quote:
'Check!' I move the knight bringing my dad's king into check.He grins, 'Not bad Nate. Now you have been trying to avoid talking to me all night, time to spit it out.'
'Not sure I want to Dad.'
'Nate, you are the best poker face I know. If I can read the misery on your face it must be bad.' I study the chess pieces, he has managed to move his king behind a pawn. I am about to move.
He pushes the board aside, 'Do I have to torture you for the information?'
'There is something wrong with Socrates, and I just don't know how to fix it, I think he may be having an affair.' There I said it...
[This message has been edited by Kimlin (edited September 03, 2010).]
[This message has been edited by Kimlin (edited September 03, 2010).]
There is no special interaction between the father and son that characterizes these people for me, nor are there any clues from the setting. It could be any father and son chess-playing pair on the planet, from any decade. Because I have not yet seen anything to interest me in either character, I am not interested by their chess game or their predictable conversation. My suggestion is to introduce them along with some kind of interesting trait or attitude. What is interesting about either of them? Is there any importance to the fact that the son has put his father in check, or is it just a random move in the game? What are their attitudes toward each other and toward the game?
The part about Socrates being something the boy has to fix and *also* something capable of having an affair is just interesting enough to possibly make me want to keep reading out of curiosity.
...me all night, time to spit it out.'
...chess pieces, he has managed....
...how to fix it, I think....
And using a complete sentence as a dialog tag seems 'wrong' to me, and may need a period:
He pushes the board aside, 'Do I...'.
Might be nice to know Socrates' relationship to Nate and Dad.
Chess rant : close to 100% of chess scenes I've seen in short fiction are 'Check!' situations, even though that is not necessarily a significant event. Nate could conceivably lose the game on his father's responsive move. There's nothing wrong or inauthentic about it, but it's a bit of a chess clique in literature. For something different, consider something like: I moved my knight, putting more pressure on Dad's kingside.