Critique #77: Heather Robinson
Katharine Kerr September 8th, 2006
She spoke of things that changed you. Things and
events that broke you down so low you had to
fight your way back up. She used general terms
but he got the impression that she knew of what
she spoke. At once he wanted to know what those
things were- yet chose not to ask. Nor did she
offer to elaborate.
He watched her speak, noting the way she smiled
and the subtle humor of her words but he could
also hear the sadness that underlined it all. She
was prolifically well spoken, impressing him with
her elocution and gracious choice of words;
however, he found it at odds with her usual
reticence. From a woman who more often than not
was intimidating in her silence, it was somewhat
unexpected.
She did not utter condolences nor ask him to
speak of his pain. She simply spoke with no
questions and offered an unassuming companionship
that he found oddly comforting.
Heather,
I’ve no idea of place, time, who the protag will be, or what the ‘he’ and ’she’ is talking about.
I’m lost.
I don’t even know if this will be a horror, sci-fi, or a literary piece.
Pretty sure it’s not a thriller, maybe a romance?
I won’t do grammar. I am under qualified.
Grace
The conversation has drawn me in. I’d turn the page. However, the repetition of ‘he’ and ’she’ without naming them seems to draw undue attention to the status of their identity. Is their lack of identity important? I would prefer a few specifics regarding where the conversation is taking place as well.
do you think (as a reader) that you should know the ifs ands or whats in the exact beginning? i mean that as a serious question, not sarcatically either. Should i name them off the bat? does it matter- i was more going for the feeling but it was only one of the many beginnings i’ve tried. thank you for reading
I got thrown out by all the telling without even a name for ’she’–too much anonymity, too many tellings and no sign of a story image.
If I were given a word picture of a man and woman together, then focusing in on his POV, I might feel differently, but this one didn’t draw me in.
Heather,
This is pretty but pretentious. I could have lived with an enigmatic “she” or an enigmatic “he,” but not both, since that reveals the author just playing games. Name at least one of your characters so the reader has someone to identify with, even if you want the other to be a figure of mystery and intrigue. However, that said, mystery and intrigue would be better with a few concrete details. What was she wearing? How old was she? What did she look like? And so on.
It’s not that you can’t hide things from the reader to later go for a sudden reveal or even continued suspense, but if the reader feels as if he’s walking through a fogbank, he’ll get annoyed and leave.
I kinda liked this. I agree that the “he”/”she” thing would get old in another paragraph or so–you need to identify at least one of them real soon–but it didn’t bother me as much as some other people. What did bother me was “you”. Is “you” “he’? Or some random impersonal you, or the audience?
There are also some patches where you’re overwriting–not hard to fix, but important to know. “Prolifically well spoken?” What does that mean? And after several paragraphs about her eloquence (which suggests that eloquence is her normal state) you then say she’s normally reticent, which made me feel rather spun around. All you need is a word or two earlier on to suggest that this is unusual for her.
I really like the sense that she’s weaving word webs to get what she wants from him; I want to find out what exactly that is.
That is an interesting question, Heather. Although, I don’t think it is a matter of ’should’ the ‘ifs and whats’ be included in the beginning; it is more a question of whether including or excluding them gives the desired results.
Most of the time, characters are named in the beginning. Not giving them names is different, which draws my attention. You could be choosing to do this on purpose. Maybe they are spies who don’t know each others real names. Not naming them in the beginning could be a technique to build anticipation towards the reader eventually finding this out. Or maybe they remain unnamed throughout the entire story because you really want the reader to focus on the conversation.
But if I keep reading and find out their names were withheld towards no particular purpose, then I’ll wonder a little about it. You would have pulled my attention toward the subject of their identity, and then dropped the subject without it developing further.
This wouldn’t keep me from turning the page. But really, if you are just withholding their names temporarily to create more of a ‘hook’, I would say you don’t need it. The conversation is interesting by itself.
Moving on to the other specifics, such as where, when, what do they look like, etc. To evaluate whether or not I really had to include them, I guess I would ask myself if:
1) the reader will have a better understanding of the opening scene with certain details
2) the scene could be strengthened in some manner by adding particular details.
The lack of names didn’t bother me, since there are only 2 people in the scene. Names will become a necessity as soon as (or if) a third person enters. The situation did intrigue me. I immediately thought of psychotherapy, however, with the woman as therapist — a good reaction if that’s what she is, a bad one if she’s not.
This has a certain Modernist feeling to it, stripped down like this without quote marks or description. Since it’s so abstract, it won’t engage the readers’ emotions, only their intellects. It also relies heavily on adjectives rather than actions to show states of mind — not so good even in Modernist writing.
So, I think you need to decide what you’re doing with this piece. What effect do you want to make? Genre needs more color, more specifics, more names and physical attributes, if ndeed you want to make it a genre piece. If not, you’re on the right track, but do try to show He and She, not merely tell about them.
again, thank you for reading (all who did) and commenting. one of my biggest issues with this has been where to begin. i’ve played with various and sundry openings- this was from a ’start in the middle- work back then go forward’ strategy but i wasn’t convinced.. and neither, it would seem have i done so for you. Kevin said i was pretty but pretentious. i once had a professor call it contrived and arrogant (not this piece but another).
if you don’t mind, i think i’ll try again.
Okay — and now for a completely different reaction.
I didn’t mind the unnamed characters (although I usually do find the use of unnamed characters to be pretentious and affected), and I didn’t mind the abstractness.
The thing that jarred me out of the story was the uneven tone. That sounds awfully vague, so I’ll try to give you an example.
You begin with two informal sentences that have a conversational tone to them.
I like that tone. It’s engaging, alluring.
Then you popped into some very formal constructs. “She knew of what she spoke,â€? “at once,â€? “yet chose not to ask,â€? and “to elaborate.â€? The conversational tone is gone and you’re on to a different voice.
Perhaps: “she knew what she was talking about” instead of “she knew of what she spoke.” Delete “at once” because I’m not sure it adds anything. Perhaps “but he didn’t ask — and she didn’t offer” instead of “yet chose not to ask. Nor did she offer to elaborate.”
Anyway, I think that holds through for the rest of the opening. If you could hold the alluring conversational tone of the first two lines, you’d strip away at least the tone of artifice that might lead a reader to think “pretentious� – and be able to unfold your story.
I also think that by doing that, you’d clear up some of the ambiguities that arise later on with the formal language. (”[P]rolifically well spoken” and “speaking with no questions” are a couple of phrases that don’t have a clear meaning to this dim-witted reader.)