# Where Do The Dead Boys Go? (Chapter 1 of Part 1)



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Jul 24, 2017)

[FONT=&Verdana]I.

[/FONT]​_That which exists in our mind also exists somewhere beyond us, and the strange and the ordinary are closer than you may think. _
The white curtains billow in the white-plaster room. The carpet is grayish and pale. There is one bed in the room, with an unrumpled blue quilt pulled over it. It’s night outside, but a candle burns on the nightstand and a little boy is sitting on the floor. His hair falls partway over his face, his hands fidget and clutch on his lap, and his eyes are round as silver dollars.

“Anna?” he says, his voice a hoarse whisper. 

There’s no answer, but the wind blows in through the open window, making the curtains flap and flutter. Tup can feel the coolness of the breeze prickling his spine, and his eyes grow rounder and rounder,

“Anna?” he tries again, louder this time.

The door opens a crack, and the face of an older girl peers in. “Stop making so much noise!”

“Anna.”

“You’re gonna wake up Mama,” she hisses.

“Let her wake up,” he mumbles, but then says out loud, “Who gets the dead boys?”

“What?” She comes in, silently closes the door behind her, and squats on the floor next to him.

“Who gets the dead boys?” he says again, staring at the stucco wall. 

She makes her eyes into little slits, cocks her head to one side, and whispers, “What’s that supposed to mean?”

He looks at his zombie-pale hands, moves his fingers slightly, clears his throat. Then he says, “All those stories you tell. You know, there’s that monster who gets the naughty little boys. And when Mama doesn’t want me to cry, she says that there’s something that gets the sad boys. So.”

Anna’s eyes narrow even further, her chestnut-brown pupils becoming invisible. “So you wanna know who gets the dead little boys?”

He doesn’t answer. She takes him onto her lap, smooths her calico dress, and tousles his hair. “Ever heard of the angel of death?”

A shiver spiders through Tup’s body, and he grasps for Anna’s hand. 

“Here’s the real honest truth: the angel of death’s got six skeleton wings like some kind of nasty bug. And his fingers are like sickles.”

Tup’s eyes grow rounder, the candle flickers, and the curtains flap like the garments of ghosts.

“But here, listen. The angel of death’s still an [/FONT]_angel. _[FONT=&Verdana]Which means he don’t do nothin’ unless God says so. So—”

The boards of the house creak gently, touched by the wind of the Skree desert.

Anna drops her voice to a whisper, and bends close to Tup’s ear. “So God says to him, “Say, somebody’s died.” An’ the angel of death flies down to the planet you’re on, and he finds you, and he taps you on the neck, like this. . .”

She raps his collarbone with the knuckle of her forefinger, and Tup smiles in spite of himself.

“. . .And he says, ‘Hey, whad’ya think of seein’ how pretty heaven is. Say hi to God, maybe?’ And you say, ‘I think that sounds fine.’ So then two little baby cherubs fly down, and one takes you by the right hand, and one takes you by the left, and they fly you out the window—”

“What if you’re too heavy?” Tup says, arrested by a strange impulse. 

“It’s just the soul part, silly. So they fly you out the window, and then out into space, and you get to see all the planets and things, ‘til you’re at the edge of the universe. Then you go up, up, with them, ‘til you get to heaven. That’s the story. That’s what happens to the dead boys.”

He sighs, leaning into her lap. “It doesn’t sound so bad,” he says, very quiet.

“Yeah, it ain’t so bad,” she says, even quieter. “But you ain’t gonna die anytime soon, Tup. Not me, either.”

“Oh,” he whispers, letting the sound of the wind swallow his words.

Anna gets up, abruptly pushing him off her lap. “Okay. You gotta go to bed now. Mama’s gonna be mad.”

She turns the brass knob of the door, ready to leave. But Tup remains on the floor, silent, fidgeting like a crocus in the early spring breeze.[FONT=&Verdana]
[/FONT][FONT=&Verdana]
[/FONT]“Go on. Scoot.” She gestures towards the bed. “Hey, I’ll leave the door open a crack, but you gotta blow the candle out, or the house’ll set on fire.”

