on pale things. The humidity was not a concern when faced with this horror.

. . .

I think that is how I might rewrite it if I lost the style. If I lost the "style" I doubt this would remain as is. The question is is this better? For me it loses something by being easier.

Also, what you have now is more like a list or unconnected facts than a description:

First of all, who is the speaker in the first paragraph? Is it the "it" in the first sentence of the next paragraph, or is it someone talking to the "it," or is it someone talking to someone who is being urged to run from the "it?"

Second, the first sentence in the second paragraph doesn't tell the reader what "it" is, so there isn't much to visualize.

Third, the second sentence moves to information about "it," but you don't make it clear whether or not this "it" is the same "it" as the one in the preceding sentence--"none of it" implies a group or a collection (and while I realize, after thinking for a moment, that maybe "it" refers to the list of "attributes" in the first sentence and not to whatever the first "it" referred to, it's still confusing, and I still don't know what I'm supposed to be seeing).

Fourth, the third sentence gives more description that doesn't seem to have any relevance at all.

Fifth, same for the fourth sentence, besides which, it's negative information, meaning by your telling us what something is "not" you evoke the thing you don't want to evoke, so you defeat your own purpose.

Sixth, there is no clear point of view, and that coupled with no clear image and no clear relation between the images you've provided, makes this introduction fail the "clarity" question: huh? or what's going on?

I do think I'd have to break the 13 line rule because for some reason this thing wants to do everything I know I'm not supposed to do as a writer. It shifts in genres and perspectives and in time and I'm really not even convinced I'm a good enough writer to manage it. Normally, I write within the rules.

That was the impulse that drove me to seek out a writing community. It is the easiest thing I've written, but insists on being the hardest on a reader, but wants an audience that has the "hope" and "faith" Corky mentioned earlier. Let me be the first to admit that is a dumb and self-defeating goal.

Corky, the use of the negative description was on purpose. Your comment is making me think about if I am writing poetry or prose [and not saying I'm doing either well]. But, the fact I am writing in a way where the reader has to read and reread to get a point might not be the best approach or might be an approach better left for later.

Hinton, would it help if I assured you there are no more . . . well . . . erections? There aren't. The use of "pale" there was to do exactly that. Its the same as using "brick" twice in the same sentence. However, I think the advice that it switches too quickly form the first paragraph to the second is very valid. I've moved the overly Rockwellian description down a number of paragraphs and back filled a bit more description. The shift is just as big, but not as quick and both times they are now long enough you can get comfortable before the next shift.

Bent Tree, I'll send you something later today or tomorrow. I'm really trying to grapple or grasp or grok this thing.

Again, thank you all. This is the first thing in a long time I've written that feels important to me.

. . .

“Run!”

Coming fast, screaming, not wearing pants and “It” has an erection. All of those individually and collectively and instinctively equate to “Run!” Standing between his “people” and this “thing” he swings an aluminum bat into the stomach of this anger aroused thing. It collapses in pain to its knees. Again, the bat swings, but this time into the back of its head. The final contact makes a distinct sound. It is not a good sound. It feels a distinct way. It is not a good feeling.

. . .

So, I still prefer my first version, but I can see how this could be better though I await being told it is better and still not good.

I was asked for some dialogue and here is a snippet.

. . .

“<sigh> Zombie Vampire Monster Things? That’s what we’re going to call them?” Stinson asked.

All he got was a stare.

“How about “****ers?” Stinson answered the unasked question.

. . .

Beyond that, I think I get the point here. If anyone wants to read more I'd be happy to provide more. Thanks again.

I took some time to go back and pull some of my favorite books off the shelf that I thought might have some insight for what I want to export.

So, version two . . .

. . .

There are four facts that instantly emerge with the “It” from the night. Instantaneously and overwhelmingly they obscure everything else. “It” is coming forward, howling, no longer wearing pants and has an erection. Regardless of the order they instinctively equate to “Run!”

