Tom Blesset cradled the body of a dead bird in his hand and stroked the feathers with his thumb. It was a thrush, though why it had died he didn't know, for there were no wounds on its mottled plumage.
He carried it over to his special place, the only part of the paved back yard that couldn't be seen from the windows of the kitchen or back bedroom, tucked between the outside toiled and the compost bin. It was an altar of sorts, made from a slab of marble that was once the hearth of a gas fire he'd taken out five years ago and never replaced. At the back of it was an old mirror, angled slightly so that it reflected both the sky and the two pots of flowers on either side.
It was a naïve offering to someone he only hoped existed; a crude altar to fantastical beings that he'd only read about in books.
Tom placed the frozen thrush upon the chipped surface of the altar and studied the bird's curvature in the mirrors, the way its feet mimicked the shape of the flowers. Only his friend Janey knew of Tom's bizarre faith. He began the ritual:
"O unto you honest publishers, trustworthy agents, and kind editors. It is I alone who still believe in you. Answer my--"
No. Enough. Tom broke off and considered what he was doing. It was time to admit the truth and grow up. There were no such beings.
Opening: Rachel Green.....Continuation: Pacatrue
28 comments:
*chuckles*
How wonderful.
Unchosen Continuations:
The mirror suddenly cracked and Tom's heart leapt into his throat. His offering had been accepted; the gods had been pleased. Now, he too had mottled plumage.
--Sam
He gently laid the dead thrush in a small, red and white carton he had found in the shed. Toilet paper, the crinkly institutional kind, lined the tiny casket that sat in the center of his alter.
Tom closed his eyes and could immediately see the image of the old, white haired man, gentle eyes, a peaceful smile at the heart of a snow white beard.
"My savior," he began to intone. "Oh wise one, accept this offering in your honor and give me the power to see; dear Colonel, great provider, let me know your secret..."
--Anonymous
Tom hungered to meet his intragalactic soul mates: Dick and Harry. Tom had read about Dick and Harry in the Encyclopedia Galactica and was drawn to them. Then he learned that they were traveling to a nearby star system, Sol, landing on the 3rd Rock From The Sun. Tom had to go there.
--Bill Highsmith
Tom gently laid the little body on the marble slab and whispered a prayer: the only one he knew; the one he said with his mother every night. A breeze whispered through fence cracks to accompany him. Then he took a small capsule from a battered little box that he kept hidden behind the mirror. He broke it open and rubbed the contents across the bird’s lifeless feathers, repeating the incantation.
The ceremony was halted by the sound of an upstairs window sliding open. “Tom, lad,” his mother’s voice echoed out. “You been in my dresser again?”
As though disturbed by the interruption, the little bird gave a cough, struggled to its feet and looked around in confusion. Tom smiled as the creature stretched his wings and fluttered past him to the sky. He looked at the box and slowly mouthed the words: Can-di-da-soothe. Cures Thrush Instantly.
--ril
Tom placed the thrush between the two flower pots, then stood up slowly.
"Was it you, oh thrush, who came tapping at my window? Tapping and flapping, last night at my window? Eagerly I waited for you to go. Was it you, and nothing more?"
Tom closed his eyes and waited. The sun shone hot, and the breeze blew cool.
The bird's eyes flew open. Tom stared in disbelief.
"It was you, oh dear thrush. Tapping at my window. Tapping and flapping, at my window last night. Your feathers and wings filled me with fright. Now you are gone, you are nevermore."
The thrush flapped his wings, and spoke in a human voice inhumane.
"After tonight, you will be nothing more than nevermore."
--Church Lady
I like the possibilities the last line of the opening offers, and the setup of the 'special place', the hidden, crude, hand-made altar. Good opening.
Wow. Funny set of continuations.
Love the prayer - "O unto you honest publishers, trustworthy agents, and kind editors. It is I alone who still believe in you. Answer my-"
Three comments:
It was a thrush, though why it had died...
THOUGH implies a cause and effect. It doesn't work here because the bird being any species - hawk, vulture, cardinal, robin - has nothing to do with it being dead. And then there's that awful word "had."
"for there were no wounds..."
To my ear, this sounds pretentious in a silly way.
What's a "toiled." I can't find any obscure meaning that I don't know.