The candle flame trembles violently in the wind, oscillating here and there, now a brilliant flare, now a barely glowing dot on the wick. The boy gets up slowly, bends his head to the nightstand, and sends the slightest puff of air through his lips. The darkness flows in where the little space of candlelight was, and a tiny wisp of smoke, coming as if from the the end of a cigarette, curls away into the dimness.

Anna leaves the room, leaving the door so that a stream of half-light creeps in. “Sleep, won’t you?” she whispers through the crack. 

As an answer, Tup lays down and pulls the pale blue quilt over himself. He stares and stares at the slim space between the door and the door frame as if it is the horizon on the rim of a broad ocean. 
[FONT=&Verdana]
[/FONT]


----------



## bdcharles (Jul 25, 2017)

Yep. Super, sublime voice as always, some perfect phrasings. I love the way you use the candle as a sort of device. Burns, flickers, trembles violently - and _something _approaches (that's what I got from it anyway).

Only one thing I wanted to see different - can Tup be named earlier? It just jangled a smidge to name him where you did. Apart from that I have absolutely nothing to add.


----------



## Bayview (Jul 25, 2017)

I really like this - nice combination of creepy and sweet.

At the start I thought you were maybe going to go a bit overboard on description, but once the scene was set that faded out.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Jul 25, 2017)

bdcharles: Glad you got the "something approaches" feel. Thanks for pointing out the name thing!

Bayview: Thanks! Do you think the intro needs tweaking?


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jul 25, 2017)

> his eyes are round as silver dollars[/FONT]





> [FONT=&Verdana]his eyes grow rounder and rounder,


Seriously?  His eyes are round, then get rounder only thirty-seven words apart?

But that aside, it sounds cartoonish  when you present a condition that, from a reader's viewpoint, has no  known cause. It appears that you're thinking cinematically, and telling  the reader what _you_ visualize in the scene as a whole. But knowing what's there and visualizing what you see, are not the same.





> There’s no answer, but the wind blows in through the open window, making the curtains flap and flutter.[/FONT]


That  "but" implies cause and effect, or at least some connection. But the  curtains are an ongoing thing unrelated to the boy calling an unknown  person for an unknown reason.





> [FONT=&Verdana]“What?” She comes in, silently closes the door behind her, and squats on the floor next to him.


The greatest weakness of our medium is that it can present no vision, only talk about it. So telling the reader what _can_  be seen in the mental film you're watching, no matter how poetically,  doesn't give the reader your view. In this line you say, "an older  girl." But is a little boy four or eight? You know, but the reader has  no clue. Is an "older girl" nine or sixteen? no hint. Are they in a  castle, a home in modern USA, or a displaced children's shelter in in  the Mideast? All of that matters a great deal to the reader's  perceptions of the story. Without it, the ambience you take in  instantly, because vision is a parallel sense, is lost, as  is nuance of expression, body language, and so much more, because the printed word is a  serial medium, which means everything must be spelled out, one item at a time.

It is well said that one picture is worth a thousand words. And that's a _still_  picture. This is a film, constantly in motion. But because of the  serial medium limitation, the nuance of expression that actors spend  years perfecting, and which carries so much of the emotional  content—the elements that _are_ in the vision you "see" as you read—are missing. Missing too, sre the shades of emotion present in _how_  the characters speak. Tiny changes in tone, intensity, cadence, and  all the tricks of speaking carry a huge freight of meaning. But that's  reduced to "[FONT=&Verdana]Anna drops her voice to a whisper," in text, which is a shadow of what the one attending the film gets.

The  thing our medium excels at is taking the reader into the protagonist's  mind. But you use that not at all. So this is not told in omniscient  POV, it's fly-on-the-wall, a POV used mostly when we want to limit the reader's emotional connection to the scene. But the result is as dispassionate as a report, written in the form, "This happened...then that happened...and after that..." You have excellent writing skills. I was impressed by the descriptions, but the techniques you're using are the report-writing skills we all learn in school. And that informs, yes, but they're author-centric and fact-based, where fiction, whose goal is to entertain, is character-centric and emotion-based. So no matter how hard you work, and how much beauty you place in the writing, it will be told in a dispassionate way by an external observer. And because we are not viewing the situation as either of the participants, we aren't privy to what matters to them in the moment they call now, and how they view the actions—and intent—of the other one in the scene. So, there can be no empathy between reader and the character. Does the boy think the girl's being cruel, or informative? No way to tell. Is she comforting or spiteful? Unknown. 

