Seems a bit much for MG. Even if she is just floating, the words cause us to feel she's dead. Personally, I don't want to feel this defeated at the very beginning of a story.
I don't really care for this. To me, starting a book off with the dependent clause, then noun/verb is weak. Especially since "was" is quite passive, almost all the time. You definitely don't want it in your first sentence.
I'd try something more like "The body floated three inches under the surface of the water." or "Victoria's body lay on the bottom of the pool."
There's so many places this could be going. I agree with the concern around it being a bit much for MG, but it makes me wonder if the next sentence may simply say something about her just liking the way it feels to be floating.
"Completely still" seems somehow redundant to me. If she's motionless - does "still" do the job by itself? I'm not sure about "completely still." This is quite nitpicky, sorry!
I'm interested to see if this is your protagonist's voice or if it belongs to someone else who is observing the body in the pool. I would read on. You've got me curious now.
I agree with previous comments. I'd just suggest to find something with more impact than 'completely still'. Motionless, or some such, wouldn't need an adjective.
Sorry, I'd pass. You're telling us she's face down in the pool, but you're not telling us she's at the bottom of a dry pool. If she's in the water, then she's floating and that would make it "Victoria's body floated" and you'd have to cut the completely still since it's almost impossible to remain "completely" still when you're floating. It feels like a ploy, like you're pulling one over on the reader's eyes, trying to fool the reader into thinking she might be dead, and then you'll have her move. That speaks more about the author than the MC. I'd rather know why she's like that. Or, if she really is dead at the bottom of a pool, then say she's there.
This is a little morbid to start a YA/MG book, no? Unless it lightens up a bit in the next one or two lines, I would not read on.
ReplyDeleteI like this because I don't know if she's alive or dead. I suspect she's just floating. Builds some tension - I would read on.
ReplyDeleteSince she's dead, is there a reason to immediately name her? Is she dead? could just be floating...face down...for fun?
ReplyDeleteNot really 'grabby' to me...might just be me because I can see people liking this....
Seems a bit much for MG. Even if she is just floating, the words cause us to feel she's dead. Personally, I don't want to feel this defeated at the very beginning of a story.
ReplyDeleteI don't really care for this. To me, starting a book off with the dependent clause, then noun/verb is weak. Especially since "was" is quite passive, almost all the time. You definitely don't want it in your first sentence.
ReplyDeleteI'd try something more like "The body floated three inches under the surface of the water." or "Victoria's body lay on the bottom of the pool."
If this was an adult book, good beginning. Not for MG. I'd read on, but I wouldn't give it to my 12 year old
ReplyDeleteThere's so many places this could be going. I agree with the concern around it being a bit much for MG, but it makes me wonder if the next sentence may simply say something about her just liking the way it feels to be floating.
ReplyDeleteIt may say "Face down", but not dead.
I'm curious now, I'd keep reading.
This might be a bit morbid for MG, if she is dead.
ReplyDeleteIf not, I'm concerned that the book starts with the MC in a pool. I'm wondering if the next sentence is description or action.
Mmm, I rather want to know if she's dead or not, but I can't say I'm terribly hooked. I'd give it a page or so.
ReplyDelete~Merc
Sure, i'd keep going.
ReplyDeleteI'd read on, but I think the sentence could be tweaked to make it flow more smoothly. I'd start with Victoria rather than her position.
ReplyDeleteGood luck!
"Completely still" seems somehow redundant to me. If she's motionless - does "still" do the job by itself? I'm not sure about "completely still." This is quite nitpicky, sorry!
ReplyDeleteI'm interested to see if this is your protagonist's voice or if it belongs to someone else who is observing the body in the pool. I would read on. You've got me curious now.
ReplyDeleteI agree with previous comments. I'd just suggest to find something with more impact than 'completely still'. Motionless, or some such, wouldn't need an adjective.
ReplyDeleteHooked. I immediately want to know who Victoria is/was and who our MC is. Tension, right off the bat! I'd read on!
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'd read on . . . but I understand the concerns about it being a MG/YA opening.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I'd pass. You're telling us she's face down in the pool, but you're not telling us she's at the bottom of a dry pool. If she's in the water, then she's floating and that would make it "Victoria's body floated" and you'd have to cut the completely still since it's almost impossible to remain "completely" still when you're floating. It feels like a ploy, like you're pulling one over on the reader's eyes, trying to fool the reader into thinking she might be dead, and then you'll have her move. That speaks more about the author than the MC. I'd rather know why she's like that. Or, if she really is dead at the bottom of a pool, then say she's there.
ReplyDeleteFred
I'm with you 100%. I'd definitely read on. It is a bit risque for MG/(not so much so for YA IMO) so good job!
ReplyDelete