I think it's a good opening if you fix these things. It gives the reader a great look into Tom and his very odd dreams. A bit sad, too.
tucked between the outside toiled and the compost bin
I think you meant "toilet".
This was a bit of a slow beginning, but I actually liked this. With only 150 words to work with, it's not always easy to get an idea which way certain stories are headed. But you give us a clue: It was a naïve offering to someone he only hoped existed; a crude altar to fantastical beings that he'd only read about in books. that this is going to be a fantasy of some sort.
I wonder if you could leave off the second part about the offering; you've piqued my interest as to why he would construct something to beings that might only exist in his mind.
Just a thought.
And loved Paca's continuation! :-)
~jerseygirl
Why don't you just say "Tom Blesset cradled a dead thrush in his hand..."?
Like the idea of the altar and the semi-sacrifice.
All the continuations are funny, but I loved ril's.
Author, I actually liked this because it sure is different. However, when you say "It was a naive offering to someone he only hoped existed" you spoil the effect. In essence, you are the narrator telling us this is a vain and stupid behavior, and that spoils the odd scene.
I'd have read on, because I'm curious where, exactly, this is going.
Hi WW,
You mentioned "you are the narrator telling us this is a vain and stupid behavior". Couldn't it just be that this is written in some form of third person narration (limited, omniscient..I don't know all the permuatations, but I bet they go on).
Yes, it could be omniscient, but my point is that the sentence is the writer telling me what I've just been interested in is stupid. That took me out of the fictional dream. Perhaps it is just a difference in voice or tone, but it was different and detracted from the original paragraph for me. I didn't consider it a matter of pov, and should have been more clear.
I don't think naive equals stupid.
I get the picture of somebody who is not quite adult -- old enough or experienced enough to have acquired some perspective on how his actions look from the outside, but not yet willing to give up.
Oh good grief, there is nothing wrong with the word "had".
I'm definitely writing some flash fiction soon that only uses the verbs "to be" and "to have" and every single one is modified by an adverb. Also, adjectives and a bad simile.
"The green-eyed waggle-toothed snorgle is definitely close. It clearly had to be. Its scent was exasperatingly noxious like the noxious smell of a noxious snorgle. It is Noxious."
That's harder than I thought it would be. Yes, it is. I had to say something.
OK, I'm done.
I wasn't getting into this. It is a slow beginning, but I'd probably keep reading. Something interesting would have to happen soon to keep me reading, however.
"A green-eyed waggle-toothed snorgle stood close by Harry, judging from the smell of limburger and unwashed feet that wafted by his nose and hovered in his sinuses."
I Prefer This:
Once upon a time I brought barf-buckets into the main restaurant when a green eyed snorgle wanted its toenails trimmed in the foyer.
To This:
I waited on a green eyed snorgle that had to have its toes clipped in the foyer of the restaurant once. Its feet smelled so bad, I had to bring buckets into the main room for the patrons to use.
I still dislike the word "had"...
There must be some cure for people who take irrational dislikes to useful words. Apart from shooting them with the cluegun.
Terrific opening. I'd read on for sure.
It's not irrational, not at all. Name calling is silly BTW.
The verb "had" adds words, slows down action and often times, removes a chance for a descriptive phrase. Why would I want to use that word if I don't have to use it?
Um, Pacatrue, considering your last couple of continuations, seems like you're a bit jaded on the writing front right now, n'est-ce pas? Care to share?
Ril: Loved your continuation!
I agee with WW about the author intrusion feel of the last paragraph. It jarred me completely. Also, who offers up something already dead as a sacrifice? I thought he must be going to bury or cremate it, but not make it an offering. Maybe that's explained in the next paragraph, though.
Am I the only one who first read the character as being a boy? When I got to the part about the hearth that he'd taken out of the fire[place], I had to re-read and readjust my image to Tom the man. I guess "special place" and the altar being hidden from the windows didn't seem very adult to me. But if I'm the only one, then don't worry about it.
I'd still read on, Rachel!
The word "had" can't do any of those things. The writer may do those things by using the word "had" inappropriately, but that's another matter.
I've seen the consequences of removing "had" where it was needed, and they ain't pretty.
Let's try it in the sentence under discussion.