How a character perceives the situation is driven by many factors, some situational and some inherent to the character's past. Their actions are driven by those factors, by their perceived necessities and resources. Were this a film, there are a thousand tricks the director can use to make us know that. A fleeting expression; a quick cut to a hand shredding a napkin, a frown or bitten lip; a strategically placed pause for breath, and so much more—none of which is available on the page to even a fraction of what life and film can present. In practical terms, what that means is that we can't tell a story on the page by describing what we see as we watch the film. It takes the skills developed specifically for our medium. It's the reason the film and book versions of a story are always different.

So the bottom line? You have the spark, the desire, and the perseverance. And, you have the story. What you need are the tricks of our trade. After all, if we expect our reader to see our writing as they view that of the pros, doesn't it make sense that we need to know what a pro knows? Isn't spending a bit of time acquiring our professional education worth the time? You do, after all, want to place your story into the best setting to show it off.

So...For a demonstration of how viewpoint can work to place the reader into the story with the protagonist as their avatar, you might want to look at my article titled, "What in the hell is POV?" Since it is mine I'm not allowed to link to it, but it's easy to find. I also suggest this article, for one very powerful way of placing the reader into the persona of the protagonist. And if it makes sense, the book it was condensed from is filled with such things.

But whatever you do, hang in there, and keep on writing.
[/FONT]


----------



## Bayview (Jul 25, 2017)

Jay Greenstein said:


> But that aside, it sounds cartoonish  when you present a condition that, from a reader's viewpoint, has no  known cause. It appears that you're thinking cinematically, and telling  the reader what _you_ visualize in the scene as a whole. But knowing what's there and visualizing what you see, are not the same.That  "but" implies cause and effect, or at least some connection. But the  curtains are an ongoing thing unrelated to the boy calling an unknown  person for an unknown reason.The greatest weakness of our medium is that it can present no vision, only talk about it. So telling the reader what _can_  be seen in the mental film you're watching, no matter how poetically,  doesn't give the reader your view...[FONT=&Verdana]
> [/FONT]



I disagree with almost all of this. I think the more distant POV was really effective in this piece, as was the lack of details about character ages, etc.

The little boy seems almost fatalistic about whatever event he anticipates--he fears it, but he's not doing anything to avoid it. So he, like the reader, is a little removed from the scene. We care (at least, I certainly cared, and I'm not usually easy to drag into things) because of the intrinsic horror, not because we've been spoon-fed the reactions of the characters.

The affection between the two characters is clear without needing to be explicitly stated. He comes to her for comfort, they're physically at ease with each other and clearly used to snuggling, he trusts her answers, etc. I have absolutely no problem empathising with either of these characters.

There are other ways to write, obviously. We certainly _can_ give more character thoughts and feelings by using the written word. But that doesn't mean we have to. Sometimes we can just trust our readers to figure things out.


ETA: Re. tweaking the first part, OP... I don't know. I wouldn't do it _yet_... this is chapter one of part one, so it probably makes sense to get the rest figured out and then see how it all flows together.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jul 25, 2017)

> I disagree with almost all of this.


Your right, of course, but were it a submission as part of a query, the acquiring editor or agent would have reacted as I did, for the reasons given. Think about it. At the end of the excerpt, we're on the fourth standard manuscript page, and what don't we know?

We don't know where in time and space we are. Yes, there's some sort of desert outside, with a name that's not searchable on Google. But that tells us nothing, given that this is fiction. 

