Why you don't get published.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
New Beginning 116
The dust floated unobserved in the closed cafe. The windows had been shut, the lights switched off hours ago. This was no ordinary Jerusalem coffee house. Inside the book-lined walls, authors, poets, and philosophers addressed small groups of intimates. And once a month, on the agreed day, some of these thinkers met at the halfway point between sun-down and sun-up—to kvetch and kvell.
“It’s crap. Pure crap. Crap disguised as something modern and intriguing. I feel exceptionally blessed that I have the ability to distinguish crap from innovation.”
“You’re just too old. You’re stuck in the 50’s, and will be for all eternity.”
“Yeah, the 50’s. Albert’s stuck in the 1850’s!”
This produced a resounding laugh from the gang. Even Albert joined in after he was finished acting offended. “Okay, so I haven’t kept up. I admit it. But I don’t apologize. I just happen to prefer a story with a beginning, a middle, and an end. It satisfies my soul.”
The famous author faced the admiring group and flushed as he realized the truth: Albert was right. It was crap. The others, who'd said he could take a dump on a sheet of paper and make it a bestseller, had been wrong.
And so, he gathered up his steaming turd and left into the night, with just one worrying thought: knishes gave him the runs.
Continuation: ril
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
*bows reverently* You've got brass balls, inserting a line like "It's crap. Pure crap" into the beginning of your book. I'd be terrified that would predispose editors/agents toward thinking the same thing about my sample pages.
As for the excerpt itself, note that the first paragraph is pure backstory. I'd recommend chopping it and starting with your dialogue. The nature of what is being said tells the reader that these people are kvetching and kvelling (and in a thoughtful fashion) about books, so you don't need to inform the reader of that, i.e. it's better to show, rather than tell. Your dialogue also does a really good job of showing that these are old men, and the way they speak even begins to imply that they're Jewish (which I assumed, based on the terms "kvetch and kvell").
In other words, your dialogue is great. Dump the backstory and let your dialogue do the work. I even think that if the first words of your novel are "It's crap. Pure crap", that will only serve to grab an agent's/editor's attention, rather than suggest to them what their opinion of the work should be. :-)
First, let me say that I liked this and would continue reading. The setting is interesting, the prose so far suggests a sense of humor, and I found it refreshing that you begin with a café and a conversation instead of somebody being eaten by a crocodile. I suppose I’m stuck in the 1850s, too.
However (the first paragraph giveth, the second paragraph taketh away), I am seriously confused. The café is closed and dark, so . . . is the meeting a flashback, or all they all ghosts? If they’re ghosts, wouldn’t they observe the dust? The answer to that is pure speculation, but the fact that I spent so much time wondering about it suggests to me that you might re-word this opening so the question is never raised. If they ARE ghosts, that is.
By the way, the continuation had me ROFLMAO.
OK, which one of them gets set on fire?
I was thoroughly confused by the fact that the shop is closed and the dust is unobserved. You make a pretty big point in the first paragraph to show what appeared (to me) to be an abandoned room. Then the voices start.
At that point, I was unsure whether they were examples of what people used to say in there. Then I saw it was an actual dialog.
Then I figured maybe these folks were ghosts of authors, poets, and philosophers, and Albert actually was from the 1850s. (By the way, 50s and 1850s are not possessive, so no apostrophe.)
Other than the confusion as to what's actually going on, I like the writing and the opening... the setting intrigues me because it could go in so many directions. The dialog gives us a couple of characters and the group dynamics. We have a location and general timeframe (at least we know it's after the 1950s).
My only suggestion is that if the room is abandoned, make it clear why the voices are there. If it's not abandoned, tone down the unobserved dust and closed, shut, off. If my guess was right and these are ghosts, I hope you reveal that pretty quickly.
Good first sentence. The whole opening "makes sense" from there, at least for me. I feel like you know what you're doing, and it's not genre! It's not for everybody, but I would read on.
"To kvetch and kvell" is a sort of stock Yiddish phrase, right? It sounded a little out of place to me because there's no more of it in the opening, but not a huge deal as long as you are in command of the Yiddish.
Also, if you're going to give the phrase an em dash at the end of a sentence, it seems like there should be another em dash earlier to balance it out (because "to kvetch and to kvell" isn't a complete clause). It looks to me like it would belong after "these thinkers met", so that part of the sentence would read, "some of these thinkers met--at the halfway point between sun-down and sun-up--to kvetch and kvell." I'm not sure that that's the rhythm you were going for, but the punctuation is awkward in the original.
This story sounds familiar to me, but I can't put my finger on why.
Hi all,
Thanks for all the comments and helpful suggestions and kudos to ril for the continuation. I loved it!
This is the beginning of a very short story. As Dan Lewis said, it isn't genre, which gives me a bit more leeway to postpone the start of the action.
BTW, the ambiguity that some of you commented on is intentional. The characters are indeed ghosts, and at the end of the story they turn back into specks of dust.
