Miss Snark's First Victim
Yes, but I'd cut the word "which".
Yes. I agree "which" doesn't work there.Violet - #29
yes! I want to know why she's either seeing a ghost or a guy that's supposed to be dead. I also agree about the word which, I'd cut it.
Yes, but barely. It was worded in such a way that I had to read it twice. I think it would work better if you reverse the sentence structure. Otherwise, I want to know why she's seeing him.
Yes, intriguing, agree about dropping the word which.
Yes. Must know why she first saw Robert after she killed him. But would switch "which" to "that."
No. Honestly, it's because the combination of the title and sentence make me wonder if it's like the movie.
Maybe: yes, because it made me ask questions, but I'd actually take out "the accident" (to make readers ask, how did he die?).No, because I recall a book starting the exact same way.
No. Even though this is intriguing, I thought the writing was a little too clunky, like the sentence has a few too many subordinate clauses. (Also, you either need to change that "which" to "that" or, as several others have mentioned, cut it entirely.)
Yes - I want to know why she is seeing him.However, like previously stated, I'd change "which" to "that" and I would consider putting in "she/her" name.
Yes - what the others said: minus the 'which' but intriguing.
Yes. I love a good mystery/ghost story.
Yep. Is he actually dead and a ghost? Or is he not really dead? My only hesitation is the thought that maybe Robert has a twin.
Yes. It certainly got my attention and made me want to know more.
No. The wording is off.
I'm on the fence. This sounds familiar so that makes me lean to no.However I do want to know why he isn't dead.
No. Great idea, but something about the POV feels off. At the same time it's telling us this is the first time she met him it's also giving us info about his life from before they met. Just feels kind of contradictory, I guess.
Yes, this is an intriguing opening. It's weird though. The sentence starts like a romance and goes creepy very quickly (but weird in a good way).
Yes. I'm curious. I think the word 'which' needs to come out.
Yes, but agree with the others about "which."
No. I feel like this has been done before.
YesBut i feel like it could definitely be tightened to really pack a punch
Yes. It definitely piqued my interest but it could use a little cleaning up.
Yes, but the sentence could use work. Unless you want "she" to be a mystery, you should use her name.
Yes, but I'd change sentence around a bit.
Hooked by the idea, but agree with the others that the sentence itself could be stronger. I had to re-read it a couple of times. Losing the "almost" and the "which" could help. :)
No. The idea is interesting, but the execution confusing. If she's seeing him for the first time, how does she know it's him? Did she know him before? See his picture somewhere?
No. Wording is convoluted.
I agree with the others about switching "which" to "that," but yes.
No. But if the next sentence made this common (in books) situation unique enough I might change my mind.
Yes. I want to know if the vision was real, or a dream or??
Hmmm - I'm going to go with No - it read a little too wonky for me. I felt like it could be re-worded and then it would turn into a yes just for the premise.
Yes. I definitely want to know how our mc sees this guy AFTER his death. But I think "which" should be "that."
Yes, but replace 'which' with 'that'.
No--I think this is almost there, but it feels like a run-on with the "which killed him." It does make sense and honestly, it's a fine sentence, but it doesn't grab me as much as it could when clearly it is implying she is seeing Robert after he died. That's big! But this doesn't quite capture it for me.
Yes, BUT I agree about the word which. Or condensing. The first time she saw Robert he'd been dead almost six months.
Yes. interesting opening.
No. It's a bit too generic to have a thriller start off with a death in the first sentence.
No. I feel like I've seen the "dead character" thing too many times so it feels like a gimmick. Sorry.
Yes, but carve it down and give it power.
No. Awkwardly worded.
Yes. I agree with others about "which," though.
No. I don't like the withholding of the woman's name, and the twist of seeing a dead person doesn't feel fresh enough.
Yes, but with hesitation. It felt retrospective and not immediate.
Yes. It gets my attention right away. I want to know more about Robert and why he's alive when he clearly ought to be dead =).
Yes. I am intrigued.
Yes! I'm intrigued right away and wonder how he is appearing to her.
No--I think the idea is intriguing, but it's not executed well. If she sees him for the first time 6 months after he died, how does she know who he is, and how does she know he died 6 months ago?And then you're using the cliché 'The first time . . . ."Why not show her actually seeing the ghost?
Yes - good hook, I really want to know what's going on here. It gives me lots of questions straight away, and I'd want to know the answers to those questions.
Yes. I go with the majority on "which" vs "that" and the whole concept of seeing the guy six months after he died is an immediate hook. Really good!
Yes, but I think Lanette is correct. The sentence would be stronger if inverted.
Yes. Did he really die and is a ghost or is it something more? Nice.
No, probably because it doesn't give any insight into the characters or voice and just feels a little too gimmicky, too 'been there'. Sorry.