We have no protagonist and because of the external viewpoint, there's been no character development as far as the reader is concerned. We know _what's_ said, but not why the character was moved to say it, or what they hoped it would accomplish. We don't learn either their age or what they are to each other. The only thing that we know about the house is that it has stucco walls inside, which seems unusual, at the least. We know that in _response_ to the girl mentioning "the angel of death," weirdness happens: "the candle flickers, and the curtains flap like the garments of ghosts." And that seems just a bit odd, as does the house creaking in response to her next declaration.

So what happened that matters to the plot, other than two kids having a conversation that may or may not relate, in a meaningful way to the plot? Four pages have been read and we can't tell.

It's not a matter of good or bad writing, or talent. And in this case the author provides vivid and vocative writing. I was impressed, and I don't say that often. The problem is one of missing a few necessary tools—tools not provided in our school days. And because of the missing knowledge the reader is never given context because three questions aren't addressed to provide it. To quote from Dwight Swain's Techniques of the Selling Writer:





> To begin a story, you must create a story world.
> 
> You start with your reader’s mind a blank. Then, a step at a time, you lift him away from reality and transport him into the imaginary land you have conceived.
> To travel thus into the story world, your reader instinctively asks three questions:
> ...



Hope this clarifies.


----------



## Bayview (Jul 26, 2017)

Jay Greenstein said:


> Your right, of course, but were it a submission as part of a query, the acquiring editor or agent would have reacted as I did, for the reasons given. Think about it. At the end of the excerpt, we're on the fourth standard manuscript page, and what don't we know?



I'm really not confident in your ability to anticipate the reactions of every acquiring editor or agent in the world. I mean, they're readers, right? If they're intrigued by a story, they aren't going to run to Dwight Swayne's checklist of what has to be in the first pages of a MS, they're going to accept their intrigue and read on.

That said, we know a great deal: we have a reasonable idea of the characters, setting, and mood of the piece. Most importantly, we know _something bad_ is probably about to happen to this little boy, who seems sweet and innocent and who we don't want to see something bad happen to. We don't want to see it, but we want to read it...

I don't agree that the only way for us to have character development is to be inside a character's head. We can learn a lot about characters from what they do and say and how they interact, and we get that here. (If the only way to get character development is to be in deep third and be _told_ about a character's thoughts and feelings, then we'd only ever get character development of the POV character, and obviously that isn't the case).

And I'm confused about why you think most of the article you quoted applies to this piece. It seems to be about using significant details effectively, and I'd say that absolutely happened in this piece, except the details weren't as cliched as the ones the article mentions. The cool breeze, the zombie-pale hands, the candle that gets snuffed out and disappears into the darkness... these seem like very effective details to me.

We're not in deep third POV, no. But if Dwight Swayne is trying to tell people that deep third, entered into immediately at the start of a novel, is the only way to write a book that sells, then Dwight needs to read a little more widely. Lots of successful books start with a more distant POV and zoom into a character's skin after the situation is established. And some books, especially more literary books, maintain a bit of distance throughout.

We don't know how the author's playing it in this case, but any agent who requires a book to start in deep POV, in the days of _Harry Potter_, is probably working more on personal biases than market knowledge.

Will this piece appeal to every agent/editor? Of course not--no book will. But I don't think there's anything in this piece that would lead to automatic rejection across the board.


----------



## masontrc (Jul 26, 2017)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> [FONT=&Verdana]I.
> 
> [/FONT]​_That which exists in our mind also exists somewhere beyond us, and the strange and the ordinary are closer than you may think. _
> The white curtains billow in the white-plaster room. The carpet is grayish and pale. There is one bed in the room, with an unrumpled blue quilt pulled over it. It’s night outside, but a candle burns on the nightstand and a little boy is sitting on the floor. His hair falls partway over his face, his hands fidget and clutch on his lap, and his eyes are round as silver dollars (1).
> ...



Overall: I loved your story's fluid dialogue and the way in which you started to develop your main characters through it. Your use of vocabulary also helps create the flow and mood of the story. Going forward, consider how you can draw your reader into the environment and conflict of the piece. I look forward to reading more of this.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jul 26, 2017)

> I'm really not confident in your ability to anticipate the reactions of  every acquiring editor or agent in the world. I mean, they're readers,  right?


