It would also kill the mystery. Why open with exposition? It's boring as hell. No offence if that's your style, but I would much rather be teased into reading further than be info-dumped with the story's raison d'être in the first sentence.
[Critique Game] Post The First Three Sentences of your Short Story
- Thread starter wotcherH
- Start date
It would also kill the mystery. Why open with exposition? It's boring as hell. No offence if that's your style, but I would much rather be teased into reading further than be info-dumped with the story's raison d'être in the first sentence.
I prefer the first version, tbh. Partly because of the change between "I'm sure most people would agree" and "I'm man enough to agree" -- which sort of begs the question as to whether the MC wasn't man enough, before. Maybe "I'm man enough to now concede to", though I prefer the "people" version.
If you're trying to avoid the double "people", then consider calling the ISS peeps Astronauts?
I'd still read on, though. I like the comedic voice, either way.
Last edited:
Urban Spaceman, admittedly it's a little hard to answer your question because the first three lines in question are all tell. But it's also a 1st person narrative, so you're going to get a lot of that. And what's telling in 1st person is exposition in 3rd.
On the question of killing the mystery. I'm unsure if there is a mystery set up so far. The first line, "Looking back on it..." puts us into the past, and indicates that what will follow is backstory. So there's the present moment of the story, and at that present moment the POV is thinking back on what led to whatever predicament we haven't seen yet.
That's not exactly a mystery. We simply haven't read far enough into the narrative to see *why* the POV is regaling us with the past of his life. We do get a hint, however: the volume of the television. The implication of the third line is that at some point the POV and his wife were in disagreement about how loud a football game needs to be to be enjoyed. The POV now admits that it was so loud that "it could be heard in space". An exaggeration, of course (but who knows, maybe this is some type of genre fiction), but it does reveal that he's changed his way of thinking. Or at least understands why his wife was complaining.
Again, however, I'm not sure what the mystery of the first lines are. We simply haven't gotten to why this is a story. And that's where my point and yours, Urban Spaceman, probably diverge. I think the *why*(the initial why/the little why or the hook) can be stated in the first line to greater effect. I take it that you prefer to not know a *why* (big or small) right now.
Would it be boring to know the why? I don't think so. Again, not knowing what this story is about, I'll write two first sentences to illustrate my point.
1) Looking back on it, I can see why my wife left me alone with just my dog and a house of white walls.
2) Looking back on it, I can see why my wife killed our twin daughters and left me for dead on the kitchen floor.
What these lines do, in my opinion, that the current opening doesn't, is give us specifics that have strong, unique visuals. They also answer the *why*. Why are we being told this story now? But the greater *why* (why is this story being written/plot arc), and more importantly, the *how* (resolution), have yet to be revealed.
Why did the wife take everything except the dog, leaving the POV alone in an empty house of white walls?
Why did the wife kill their twin daughters and leave the POV for dead?
And then, more importantly, *how* is the POV going to deal with the narrative complication he's been thrown into? That, to me, is the actual story. What change is he going to undergo in 3000 words, or 6000 words? That's where the mystery comes in at. Will his experiences defeat him, or will he rise above them? Will he go on a vendetta against his wife, and any who helped her?
As this stands now, it just feels a little plain to me. The present participle of the first line places the next sentences in a when, but the independent clause that follows doesn't offer us anything of consequence. What the POV will admit would be better shown us than told to us. Interaction between him and his wife would do just that, and we would see how her point about the volume gradually dawns upon him.
The second line would also be better written coming out through a present moment: the POV and his wife arguing over the noise. This includes the third line. Seeing the POV come to this realization and expressing it through the exaggeration of the football game being heard in space.
Honestly, all three of these lines can be rewritten into a present moment for great reader engagement.
On the question of killing the mystery. I'm unsure if there is a mystery set up so far. The first line, "Looking back on it..." puts us into the past, and indicates that what will follow is backstory. So there's the present moment of the story, and at that present moment the POV is thinking back on what led to whatever predicament we haven't seen yet.
That's not exactly a mystery. We simply haven't read far enough into the narrative to see *why* the POV is regaling us with the past of his life. We do get a hint, however: the volume of the television. The implication of the third line is that at some point the POV and his wife were in disagreement about how loud a football game needs to be to be enjoyed. The POV now admits that it was so loud that "it could be heard in space". An exaggeration, of course (but who knows, maybe this is some type of genre fiction), but it does reveal that he's changed his way of thinking. Or at least understands why his wife was complaining.
Again, however, I'm not sure what the mystery of the first lines are. We simply haven't gotten to why this is a story. And that's where my point and yours, Urban Spaceman, probably diverge. I think the *why*(the initial why/the little why or the hook) can be stated in the first line to greater effect. I take it that you prefer to not know a *why* (big or small) right now.
Would it be boring to know the why? I don't think so. Again, not knowing what this story is about, I'll write two first sentences to illustrate my point.
