Critique #149 — Frank Dutkiewicz
Kevin Andrew Murphy July 6th, 2007
Steve looked over the data. It showed there were changes in the chimp’s brain waves.
“Is it working?â€
Kyle and Rosanna looked at each other. “That’s why we called you down,†Rosanna said.
The two organic chemists were working on a drug they hoped would reconstruct neural pathways. If all worked well, stroke victims would be able to return to normal. Unfortunately, all was not working well.
“There is something happening,†said Steve. “What’s it doing to the chimp?â€
“We think it’s making him insane,†said Kyle.
Hi Frank,
This is less than 13 lines, which is unusual in that if you given us more….well you could have givenb us more!
I am not sure of the POV. I presume its omniscient, but I also suspect it’s Steve but that you haven’t made it clear.
I would also structure it differently:
Steve looked over the data. It showed there were changes in the chimp’s brain waves.
“Is it working?â€
Kyle and Rosanna looked at each other.
“That’s why we called you down,†Rosanna said.
The two organic chemists were working on a drug they hoped would reconstruct neural pathways. If all worked well, stroke victims would be able to return to normal.
Unfortunately, all was not working well.
“There is something happening,†said Steve. “What’s it doing to the chimp?â€
“We think it’s making him insane,†said Kyle.
The line where he says “There is something happening,” it would be nice if you hinted at why he thinks that e.g. he looked at the EEG (electroencephalograph) print-out or something. Would add some texture.
The last line hooks me in, something about insane chimpanzees in laboratory situations that appeals. I would turn the page…but I do feel you could had some more details, the scientists looking worried, buzz of instruments, squeaks of chimp etc.
Hi Adam,
This is 11 lines, their is a scene change and that means an extra line so this is basically the entire first page.
I do provide those details about what is happening in the next scene. Maybe I could add something next to
“there is something happening”. I’ll need to think about it. Thanks for the coments.
Frank
Hi Frank,
I have a mixed reaction to your piece. The setup is intriguing, so I’d probably read at least another page to find out more, but I’d really want more concrete, specific details in the prose. Right now, everything is on the bland and somewhat vague side. Where are they–in a lab, an office, a meeting room? What kind of data? On a printout, a computer screen, an instrument panel? And what kind of changes? Is Steve seeing spikes in a graph? An odd clustering of numbers?
You don’t need to lard in paragraphs of description, but I think a few well-placed specific details would make a huge improvement.
I think you’re telling us what the data looks like, not showing us. As such, it doesn’t grab me.
Seaboe
If Steve is talking, move the dialog up one line.
This is a bad infodump. Try to find a better way to work this information in.
I think “Steve said” and “Kyle said” sounds more natural. It draws too much attention to itself inverted. Also, I’d rather see the chimp act insane as opposed to hear that he’s going insane.
I’m not on board yet.
Good luck.
Thanks all of you. You gave me something to think about.
Well I like it. I think how Adam rearranged that sentence about the scientists does work better, but the actual scene itself does work for me. It ends on a little cliffhanger and gives enough information for me to want to keep reading. I would definitely turn the page!
Hey Frank, here’s what I thought:
Firstly, ditto comments on length. Also, I agree with Ivy about the infodump, and hence Adam’s restructured version (particularly his suggestion of ‘The two organic chemists were working on a drug they hoped would reconstruct neural pathways. If all worked well, stroke victims would be able to return to normal’, though I’d change ‘If all worked well’ to either ‘If it worked’, or ‘If all went well’).
I think Ivy and Seaboe pretty much got it - you’re telling rather than showing, which rarely piques a reader’s interest (hence Beth’s comment about using a few well-placed specific details).
On a more personal note, I found this opening slightly disturbing - the image of a couple of scientists standing over a wire-festooned monkey, blithely talking about it going silently mad… it’s not pleasant. For that reason, I personally wouldn’t read on much further - it’s not my cup of tea.
Hope this helped :).
I agree with Ivy…I think it might be better to show some things. Like the chimp. Rather than just having the scientists talk academically about the chimp and what is happening to it, without ever seeing the chimp, it might be better for the readers to also see the animal in question, what is happening to it. If you’re saving the actual view of it for a future shocking plot point (i.e., show the chimp acting insane in some way), I think it still might be good to see a glimpse of the chimp in a corner of the lab, getting done whatever the scientists are doing to it…not long enough to give away anything, just enough to give the readers a sense of it as an ongoing part of the plot (and maybe underlining the ambiguous ethicality of animal experimentation, if that strikes your fancy).
The situation is maybe a little intriguing, but the writing is downright soporific. In the first three sentences, you’ve used “looked” twice, and elsewhere, the language is just as lacklustre. There’s no description, no sensual information (sounds, smells, etc.), and overall, no energy.
You can enliven this by using stronger verbs and nouns, by adding some specific details to bring it into focus, and by using a clear POV.