I wasn't giving my personal opinion, I was telling the author the kind of thing we would be learning in the first week of a university course on commercial fiction writing. And, I posted an excerpt from a book on writing by one of the most successful teachers of writing, to illustrate what I meant. 

You don't agree? Again, your right. But given Swain's credentials, you might want to take the time to actually read that book before dismissing what it says. And instead of a blanket attack on me, why not spend your words on helping the author. So far, your help has been limited to saying you like it. Surely you saw things that need fixing. Put them up and perhaps we'll debate them. Pick a point where you believe Swain (or me) is wrong and we can debate that. We don't learn anything from those who agree with us. So simply saying you disagree with what someone says doesn't serve to either help our author or serve as literary discussion. Perhaps you could post a sample of how you think a story should be best presented. 





> That said, we know a great deal: we have a reasonable idea of the characters, setting, and mood of the piece


No, we don't. After four pages we don't know where we are—or even if we're on Earth. We don't know their ages or what they are to each other. We know nothing of their society, their background, or their thoughts. Is Anna a mean bitch who's making up scary stories to frighten a little boy? Or is she a loving sister/friend/servant/etc., who cares, and passing on stories common to their culture? No one would trust a "little boy" to be alone with a candle, and it appears that he not only has one but is awake after "Mamma" goes to sleep, as is the girl. So there's a lot of things that need to be addressed so as to give the reader context.





> I don't agree that the only way for us to have character development is to be inside a character's head.


You don't have to. The acquiring editor who reads the submission does. And as someone who owned a manuscript critiquing service I can tell you that, as a professional observation, not an opinion. You can, of course, counter that by providing the views of a pro; by pointing out a modern novel which does not provide a strong viewpoint, by pointing to something of yours that demonstrates it, etc.





> If the only way to get character development is to be in deep third and be _told_ about a character's thoughts and feelings,


Those are your words. I never said to tell the thoughts, because that's an overview, too. The goal is to entertain your reader. And having the author talk _about_ the story, in a voice devoid of emotion can only inform.





> It seems to be about using significant details effectively,


No, it refers to the three questions the author didn't address, and how to present context in a way that isn't the author talking to the reader and killing all sense of immediacy.





> We're not in deep third POV, no. But if Dwight Swayne is trying to tell  people that deep third, entered into immediately at the start of a  novel,


Sorry, but the personal pronouns used have nothing to do with viewpoint. Deep third refers to placing the character deeply into the character's _viewpoint_, while at the same time using third person personal pronouns.  For why viewpoint matters you might take a look at my article, _What in the hell is POV?_


> Will this piece appeal to every agent/editor? Of course not--no book will.


You're taking the view that story is what matters, and that some publishers will like a given story. But in reality, fully 75% of what's submitted is seen as unreadable by the publishing industry because the one writing it is still using the writing skills we're given in school. Of the remaining twenty-five, all but three are seen as amateur (their term, not mine) Two of those remaining are not right for that house. So only one out of one hundred submissions is placed into competition for a writing slot, and at best, one in ten makes it to publication.

Your work sits on the desk mixed with that of people who have spent years honing their skills. Some of them have been published. But all of those which will receive a request for the manuscript were work submitted by people who knew what publishers see as professional work. I mean no insult, but if you believe that someone who sat down and wrote a story using the skills we're given in school—no matter how much time they spent on it—stands a glimmer of a chance of being selected, you're making a mistake. Fiction for the page is a profession. And like _all_ professions, has a body of knowledge and craft that is not optional.

But all that being said, this thread is about the story, not on if you do or don't agree with my critique. If you want to talk about how to write, start a thread on the subject and we can get everyone else into it, for a variety of views.


----------



## Bayview (Jul 27, 2017)

Jay Greenstein said:


> You don't agree? Again, your right. But given Swain's credentials, you might want to take the time to actually read that book before dismissing what it says.



I've read the book. Why would you assume I haven't read the book?



> And instead of a blanket attack on me, why not spend your words on helping the author.



