Hatrack River Writers Workshop: Hook For Novel

This is topic Hook For Novel in forum Fragments and Feedback for Books at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=26;t=000014

Posted by whyfo? (Member # 4710) on :

General Paater strode through the open colonnade, savoring the deep shadows cast by the columns in the starlight. If the insurgency lasted any longer, this would be the only time he would ever have to think. As he walked past a pair of columns halfway through the colonnade, he felt a shadow detach itself from the deeper shadow of the column to his right.
So it begins, he though.
He stopped.
“If you kill me now you will never know why I have brought you here.”

------------------------------
This is the hook for a novel I've been working on. It comes from the end of part one. I know it needs some work. Any advice would be appreciated.

[This message has been edited by whyfo? (edited January 07, 2007).]

Posted by wbriggs (Member # 2267) on :

>If the insurgency lasted any longer, this would be the only time he would ever have to think.
My reaction to this was: huh?

I would also like to know what he knows, and if I don't find out PDQ I'd stop reading. I think it would be better to go ahead and tell us what he's doing in this location.

However, those complaints aside, I am interested and would keep reading.

Posted by Donelle (Member # 4677) on :

I am certainly intrigued.

My only critique is that this line would flow a bit better if it read,

“If you kill me now you will never know why I have brought you here.” (Italics for emphasis.)

Perhaps that's what you meant.

Best!
-Donelle

Posted by Verloren (Member # 3916) on :

Definitely intriguing.

I was a bit put off by the "savoring shadows" bit. How does one savor a shadow? Do they have a taste?

Similarly, "he felt the shadow detach" was strange to me. How do you feel a shadow? I assume you mean someone who is shadowing him or someone so stealthy that they are like a shadow. If so, then say something along those lines to make it clearer (unless he can actually feel shadows since he does savor them - in which case I'd need to know how or why or what this means).

-V

Posted by tchernabyelo (Member # 2651) on :

The one thing that leapt out at me was the word "insurgency".

A perfectyl valid word in its own right, but currently loaded with very particular overtones. "Rebellion" or "civil war" or "revolution" might be preferable.

I'm certainly intrigued to know how the would-be assassin was "brought" here by the general...

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

"Insurgency" is a perfectly good word. True, it is currently being used very carelessly in a pathetic attempt to avoid terms like "international terrorist activity" (which is virtually the opposite), but that is going to be true of almost any meaningful word at some point in time. There are still nutjobs out there arguing that the Civil War was a "War between the States". Most of us would need an explanation of what possible difference it makes (a civil war takes place within a nation, a war between States is a war between independent entities).

Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :

Some of us nutjobs who call it "the War between the States" do so because "there was nothing civil about it."

Posted by tchernabyelo (Member # 2651) on :

I've never yet met a war that was "civil" in that sense, but words have more than one meaning.

As for a "war between the States" implying separate entities - well, yes and no. There are nation-states, which are separate entities, but there are the United States, and it is perfectly valid to call it a "war between the States" (though arguably it should be "the war between one group of States and another group of States").

So I'd suggest that both terms are valid and that throwing "nutjob" into the mix kind of doesn't help..

Sometimes, though, I do wish you guys would call it "the American Civil War" rather than just "the Civil War". I mean, we had our own Civil War wayyyy before yours, but we have the grace to recognise it was of little interest to anyone else and term it "the English Civil War".

Posted by wbriggs (Member # 2267) on :

It was a war, and it was between states, and that seems like a good enough reason for the name.

Tch. will probably be happy that I stopped using my history book's term for that 1776 event -- "the Revolutionary War" -- and now call it "the American Revolution" .

Anyway -- getting what you need, whyfo?

Posted by drahm (Member # 4728) on :

well... it definately caught my interest. I would read more... but some of the words threw me and I had to ask what they meant. Perhaps it's just because I don't have as high of a vocab as more "avid" readers/writers.

Words like
colonnade... is this a place of columns?
insurgency... my brain thought 'urgency' (obviously not)

I really liked the feel of, "he felt a shadow detach itself..."
Nice feel... painted a very specific picture for me, which is one reason why I would keep reading even though I wasn't sure what was going on.
Oh, By the way... your "thought" is missing its 't'. =)
-drahm

Posted by Green_Writer (Member # 3302) on :

The southern states did "declare" independence, so I suppose the argument depends on the legitimacy of that reign. Both England and Spain recognized it!

Now to the writing. Revolution would sound better, but it all depends on the POVs opinion of the "movement".

Oh, and I'm almost certain General George S. Patton used the line "So it begins." Maybe it was someone else.

[This message has been edited by Green_Writer (edited January 11, 2007).]

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

Well, the American civil war was of great interest to the rest of the world, both at the time and in terms of its later effects on both the evolution of modern warfare and on history generally. It deserves the title "The Civil War" more than "The Great War" deserved its title (which it eventually lost, so there

England didn't officially recognize the Confederacy as an independent nation, though English courts did uphold the claim that, with respect to the laws governing maritime commerce, the United States had de facto recognized the Confederacy as an independent navel power by virtue of imposing a blockade on Confederate ports. I find that claim...suspect. It's like saying that, by having a Coast Guard and enforcing restrictions on smuggling of illicit goods, the U.S. therefore acknowledges the flags of any criminal organization which attempts to move contraband through our territorial waters.

"Insurgency" is a bit dry and technical, or at least it's supposed to be. It simply means a resistance movement that arises entirely out of the local population. Calling it a "rebellion" or "revolution" or whatever will probably help build your POV some. On the other hand, maybe he does regard it as simply being an insurgency, if he has no particular attachment to the goals of the contest.