1) Looking back on it, I can see why my wife left me alone with just my dog and a house of white walls.
2) Looking back on it, I can see why my wife killed our twin daughters and left me for dead on the kitchen floor.
What these lines do, in my opinion, that the current opening doesn't, is give us specifics that have strong, unique visuals. They also answer the *why*. Why are we being told this story now? But the greater *why* (why is this story being written/plot arc), and more importantly, the *how* (resolution), have yet to be revealed.
Why did the wife take everything except the dog, leaving the POV alone in an empty house of white walls?
Why did the wife kill their twin daughters and leave the POV for dead?
And then, more importantly, *how* is the POV going to deal with the narrative complication he's been thrown into? That, to me, is the actual story. What change is he going to undergo in 3000 words, or 6000 words? That's where the mystery comes in at. Will his experiences defeat him, or will he rise above them? Will he go on a vendetta against his wife, and any who helped her?
As this stands now, it just feels a little plain to me. The present participle of the first line places the next sentences in a when, but the independent clause that follows doesn't offer us anything of consequence. What the POV will admit would be better shown us than told to us. Interaction between him and his wife would do just that, and we would see how her point about the volume gradually dawns upon him.
The second line would also be better written coming out through a present moment: the POV and his wife arguing over the noise. This includes the third line. Seeing the POV come to this realization and expressing it through the exaggeration of the football game being heard in space.
Honestly, all three of these lines can be rewritten into a present moment for great reader engagement.
@Denevius
I can see your point, but:
...I would prefer the story to lead to this, rather than open with it. To build tension with a series of mistakes culminating in some dramatic event, rather than to present the event and then explain how the MC reached the point of looking back. To address these two particular examples you've given:
1) I could see this working if the guy is a jerk, difficult to live with, and in hindsight can admit his faults.
2) An MC can see why his wife killed their daughters before trying to kill him? Uh, she's a complete and utter psychopath? I'm not sure I can relate to an MC who "understands" infanticide. I'm not sure I'd want to.
But overall, both methods of telling a story (culminating in an event, or opening with the event) have their downsides and their merits; it's up to the OP to decide which he prefers for this particular story.
I can see your point, but:
...I would prefer the story to lead to this, rather than open with it. To build tension with a series of mistakes culminating in some dramatic event, rather than to present the event and then explain how the MC reached the point of looking back. To address these two particular examples you've given:
1) I could see this working if the guy is a jerk, difficult to live with, and in hindsight can admit his faults.
2) An MC can see why his wife killed their daughters before trying to kill him? Uh, she's a complete and utter psychopath? I'm not sure I can relate to an MC who "understands" infanticide. I'm not sure I'd want to.
But overall, both methods of telling a story (culminating in an event, or opening with the event) have their downsides and their merits; it's up to the OP to decide which he prefers for this particular story.
Then I'll just end this particular exchange with this anecdote.
Some time ago I was at a writer's event, and was told by an agent that a lot of stories that aren't as successful as the writer wishes them to be have a particular failing in common. You can read the short story/novel, and when you get to the end, you realize that the story actually *begins* on the last page.
Anyway, I'm not a fan of forum conversations, so that's as far as I'll go on this.
That's a shame -- forum conversations is why I come to the forum.
It's a fair concern, and it's a piece of advice from an agent, but let's give the chap a chance. He's only published his first three lines; I don't think it's fair to judge the whole story until it's out there for reading.
Didn't mean to start a fight.
Thank you all for the analytical feedback. I guess it just goes to show just how subjective this entire enterprise is. One man's (or woman's) masterpiece is another man's (or woman's) misfire.
Thank you all for the analytical feedback. I guess it just goes to show just how subjective this entire enterprise is. One man's (or woman's) masterpiece is another man's (or woman's) misfire.
Didn't mean to start a fight.
You didn't. If we can't talk about writing on a forum dedicated to talking about writing, where can we?
I'm also thinking I prefer the first version a lot more. I'm not all that wild about the changes here, and honestly (though many can feel free to disagree with me) I actually thought your original three worked quite well and didn't need much, if anything, changed. The first three sentences don't have to be *perfect*, they just need to hook you in, and your original did that a lot more for me than this version.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2016
- Messages
- 174
- Reaction score
- 23
Y'all have been so insightful before, let's try this again.
It had been raining for days. Sometimes a drizzle, sometimes a downpour, but most often in steady, monotonous sheets that turned the ground to sucking mud and plastered Rinko’s clothes to her body. Illness and rain made her father unable to stagger more than twenty paces before he had to rest, and their lack of progress gnawed at her.
Thank you in advance for your help!
It had been raining for days. Sometimes a drizzle, sometimes a downpour, but most often in steady, monotonous sheets that turned the ground to sucking mud and plastered Rinko’s clothes to her body. Illness and rain made her father unable to stagger more than twenty paces before he had to rest, and their lack of progress gnawed at her.
Thank you in advance for your help!