He stands between his “people” and this “it”. They run away and it runs towards. Next is fast. The sound of his bat swinging through the air and into a stomach ends the howl. Then the sound of a shattering skull. Then there is just the hollow and fading ringing from his bat.

Now running! He follows his group into the two story brick house where he expects the worst and finds it. There are dead inside.

. . .

So, the two questions are if you'd want to read more, but an important one to me is if this seems an improvement over the first or just something different?

Thanks

I like that. Please keep up the good work.

The last revision was good. It had a sense of flow and it really made me ask the question as to why the people died and what was the MC beating with a baseball bat. What's the relevancy of the erection? Or do I have to read to find out and that is the idea?

The current 13 are . . .

“Run!”

Four facts emerged with “It” from the night. Overwhelmingly they obscure everything else; howling, charging, pantless and with an erecting. Regardless of the order noticed they instinctively equate to “Run!”

They were already running and had been for too long. He stands in the street under brighter stars between his “people” and this “it”. They run away as it runs towards. Next is fast. Sound of a thud as a bat hits a stomach. The howl ends in a forced last blast of breath. Sound of the bat cutting through the air as it swingings again. Sound of an ugly breaking thud. Then just the hollow and fading ringing from the bat.

. . .

The trouble is that those are supposed to set-up a sense that I then undermine. The hero isn't the hero and the threat isn't the threat and the follow-through isn't a horror movie follow-through. It is a hard trick to try and do a set-up at the same time as doing a reveal. The Zombie Vampire Monster Things aren't really even around after the first third.

quote:

---

Does a novel or story have to be easy?

---

No, but it certainly makes it more publishable and more appealing to a bigger audience.

If the ordinals are a nessary part of the voice - DON'T give them up because a few of us think it might be smoother without it. Just be aware of the price you might pay for keeping them. I wouldn't put the book down for it.

You're losing the voice in the rewrites. The best thing about the first version was the attitude of your POV. Grovekeeper's suggested rewrite of the four things i.e. "It's coming at you fast. It's screaming. It's not wearing pants...and it has an erection." Kept the voice and added a bit of a sense of humor to the situation.

I liked the first version best but with some tweaks for issues that have already been pointed out.
The most recent version has too many pronouns for me to follow what's happening or who is present. You might try attributing that first "Run!" to someone to help ground us. But unless you tell me otherwise, I'll assume its the POV. The voice is also getting more distant, let me see if I can show you what I mean:

quote:

---

“Run!”

Four facts emerged with “It” from the night. You've lost the reference that something is coming at the MC. The "It" seems like a witholding because the MC is going to know if "it" is humanoid shaped, which I presume - just tell me. "A humanoid shape hurled itself at us through the night" or something to let me know generally what is going on. Overwhelmingly they obscure everything else; howling, charging, pantless and with an erecting. Regardless of the order noticed they instinctively equate to “Run!” It's a nice line.

They WHO? were already running and had been for too long Hu? . He WHO? stands in the street under brighter stars between his “people” and this “it”. They run away as it runs towards.

Next is fast. Sound of a thud as a bat hits a stomach. The howl ends in a forced last blast of breath. Sound of the bat cutting through the air as it swingings again. Sound of an ugly breaking thud. Then just the hollow and fading ringing from the bat. Who is the POV for this?

---

If the opening is a cheat, you might not want it as the opening.

You really can't reveal and obscure at the same time UNLESS the POV doesn't know. If the POV knows the "hero isn't the hero and the threat isn't the threat" the reader should know. If the POV is someone who takes the screaming erect "it" at face value, than the reader should too. Just because the POV misunderstands the situation isn't bad, in fact, it's often down right necessary and isn't "withholding."

Check to make sure you are starting in the right place with the right POV. You've gotten so distant, I'm not sure there is a POV for you to sink into. Uncle Orson has a nice post on the problem on the site.