Miss Snark's First Victim
Maybe hooked. It's frantic yelling, which doesn't really draw me, but I'd probably read a little more to see where this headed.
I'd read more to see why they need to go to the shelter. But this might be a case of opening with action for action's sake.http://blog.writersdigest.com/norules/2010/03/11/TheBiggestBadAdviceAboutStoryOpenings.aspx
First sentence is okay, but the second one (Our shelter...) slowed the flow too much for me.
I never start with dialogue - too fraught with voice confusion danger. And the second sentence lost me. I'm not really hooked, just confused.
I agree, put that 2nd sentence somewhere else. Like the premise though
I'm with Bane. I also don't like the title (If everyone did thier part, what's the conflict?)Not hooked.
The second sentence is too "telling" rather than "showing". I kind of want to know why they need to get to shelter, but I probably wouldn't keep reading.
Almost hooked. I agree with the other comments. Starting with dialogue was intriguing, because this was the first I'd seen that did that. You're setting up some good tension, but I'd work on finessing the words a bit.
Sorry, not hooked. CLOSE! But the last sentence didn't grab me like it needed to. ㋡
Hooked enough to read for a while. I'm assuming this is WWII-era Britain, and am intrigued about a MG perspective on the war.
I would read on but only because of the title. The title gives me the exact setting (or at least makes me believe it does - this is Battle of Britain, right?) which allows me to fill in a sense of place that the lines don't.Without that title, I would need an opening with more sense detail. (The siren, or the sound of others in the house, then Mummy's voice.)
I might read on, not sure. The first sentence indicates lots of danger, but then we slow down to the location of the shelter.
Maybe. First sentence indicates danger, second is just telling. Maybe if you have them rush around the back of their council house, throwing on clothes as they go, then you'd keep up the sense of danger.
Great points everyone! I didn't see the second sentence as being a problem until I saw it posted...Thanks for all the advice. :)
I thought the first line worked. Telling where the shelter was didn't. Perhaps let us hear the sound of bombs falling or sirens going off instead.
hooked. I like that it's left mysterious why they need to go to the shelter. And the next sentence is a great fit, giving a location of where the shelter was feels like exactly where the mind would go in this emergency situation.
I liked the dialogue but felt the last sentence took me out of the moment. I wanted to be in the panic for a little while longer.
First sentence was good, didn't like the second. It is telling, and it just seems clunky.
Yes, I liked this and would read on. I think the second sentence perhaps would work better if revised with the 'was' removed, so that it would be more in line with the active voice of the first sentence. Just my .02, of course. :)
Not hooked, sorry.
The rush to a shelter is interesting, but historical is really not my thing. I'm torn though because if my daughter was older and into this sort of thing, I might keep reading for/to her.