I'm sorry you feel attacked. I disagree with your statements about this piece of work. That's all. I'm not attacking anything beyond your opinion on this piece, and, really, "attacking" seems a bit dramatic.



> Pick a point where you believe Swain (or me) is wrong and we can debate that.



I did. I believe you're wrong about this piece (your criticism of POV, your impression that the piece doesn't create empathy, etc.). And I believe the Swayne is wrong (if it's saying that we must always immediately sink into Deep POV). 



> Perhaps you could post a sample of how you think a story should be best presented.


 Possibly this is the crux of the disagreement. I don't believe there's any single way a story should be best presented. Surely you don't think that either? There has to be room for different styles, surely? We aren't all trying to follow a formula to a T?



> No, we don't. After four pages we don't know where we are—or even if we're on Earth.


 There's been a suggestion we aren't on Earth, but we don't know it definitely, no. A hint can be more intriguing than a flat statement.



> We don't know their ages or what they are to each other. We know nothing of their society, their background, or their thoughts. Is Anna a mean bitch who's making up scary stories to frighten a little boy? Or is she a loving sister/friend/servant/etc., who cares, and passing on stories common to their culture?



You really didn't pick up ideas about this while you were reading? You think the text in any way supports the idea that Anna could be a "mean bitch"?



> And as someone who owned a manuscript critiquing service I can tell you that, as a professional observation, not an opinion.


 I think this may be another area where we're coming at this from different perspectives - I believe that "professional observations" about fiction _are_ opinions. We see professionals disagree about novels and writing all the time... if there's an absolutely truth out there, apparently being a professional in the industry isn't sufficient to give access to that truth.



> ...by pointing out a modern novel which does not provide a strong viewpoint...


 I mentioned _Harry Potter_ as a book that starts with a distant (omniscient? I'd have to reread to be sure) POV and zooms in. Cormac McCarthy comes to mind as an author who has passages in fairly distant third. Hemingway comes to mind (although he may not fit your "modern" criteria? Then again _Techniques _was written in the 50s or 60s, right? So it's not all that modern either).



> Sorry, but the personal pronouns used have nothing to do with viewpoint.


 This is just silly. The pronouns aren't ALL there is to viewpoint, but they're how we know 1st from 2nd from 3rd.



> You're taking the view that story is what matters...


 This is the part that seems like it deserves its own thread. I think we're going WAY too far afield on this one. 

But for the record - I have over thirty novels published, mostly with small presses, some self-published, a couple with Big Five. I don't think that makes my opinion on a piece of writing any more valuable than anyone else's so I don't usually mention it, but since you seem to be coming at this based on a perspective of me as a total rookie, I thought I should clear up the confusion. I'm not a rookie. I've been working with publishers for some time.

And also for the record? My first book is still my best-seller, and it's the one that came from "someone who sat down and wrote a story using the skills we're given in school".

OP - I know this has been a pretty big diversion from your post, and I won't say anything more on this thread. But in the immortal words of Dwight V. Swain, "No writer in his right mind writes by a set of rules. At least, not by somebody else's rules."


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 27, 2017)

Hi Jay. You invited disagreements. I wasn't bothered by the lack of ages. I would rather have a "show" than "tell" on that.

Surely we do not have to be taking a character's perspective to bring that character alive, or else all the other characters in a scene would be flat. You and I both know that a difficult but important skill in writing is bringing those other characters to life too.

Right, I wanted more on if the sister was nice. It would have been pretty standard in Y/A for the sister to yell at him, then when she sees he is frightened, to at least for the moment be caring.

I looked at the opening paragraph. I wanted it to start with "a little boy sits on the floor." Would that solve the problem? Now the addition of details could add to the meaning of the scene.

Arrow, it's kind of trivial, but it's odd to use a silver dollar for your analogy, because people don't have experience with that. Why don't you say that his eyes were round as dimes? I also then got caught up in what it meant for an eye to be round. Also, if it's night, it's night outside and in. Maybe just how I think of it.

It was not my genre, but I found it moody. Good job on that.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Jul 27, 2017)

masontrc: Thank you for your comprehensive critique. Super helpful!

