Hatrack River Writers Workshop: Home: Military/SCI FI

This is topic Home: Military/SCI FI in forum Fragments and Feedback for Short Works at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=002803

Posted by supraturtle (Member # 1518) on :

An M1 tank was never silent.
Perhaps she slept. Perhaps she lay in wait.
But there was always some component, some piece of the of the multi-million dollar machine shaking or spinning at some task. The mechanism aside, 63 tons of steel was always somehow alive. The metal popped and creaked as it constantly shed heat.
Nothing about the tank was subtle. Subtle was never considered in the design. The engineers no doubt had had such notions beaten out of them until they returned home to torture pets and smirk at things that exploded on TV.
Not that anyone who could possibly conceive a beast as she would need such motivation.

This is my opening to Home. The story has a little preamble and a history... about five paragraphs that outline the setting and touch on the prime characters. The body is bloody and the language is brutal. I don't suggest anyone easily offended ask for more (forgive my assumptions.) There's a lot of Drake in it--I'm afraid too much. The 'finished' work is 6650 words. In other words, it's long and raw.
Eventually you might realize you're reading about modern-day mercenaries--specifically armor. I wanted to update the equipment and politics so it's set in the near future.

Posted by jaycloomis (Member # 7193) on :

I like how you relate to the tank as if it were alive, calling it 'she' and referring to it as a 'beast'.

I can't put my finger on it, but something doesn't sound right here: "The mechanism aside, 63 tons of steel was always somehow alive." I think 'the mechanism aside' is confusing, what are you trying to say?
Also, I'm not sure about other writers, but I try not to use 'had had'. I mean it sounds good when you say from your mouth, but its always like a brick wall to me. Usually one 'had' will do the job, if not maybe consider revising the sentence.
Great work!
-Jayson

[This message has been edited by jaycloomis (edited November 24, 2007).]

Posted by supraturtle (Member # 1518) on :

Yeah I beat my head over Had Had. Try it solo.
Ok, yeah trying to sort mechanism and sheet metal ain't working. I nixed that line.
One thought I've had--and I'll wait for more feedback I spose: The story involves a particular tank, I'm thinking that trying to animate the entire 'species' of tank is throwing it off. The 'intro' doesn't keep the pace of the rest of the work. I might try to rework the body and lose/trim the intro.

An M1 tank was never silent.
Perhaps she slept. Perhaps she lay in wait.
But there was always some component, some piece of the of the multi-million dollar machine shaking or spinning at some task. The metal popped and creaked as it constantly shed heat.
Nothing about the tank was subtle. Subtle was never considered in the design. The engineers no doubt had such notions beaten out of them until they returned home to torture pets and smirk at things that exploded on TV.
Not that anyone who could possibly conceive a beast as she would need such motivation.

[This message has been edited by supraturtle (edited November 24, 2007).]

Posted by jaycloomis (Member # 7193) on :

That sounds great. I'm intrigued, you should mail me some more!
-Jayson

Posted by skadder (Member # 6757) on :

Not sure I am on board. Does this tank have a personality or not? If not, I feel you are using your 13 lines in a way that doesn't really pull us into your story.

I would much rather see the tank in action (even on the practice range) thereby becoming aware of the personality more organically. Perhaps some of the operators as well, if there are any.

Your opening is very static, no characters introduced (if the tank is one, you have introduced it while it is sleeping), no action, no setting, no conflict. Your opening would work for a movie. The camera gliding over a high-tech killing machine--complicated bits of metal glinting dully--but I would still want something to happen fairly soon.

[This message has been edited by skadder (edited November 24, 2007).]

Posted by TaleSpinner (Member # 5638) on :

"Usually one 'had' will do the job"

How?

"Had" is past tense, "had had" is past perfect tense. By only using one "had" the tense is changed.

I did read some guidance on flashbacks somewhere that said flashbacks are often introduced in past perfect tense, sliding then into simple past tense because continued past perfect is hard to read for long. (I had had my suspicions about this dame ever since I first met her. She had been a waitress then, and not a terribly good one. She first attracted my attention when she dropped my dinner in my lap. That was when I first noticed her eyes, too cold and calculating for a waitress...)

