I agree that the second sentence could use a little adjustment to make it clear you don't mean a contradiction, but that they could imagine it/see the results.
Er, no, sorry. The POV puts me off. (And as much as I enjoy mangled bodies, I need a better, more definitive POV and character to appreciate them through. :P)
The first sentence works great. It intrigues me quite a bit. Once you fix the second sentence, it would work good. You just need to figure out what exactly you're trying to say.
I liked the first sentence, but it seemed to be totally separate from the second sentence.
Also, if you're going to start off with an abstract philosophical statement (which is fine), I'd suggest balancing it by making the second sentence focus on some vivid detail that immediately engages us in the action of the scene. Abstraction = emotional distance. If the narrator is emotionally distant from what's happening, we will be too.
Finally, I'd recommend picking a strong character and putting this in that person's point of view. Writing from the perspective of the "royal we" is very distancing, and makes it hard for me to get emotionally engaged in what's happening.
The first sentence is intriguing. The second...not so much. I think it might be the two "had seen"s. Not a fan of that verb tense overall, and here the second one just seemed awkward and confusing.
I think you've got a mysterious opening in the making here, though! :-)
Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (Wikipedia): 80.8 Aim for 60 to 80. The higher the score, the more readable the text.
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (Wikipedia): 7.1 Approximation of number of years of education required* to read text.
Gunning-Fog Score (Wikipedia): 10.2 Approximation of number of years of education required* to read text.
Coleman-Liau Index (Wikipedia): 7.6 Approximation of number of years of education required* to read text.
SMOG Index (Wikipedia): 6 Approximation of number of years of education required* to read text.
Automated Readability Index (Wikipedia): 7.5 Approximation of number of years of education required* to read text. too convoluted, you have 300+ pages to get it in. Simplify, we are probably not as smart as you.
A good opening.
ReplyDelete"None... saw the fight... but they had seen it..."
Obviously this contradicts itself.
What the narration wants to say, I think, is "but they could picture/imagine/envision/recreate it well enough [by looking at] the two mangled bodies"
I also think the second sentence needs a little work, perhaps '...they had seen the outcome in the two mangled bodies.'
ReplyDeleteI agree that the second sentence could use a little adjustment to make it clear you don't mean a contradiction, but that they could imagine it/see the results.
ReplyDeleteEr, no, sorry. The POV puts me off. (And as much as I enjoy mangled bodies, I need a better, more definitive POV and character to appreciate them through. :P)
ReplyDeleteKeep the second "seen"; it's the first one that needs changing. Try something like:
ReplyDeleteNone of the women had witnessed the fight on the opposite shore, but they had seen it well enough in the two mangled bodies.
The first sentence works great. It intrigues me quite a bit. Once you fix the second sentence, it would work good. You just need to figure out what exactly you're trying to say.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if this is enough to hook me.
ReplyDeleteIt seems a bit telling... or something. I'm not sure. :[
It's a little vague for me. Sorry, not hooked
ReplyDeleteI liked the first sentence, but it seemed to be totally separate from the second sentence.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if you're going to start off with an abstract philosophical statement (which is fine), I'd suggest balancing it by making the second sentence focus on some vivid detail that immediately engages us in the action of the scene. Abstraction = emotional distance. If the narrator is emotionally distant from what's happening, we will be too.
Finally, I'd recommend picking a strong character and putting this in that person's point of view. Writing from the perspective of the "royal we" is very distancing, and makes it hard for me to get emotionally engaged in what's happening.
I'd read on to see who had died and why. I don't think you need the first sentence though.
ReplyDeleteAnd you need to fix the tense in the last sentence.
None of the women had seen the fight on the opposite shore, but they saw it well enough in the two mangled bodies.
The second sentence is unclear. The first is interesting. With a better second sentence I might be hooked, but as of now, I’m not.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Barb. Interested, but could be stronger.
ReplyDeleteNot sure how this multiple POV thing will work out. So far, I'm not hooked, mostly because of the omniscient voice.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with fairchild. This is too vague for me as well. It left me feeling a little confused more than anything else.
ReplyDeleteThe first sentence is intriguing. The second...not so much. I think it might be the two "had seen"s. Not a fan of that verb tense overall, and here the second one just seemed awkward and confusing.
ReplyDeleteI think you've got a mysterious opening in the making here, though! :-)
Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (Wikipedia): 80.8
ReplyDeleteAim for 60 to 80. The higher the score, the more readable the text.
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (Wikipedia): 7.1
Approximation of number of years of education required* to read text.
Gunning-Fog Score (Wikipedia): 10.2
Approximation of number of years of education required* to read text.
Coleman-Liau Index (Wikipedia): 7.6
Approximation of number of years of education required* to read text.
SMOG Index (Wikipedia): 6
Approximation of number of years of education required* to read text.
Automated Readability Index (Wikipedia): 7.5
Approximation of number of years of education required* to read text.
too convoluted, you have 300+ pages to get it in. Simplify, we are probably not as smart as you.