Jay Greenstein: Thanks for the advice. I'm getting that you want to better understand when/where they are, and their motivation?

Emma Sohan: Thank you for pointing out the silver dollar thing! I know the opening paragraph needs some help; thanks for giving me some idea of how it might be re-written. Now, to clarify, do you think that Anna's intention in this scene was not shown enough?


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jul 27, 2017)

> I did. I believe you're wrong about this piece (your criticism of POV,  your impression that the piece doesn't create empathy, etc.).


Saying you don't like what I said is not, by any stretch of imagination discussion. And since you claim to have read Swain's book, and  disagree with Swain, too. I suggest you take that up with him. You also asked why I said you didn't read the book, and the answer is that had you read it, you would know why I said what I did, and voiced specific objections as to where you felt I misunderstood Mr. Swain.





> And I believe the Swayne is wrong


A sincere belief in something has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of that belief. In this case, we have a noted teacher of writing, one who filled auditoriums when he went on tour. So we know his qualifications, My background is available to anyone. But yours is not, and you choose to keep it secret. So...if this is just your opinion you have a right to it, of course, and can express it as you please. But first you said you believed me wrong. When I referenced my source you say you believe him wrong. I would very much like to know if that view is more than, "This personal opinion." Perhaps you will point to a sample of your writing, so we may judge if it is?  No need to reveal your name, post post a piece in the forum. Most people do.





> I mentioned _Harry Potter_ as a book that starts with a distant (omniscient? I'd have to reread to be sure) POV and zooms in


Harry Potter opens in exposition, true, but the approach is not at all like like this piece. In the first paragraph of Potter we're placed in time and space. In paragraph four we begin the story events, knowing who we are and what's going on—whhich were never covered in  this excerpt. And of course what you're forgetting is that Potter is a _children's story_, so of course there's more telling. I asked you to identify a modern novel that uses the approach this one does, where we don't know who the characters are, where they are, or what they are to each other. And though Cormac McCarthy uses a more Historical overview opening in stories like Blood Meridian, the opening immediately places the reader in time and space and makes us know the character, where the approach used in this story is to report what the author sees happening in the film version. So there is no convergence in approach or style between this specific story and either of your examples.

Perhaps, you can point to successful authors who use that style?  But again, you are using someone else's thread to talk about things unrelated to this specific story. It matters not at all if you agree or disagree with my views because they weren't addressed to you. You rendered your opinion on the story, as did I. It's up to the author to decide what to do. If you wish to discuss Swain's fitness for writing a book on the subject he taught I suggest you begin a thread on that subject. This thread is about this story.





> I have over thirty novels published, mostly with small presses, some self-published, a couple with Big Five


Anyone can say that, of course. Perhaps I'm a skeptic, but I believe what I can see.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jul 27, 2017)

> I'm getting that you want to better understand when/where they are, and their motivation?


You need to keep in mind that the reader is seeking to be made to live the story in real-time, with the protagonist as their avatar, not learn what happened. Forgetting everything else, When you talk _about_ the story, it tends to be dispassionate, because only you can hear the emotion in your "voice" as you read. Have your computer read it aloud and you'll hear what I mean. 

One major problem with the external viewpoint is that it tends to read like a report, so there's no uncertainty as it's read. But it's uncertainty that makes the story interesting. If you can place the reader into the moment the protagonist calls now, make them know how the protagonist views what has their attention, and what they feel must be done, you have just calibrated the reader's view of the story to match the protagonist's, and given them a reason to want to read on and see if it works. But a report is a history, informative, but not usually entertaining.

Two articles might help clarify. For why we want to have a strong protagonist viewpoint, my article, "What in the hell is POV," has a few examples that might clarify. For how to accomplish that the article I linked to in my first post, condensed from Dwight Swain's book, shows one very powerful way of presenting that strong viewpoint.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jul 28, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> Arrow, it's kind of trivial, but it's odd to use a silver dollar for your analogy, because people don't have experience with that. Why don't you say that his eyes were round as dimes? I also then got caught up in what it meant for an eye to be round. Also, if it's night, it's night outside and in. Maybe just how I think of it.