In this story "had had" is perfectly grammatical and to my eyes there's nothing wrong with it.

BTW in the first 13 I didn't interpret the tank as alive. I thought it was being described as a "she" in the way that we often anthropomorphize favourite machines. Boats and planes are often "she's".

Hope this helps,
Pat

Posted by supraturtle (Member # 1518) on :

Thanks for the input. Big time! (:
I love/hate the camera pans... and it shows. I dunno, somehow I tend to think it's gotta happen. If we can work something out of this intro I'd be in yall's debt.
I hit page-down randomly and grabbed a sample of the body--I tried to square it off a little, but like any fragment I just gotta see if the pace and the style hits--in this case between the eyes. There's some tech stuff that might not make sense.
***
Something snapped Ockley's attention forward. The world was the muzzle of the tank gun pointed between his eyes. The enemy was just that black void glaring at him he could see rifling and the twist of wire that held the boresight prism the end of the gun saw the sooty triangle stains of exhaust from the COAX mount minute flashes as the machine gun spat toward him and didn't need to see the bullets dancing across Bastard Child's turret.
Loader lag: the enemy's gun was just a hollow pipe until their loader did his job...
There was a second tank as well, just clearing from it's berm beside the road, and a third. Both were spinning to face him. Two more guns racing to stare at him.
... and Mills was getting it down real good.
***
I work throughout like this--not the run-ons... that's just the style in this 'graph. I like setting an example and then throwing in a term or two. Run/break/run/break/slam.

[This message has been edited by supraturtle (edited November 24, 2007).]

[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited November 24, 2007).]

[This message has been edited by supraturtle (edited November 24, 2007).]

Posted by NathanClark (Member # 3149) on :

Re. the first 13: Like a few other people, I do like the personification of the tank, but I think you need to be more consistent about it for it to have full effect. eg "[Her] metal popped and creaked...", "Nothing about [her] was subtle," "[her] design," etc.
That's just my preference, it might make it seem [melodramatic? over-the-top? can't think of the right word]. Otherwise, I really like it so far, and would definitely read on.

Re. the section from further (farther?) down:
The deliberate run-on is a good way of emphasizing his mental state, but I found it very confusing until I realized what it was (it seemed like extremely poor grammar at first), so perhaps there is a way to make it clear from the very beginning what you are doing, either by rewriting it somehow or through typography. I think I've seen some 'run-ons' like this done with a segment of the run-on sentence on each line, indented, but without capitalization, to let the reader know that the following will not follow standard rules of grammar/comprehension. Maybe break that sentence at and omit the conjunctions; it needs to 'feel' like I'm reading his brain, without it having been translated into coherent speech.

Posted by supraturtle (Member # 1518) on :

You might have it: I'd been having a lot of trouble with the intro, and that lack of personification might have been my monkey wrench. One of them anyways. I hate history lessons as much as Ockley does.
I'd used too much italic text, so yeah i'm not sure how to work the run-on. I use it in other work to better result, but I really thought the situation was home for it here.
More 'hers' less 'its' I agree. Ty. I'll work that in.
I'll let this sit a few days. I have something a little more 'creepy' I'd like to have folks chew on.

Oh yeah:

An M1 tank was never silent.
Perhaps she slept. Perhaps she lay in wait.
But some component, some piece of the of my multi-million dollar girl was shaking or spinning always. Her metal popped and creaked--always some fidget or groan, always in heat.
She couldn't be subtle. Subtle was never considered in that design. Her god-loving engineers no doubt had had such notions beaten out of them. Abused, until they returned home to torture their pets and smirk at things that exploded on TV.
Not that anyone who could possibly conceive a beast as she would need such motivation.

Hehe, there's HAD HAD my old friend! <RASPBERRY>

[This message has been edited by supraturtle (edited November 26, 2007).]