Kumari could see Mike’s lust in his eyes as she knelt in the waves, her crisp, white shirt unbuttoned down to her string-bikini bottom. It was a transition she’d watched many times before: the photographer would at first look at her with professional interest, posing her with an eye toward selling that precious bottle of perfume, or that perfect pair of shoes, or the little Gucci handbag you barely noticed dangling from her hand; then, the poses would get more provocative. Eventually, she’d realize she was posing entirely for his pleasure.
A gust of wind riffled through her hair. She clutched her shirt closed over her breasts, using the white linen like a bra to give her cleavage. Mike’s face glowed with approval as he snapped a few quick shots. Then, with a sultry, teasing grin on her lips, she let the wind tear the shirt from her fingers. Mike lifted his eye from the viewfinder and stared, hungry for her even as he tried to hide it. Without even looking in the viewfinder, he took a quick photo, then swallowed hard.
"I think that’s a bit over the top for this shoot," he told her. But he would print that photo; she was sure of it.
"Are we finished?" Kumari asked. She started buttoning her shirt.
"That should do it," Mike answered, though the bulge in his pants said he wouldn't mind continuing. He shook the sand off his shoes and dropped the camera into his bookbag, and said, "Thanks a lot, Principal Wornstaff. The yearbook editor's gonna love these."
Opening: Jenna Black.....Continuation: Takoda
14 comments:
The first sentence would read better as: Kumari could see the lust in Mike's eyes as....
Otherwise, well written. Good luck with it.
LOL! That continuation!
I have several problems with the 2nd sentence. A colon may be used to separate two main clauses if the 2nd cluase develops, details of amplifies the 1st clause. Is the photographer, Kumari or the pose making the transition? What is the transition? Seems like you are switching from the photog being professional to the poses being provocative. Also, be careful when using "it" (an expletive pronoun)as the subject of the sentence when the noun it replaces has not been previously defined.
Great Continuation! Very unexpected.
I like the writing in this for the most part, although I'm not sure sultry, teasing and grin go together. Would you say a "sultry grin"? And we know you grin with your lips, so maybe "Then, teasing him with her best sultry smile, she let the wind..."
What I'm not understanding is that the first paragraph makes it sound like she keeps getting manipulated into provocative poses: "Eventually, she’d realize she was posing entirely for his pleasure." If she'd watched the transition many times before, why would it be an eventual realization -- and why would she keep falling for it?
Then the second 'graph has her being the manipulator and taking pleasure in it as she teases him.
This seems to be a real contradiction, and at this point I don't know whether to think of her as the victim or the perpetrator.
Also, the POV shift mid second paragraph was a little abrupt for me. Maybe a style thing, but I always like to see at least a paragraph break when going from one POV to another -- just to be alerted that the writer's head hopping.
The only trouble I have with the second sentence is the word "was". it's a word of inaction and slowness. And it is followed by a "had"... Had is another of those passive words (not passive tense). It's one of the couch potatoes of writing. Those two words more than any others destroy tension and action.
I wondered if it should be 'he'd' realise in the last sentence of para 1? Given that she is watching his transition?
Rip roaring continuation!
Ah, I predicted that "had" would be next on the hit-list only a few days ago. Doubleplusgood!
Personally I think "to see" is a verb of inaction and slowness. Let's get rid of that next.
takoda,
You're on a roll with your continuations! Good stuff.
I don't think I've ever mentioned a weird word verification before- I usually don't pay attention because I'm so irritated at having to type them in twice, but this one I just couldn't pass up--
odady. Good Lord.
Personally I think "to see" is a verb of inaction and slowness. Let's get rid of that next.
Surely 'sit', 'sleep'and 'dawdle' are better candidates for verbs of inaction and slowness?
Hey, I guess "It" isn't the subject of that tricky 2nd sentence:"she" is the subject. But the transition from what to what still needs to be defined.
Very nice! I love the last line. A couple of tiny nitpicks: the first line might read a little more smoothly as "Kumari could see the lust in Mike's eyes..." Also, when you describe the transition of the photographer, you start with "the photographer would first look at her with professional interest..." That sounds like the beginning of a pattern. I expect to hear how the photographer changes over the course of the shoot, but instead we get the neutral "the poses would get more provocative" (her choices of poses? or his?) followed by "she'd realize she was posting entirely for his pleasure" which isn't clearly about the photographer either--again, is this her choice, or his? If the idea is that the photographer starts wanting more and more provocative poses and soon is taking pictures just for his own benefit, it's not coming across as clearly as it could.
Surely 'sit', 'sleep'and 'dawdle' are better candidates for verbs of inaction and slowness?
In the new dictionary, sit, sleep and dawdle are unwords. Doubleplusgood!
I mainly noticed the POV problems. Phrases like "crisp white shirt" and "sultry teasing grin" don't sound like they come from within her thoughts, but from someone observing her. And there's a muddy place in the second paragraph where it looks like you shifted to Mike's POV.
Dittos on 12:18 Anon's comment on the first sentence.
I think the tech term for 'saw' 'felt' 'heard' etc. in close 3d pov is 'filtering'. The idea is that once it's established that we are sitting in so-and-so's head, we don't need to be constantly reminded that it's him seeing and him hearing whatever.
The difference between 'He heard a shot' and 'A gun fired', more or less.
But sometimes it matters that so-and-so actually heard the shot, more than it matters that the shot was fired. I'd hesitate to make any rule unbreakable.
-Barbara
Post a Comment