Dimes are kinda small. I think the point is his eyes are wide. Perhaps nickles or quarters?


An interesting piece, but I felt that important information hadn't been given, so I didn't quite understand why the boy was sitting on the floor in the first place. Had someone recently died, prompting him to think about death?


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jul 28, 2017)

> I wasn't bothered by the lack of ages. I would rather have a "show" than "tell" on that.


Except, in this case, we're on page four and we still don't know that. Sol Stein put it well when he said, “A novel is like a car—it won’t go anywhere until you turn on the engine. The “engine” of both fiction and nonfiction is the point at which the reader makes the decision not to put the book down. The engine should start in the first three pages, the closer to the top of page one the better.”

If we don't make the reader emotionally connect with the character they won't care what happens to them. And caring is why they turn the page. 





> Surely we do not have to be taking a character's perspective to bring that character alive,


There are other methods. The Last Unicorn is a great example of one way. But can a reader identify, emotionally, with "A little boy" and an "older girl" if we know what's happening but know nothing about them, emotionally?

In effect, we're peering in through the window at people we know nothing about. Place yourself on a bus. Behind you, two people are talking about one of their neignbors. Who are they? Dunno. What brought up the subject? No way to know. Would you be interested enough to want to know more? Contrast that to the same situation, where you recognize the voices of your neighbors gossiping about your wife. Doesn't a little context make a big difference in the emotional content? In writing fiction, context isn't just important, it's everything.





> Right, I wanted more on if the sister was nice.


You just made my point. She's not his sister. She's just "an older girl." You assume she is his sister, but wouldn't, "big sister" have clarified it. Better yet, instead of the author having to step on stage, and stop the action to explain, had she said, "Hey little brother, relax," we would have known _in context._


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jul 28, 2017)

Harry Potter opens with telling the reader about how ordinary Mr. and Mrs. Dursley of Number Four Privet Drive are. It may break "rules", or not, but it was playful and enchanting. And it worked.

Someone else might write an opening that tells the reader something and have it discourage the reader from continuing. 

So Swain's rules aside, the real question is -- does this piece work for each reader? It might for some and not others.

My point, in case I haven't been clear, is I have more respect for someone who says something doesn't work for him or her, than someone who just quotes "rules".


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 29, 2017)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> do you think that Anna's intention in this scene was not shown enough?



I am not sure what her intention is, so I guess not. At the start of her explanation, she seems mean; at the end she seems nice. I don't know what it indicates for eyes to be slits, that might be part of my problem.

It would be reasonably conventional in Y/A for the older sister to come into the room annoyed by her annoying younger brother, then to switch to caring when she saw he was in distress. So I might have assumed that.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 29, 2017)

Jay Greenstein said:


> The “engine” of both fiction and nonfiction is the point at which the reader makes the decision not to put the book down.



To extend your idea, which I love, perhaps a scene should should start the engine as soon as possible. I looked at one of my books, and a scene usually started with setting AND a starter. A good example: "It's before school, and I'm sitting in a stall in the girls' bathroom, softly crying." A typical example: "I'm sitting on a large couch outside Principal Kole's office."

When I start with no setting, I interject it quickly; when I start with just setting, I try to get to a starter as soon as possible.

Arrow, do you actually care about the order in which your scene is described? Can you start with something that starts the engine? I like emotion, so the dialogue got my interest first.


----------



## Mans (Jul 30, 2017)

The scene and states have been described very good and dialogues are relevant and connected to each other and transfer a real sense to reader.

"Clears his throat" It seems a little unreal for me because usually kids don't clear their throat for speaking.


----------



## Phil Istine (Aug 7, 2017)

This was an enjoyable read for me and I thought you captured the mood well.
A couple of minor points: (1) as someone else mentioned, I would have liked Tup to be given a name earlier. (2) using the same adjective (white) in quick succession sometimes works well. It didn't feel to me like this was such an occasion.
That apart, it seemed fine to me.  A decent read. Thanks.


----------



## Thaumiel (Aug 23, 2017)

This piece tied for story of the month, well done!


----------

