Comments | hardassonance: Opening

hardassonance

Opening

Aug 29, 2009 06:23

I need to have this here for others to read because I think it is the strongest opening I have written to go along with the eighty-thousand-plus words I have scattered all over my desk at all times. If it is bad I want to know. If it is good I want to know. If it is boring then I really want to know. If it catches your interest and would make you ( Read more... )

Comments 4

katden August 29 2009, 14:17:57 UTC

"Even so, monsters can reveal secrets and truths, some darker than others, with the blunt honesty, unrelenting curiousity, and bare intentions of their actions. Monsters are simple, pure things that can be explained and understood with ease and, of course, it is for those same reasons that monsters do not really exist outside of a label. Anything that easy to comprehend ceases to be a thing and retracts into merely a name of a thing that people want to understand when they cannot. Monsters, heroes, Gods, death."

This is a disturbing series of statements that gives a glimpse of the journalist's madness and wisdom...I like it.

I know nothing of traditional types of style, so I cannot name this, however, it's intriguing. I need more input, please. (his experiment on Fate was to have his best bud kill him and see what happened? He murdered others? )

hardassonance August 30 2009, 02:29:37 UTC

Asking questions is good. It means you are interested and asking what happens next. Thank you!

Reading back what you quoted of the text there makes me worried that it may have a few too many mystical references and makes it sound like the book has some sort of character that is connected to god, or monsters, or anything sort of paranormal. That's not the case. Maybe I'll have to change that.

Yes, he did murder others.

(The comment has been removed)

hardassonance August 30 2009, 03:28:47 UTC

The initial problem, for me, is the first-person POV. Obviously the journal entry/letter need to remain in first person. The problem with first person is that it tells; it doesn't show. Reading that one paragraph at the top, it is as though you are saying, "After this happened, this happened. I read the journals. This is what they said." This is not a flaw with your writing, but rather a problem inherent in first person.I like that, and that may be a problem. I do not agree that show is always better than tell. Lots of novels tell instead of show, and it is a careful balance that is needed. I think this introduction is too telly but if I can strike a balance with the rest of the novel then I will be happy ( ... )

hardassonance August 30 2009, 03:28:57 UTC

I am surprised that you find Mason more compelling than Nicholas. I always thought Nicholas was the more interesting character but now that I think about it, that goes against my original idea. When I first began writing this, years ago now, I always had that Nicholas would be the depraved psychopath and Mason would be the human connection to him. My goal for this novel is to have an evil character who does horrible things but is still liked by the reader. He is not a Dexter. He doesn't kill other killers. He kills innocents. Perhaps I need to reevaluate Mason's involvement at certain points of the story. The further into this reply I get the more I want to switch back to third-person. I think I'll have a lot of notes to look over ( ... )