I like this, I would read more. It's intriguing. I feel a sense of urgency since he's sick and going in the rain by foot and I really want to know where it is they're going or what they're running away from. Good job!
Three short things that are absolutely subjective:
1) I would change "more than" to "over."
2) And I might delete "Sometimes a drizzle, sometimes a downpour, but most often in.." I would start the sentence at "Steady" (Sidenote: Unless the changing rain has to do with the story in some bigger way.)
3) I would choose the word "Steady" or "monotonous" not both.
-----
Here are three lines from a short story I've been struggling with.
-----
The Cauldron Shop appeared abandoned to mortals. An enchanted sign out front advertised horrendous things the passerby would never buy. It caused frequent arguments.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2016
- Messages
- 174
- Reaction score
- 23
The narrative should probably start in the central POV. Right now, this feels unfocused and general, eliciting little interest in me as a reader. These three lines should perhaps be moved a little further down, or more likely, cut, and the description of the shop coming through in a present moment through a POV.
Okay guys, I'll try my hand at this... feel free to be ruthless, I'm titanium.
Addison Hugh sat pondering from the window of his office, the trees staring back at him with scorn, as if condemning him for what he hadn't yet done. The decision was his, for the moment at least. There was no telling how the public would react to such news.
Addison Hugh sat pondering from the window of his office, the trees staring back at him with scorn, as if condemning him for what he hadn't yet done. The decision was his, for the moment at least. There was no telling how the public would react to such news.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 1,586
- Reaction score
- 642
Hi titanium Bassel, welcome to AW!
As a personal taste, I don't like to be withheld information (for too long--I'd read on to see if the 'news' was explained in the next few sentences). I much prefer some surprising news used as a hook instead of the question as to what said news is. The latter, as a hook, doesn't snag me. Good luck and hope to see more of you around AW!
i really like this one just the way it is. Your sentence rhythm is varied nicely, and you've packed a lot of intriguing info about your setting, your characters, and their situation into these three lines. I'd read on!
Hmm. This opening is a little vague for me. I'd like an example of something horrendous that is being advertised, rather than just being told they are horrendous. And I also want to know who is doing the arguing - trolls? Witches? Harry Potter fans? Also, since I'm apparently in a sentence sound mood tonight, your sentence structure could do with a little more variety. It's adding to that generic tenor thus far that doesn't quite draw me in yet, since I have no MC to latch onto.
Hope something in here helps.
Welcome, Bassel!
I am going to +1 Mary Love's crit here. Not liking the withholding of information up front. Unless you have a very specific reason for doing that, I'm betting the actual news is more of a hook than telling me there's some news that's coming and hope I stick around.
Good luck!
It veers into melodramatic language with wording like 'pondering in his office' and 'trees staring at him with scorn and condemnation'. And this type of prose isn't really telling readers anything. It would be more effective to show what he's thinking about and how it affects him.
There's also a bit too much narrative withholding for my tastes. I prefer to see what the decision is, not be told about a decision he's thinking about.
This is the start of a redo on an old story I found on a flash drive recently:
Mama was dying so I broke my rule and got on the plane to Edwardsville. When I arrived back in that city for the first time in nine years, I expected the airport to either shatter in a fantastic explosion or crumble in upon itself, taking me and several hundred patrons with it. Shadows did follow several people in the terminal, but only one shadow per person, so I collected my luggage and found a cab.
Mama was dying so I broke my rule and got on the plane to Edwardsville. When I arrived back in that city for the first time in nine years, I expected the airport to either shatter in a fantastic explosion or crumble in upon itself, taking me and several hundred patrons with it. Shadows did follow several people in the terminal, but only one shadow per person, so I collected my luggage and found a cab.
First sentence: Nice, straightforward, sets the scene.
Second sentence: That violent image of an exploding airport is disconcerting out of context. I don't know if your narrator is being literal (really expects the airport to explode) or metaphorical (is so severely anxious or depressed).
Third sentence: "Shadows did follow" seems unnecessarily roundabout -- there seems no reason not to just say "Shadows followed". Otherwise I like it; the idea of "only shadow per person" makes me wonder about what follows (in a good way).
Thank you! She's being literal. I was looking at that sentence myself, wondering about it. I need to make it clearer.
A POV going back to their hometown to visit their dying relation is a well-worn trope in fiction. Granted, the prose doesn't specifically say that Edwardsville is the narrator's hometown, but the prose gives it that vibe.
As I've said in other pieces, I'm not a fan of narrative withholding, and the second and third sentence feel like that's what's going on. I don't get the sense that the reason for the expectation of an explosion, or what the shadows are, are going to be revealed in the 4th and 5th line by the fact that the POV mentions them, then gets a cab. This to me indicates that these comments will be left to be revealed later in the story, and if that's the case, I would probably stop reading quite quickly.
My advice in these circumstances are to just state what the 'Why' is as quickly as possible, and then get to the POV's reactions and plot resolution.I think that makes for a tighter, more engaging narrative.