I have to say I missed the ghost-nonghost ambiguity. I just assumed the characters were all meeting in the backroom of some cafe. Of course, I have a tendency to skip over discriptive passages and focus on dialogue and action. Perhaps if I'd paid more attention to the first paragraph I'd have seen it.
I agree with whitemouse that you should start with the dialogue (which was good). Perhaps you should just move the first paragraph further down in the story?
The apostrophe isn't only used to indicate possessives or missing letters; it is also sometimes used with plurals of words, etc. that aren't normally pluralised. This usage is going out of fashion, however, so 1950's, which used to be correct, is becoming 1950s, just as DVD's are becoming DVDs. Maybe P's and Q's are becoming Ps and Qs, too.
The language changes. Once upon a time, D.V.D.'s would have been correct...
I loved it. The first paragraph is great; it "does" Victorian much better than the two faux-Victorian we've read so far. And the dialogue sounds very right. I didn't ask myself why there were people in a deserted room; I was busy enjoying myself. Is it meant to be a pastiche on this blog?
The minions, as a demographic, seem very set on having everything explained to them right upfront, yet without including any backstory or infodump, and with dramatic tension. I think just writing well and being entertaining goes a lot further.
BTW, PJD, apostrophes may be used to form the plural of letters or figures.
They are not used exclusively for possessives.
I loved it. I would definitely read on. I was confused by the contradiction but it didn't bother me overly -- I figured you'd explain later.
Loved the story and had a good laugh at the continuation.
I am old enough to remember when apostrophes were not used to indicate plural. It's a post 1960s thing. Glad to see it dying out - English is difficult enough.
That continuation is a work of genius! :)
I liked this a lot. One thing I noticed was that it had an excellent flow to it -- try reading it out loud, and see how well it works. I'd definitely read on, and knowing it is a short story only intrigues me more. Well done, author!
A post 1960's thing?
Then why do I find it in Ye Olde Grammar Book (revised 1950)?
author said, "The characters are indeed ghosts, and at the end of the story they turn back into specks of dust."
I love that!
Good continuation, if a little profane.
My comments on first reading (without looking at other comments).
I liked the first paragraph of this story/novel a lot. But the dialogue just turned my interest around. When it got to the part about liking a story with a beginning, middle & end, I realized, I did not want to keep reading. Boring, trite, pedagogical--those words all came to mind.
Keep the first paragraph, though. Then give us something more erudite.
jmho.
Halfway through reading the comments-I thought it was the books talking. Am I completely nuts? This seemed obvious to me, but maybe the answer to my question is yes.
So it's the dust talking? As ghosts? I thought it was the books because of the "inside the book-lined walls..." I took that literally.
Sounds interesting. I might read on, knowing the set-up now, but I'm still not thrilled with this particular dialogue.
Perhaps Ye Olde Grammar Booke is incorrect. The English department at Purdue says "Apostrophes are NOT used for possessive pronouns or for noun plurals, including acronyms." here. (emphasis theirs, not mine) UT at Austin quotes the AP Style manual as saying this: "Plural forms: Numbers like 3s get the s but no apostrophe. (The same rule applies to decades: The 1920s.)" (Had to get it cached from google.)
I don't have any style manuals in front of me, and I'm too cheap to sign up for the Chicago Manual on line, but from what I recall from high school English, English Composition at UC Berkelely, and my years writing and editing technical manuals for software companies, one is never to use an apostrophe for plural nouns or acronyms.
Sorry, just one of the many rules I was taught. Maybe it no longer matters. Email certainly is democraticizing the language since now everyone is free to create their own unique style rules in the name of "communication." I would not call myself a purist, and this may be one of the rules that varies according to different style guides (such as the comma before the last item in series), but it's what I was taught.
And I was taught that either is correct to form the plural in the specific case of letters, figures and signs ( ie. b's, 6's) - also at a legitmate university.
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language ( College Edition) also agrees with Ye Olde Grammar Booke.
Are universities and style manuals entitled to make pronouncements for the rest of us to follow? I didn't think so. In France there is a government body that actually has the authority to decide what is grammatical, what's a word, etc, within France's borders. I've never heard of such a body for the English language.
Good god, I hope no government agency ever gets the authority to dictate what is correct in the English language.
Bernita, apologies if it seemed I was denigrating your education. Not my intent.
It seems there is an underbelly of society battling an ideological "secret war" over the apostrophe. I hereby am withdrawing my troops and declaring victory. I recommend everyone else do the same.
Now that's a transition that needs some work.
You may as well be saying, "We open our story in an extraordinary Jersusalem coffeehouse. See the dust floating in the undisturbed air? See how dark it is with the lights switched off? See how empty it is? But wait. Never mind. The coffeehouse is not empty after all..."
Make up your mind. Either the coffeehouse is empty and that's where the story begins, or it's not, and that's where it begins.
Author: if you'd like to have your piece included in an anthology of new beginnings, email EE for instructions on granting permission.
Post a Comment