Tom Blesset cradled the body of a dead bird in his hand and stroked the feathers with his thumb. It was a thrush, though why it died he didn't know....
Now we have the bird dying after we've been told it was dead. Makes no sense. Yes, the sentence could be rephrased--and possibly improved by that--but just removing "had" renders it nonsensical. Or silly, if you prefer :).
What I'm reacting to, more than anything, is the blanket "was is bad"; "had is bad"; "modifiers are bad" approach that a lot of people take when it comes to writing. You cannot just remove these words and expect to produce excellent writing; it just doesn't work that way.
I share Dave's dislike for "had," because people overuse it when they actually don't need it at all. If a writer uses too many of these verb tenses in a row, it is very awkward to read. Some writers notice that “had” reads awkwardly, but instead of using simple past tense, or rewording it, they compound it with a noun. The author of this piece compounded “had” twice: “…the hearth of a gas fire he'd taken out five years ago…” and “…a crude altar to fantastical beings that he'd only read about in books.”
In the above cases, the verb tense is past perfect, which refers to an action that began in the past and continues in the present. Every time this tense is used, the author should question whether it is necessary--IMO.
Buffy,
What about this excerpt from the piece:
“…the hearth of a gas fire he'd taken out five years ago…”
Do we need past perfect tense here?
It's not only silly to use "had" in this case, it's awkward to read--thus the compound.
Of course, use "had" if you must, but overusing it or using it when it is unnecessary will make your writing slow and awkward. Some writers are completely unaware of this--it's good that Dave brings it up. However, your convincing argument might send some poor writer into denial about their "had" problem. :)
I, for one, strongly believe that the English language -- a bastardized language if ever there was one -- is encumbered with far too many tenses for its own good. I personally applaud the good work that is being done here to remove all those complicated, multi-syllabic words and extraneous tenses from our language. After all, it is better to lower the mountain than to learn how to climb.
Just a quick note on tense as it's being discussed. Imperfect is something that began in the past and continued for some time (often still ongoing but not necessarily). It's typically signalled by "was" + "ing". She was walking down the street, when... Evil Editor frisked her.
Past perfect, if we are thinking of the tense also called pluperfect (as in plus-perfect) means that the action is completed and, moreover, was completed before some time in the past. So "has walked" is simple perfect. If someone 'has walked', then as of this time, they have completed a walking action in the past. If someone 'had walked' then the walking is completed plus it was completed before some past time.
Lord Windermere has arrived! vs Lord Windermere had arrived three hours before the murder.
You need pluperfect for cases where it is important that the action was done and complete before an important (past) point in time. Simple past is non-commital on the subject of completion.
Then there's "had been walking"....
...but instead of using simple past tense, or rewording it, they compound it with a noun.
Huh?
Obviously writers should learn to use words appropriately--as well as what they mean and how to spell them! But if someone inadvertently gouges your polished tabletop with a chisel, do you go around for ever after declaiming "chisels are awful" and refusing to use them?
Let's look at the sentence that aj raised.
It was an altar of sorts, made from a slab of marble that was once the hearth of a gas fire he'd taken out five years ago and never replaced.
We could try rephrasing this into simple past and see how that affects the meaning.
It was an altar of sorts, made from a slab of marble that was once the hearth of a gas fire he took out five years ago and never replaced.
Now personally I think that clunks. "Took out" and "five years ago" don't work together. If it was five years ago, it is in the story's past, and needs that "had taken". If you think of the tenses as being along a timeline then it becomes clearer what tense you need to use when. Unfortunately, I can't draw one in blogger :).
I suspect the "had taken" is getting the blame for a sentence that could generally be better phrased.
I guessing the author will look down here. I want to repeat part of my comments that I think got lost.
I think this is a good opening. It gives the reader a great look into Tom and his very odd dreams. It pulls the reader into the story and gives the reader a reason to go on.
"I personally applaud the good work that is being done here to remove all those complicated, multi-syllabic words and extraneous tenses from our language. After all, it is better to lower the mountain than to learn how to climb."
Good zap, anon 10:50 pm. Truly well done. Especially the mountain.
I just had to get in my two cents here. : )
I'm with buffysquirrel on this one. Sometimes you have to use perfect past tense to show which event happened first - that is, to clarify a timeline. I don't see any way to avoid using it without the writing becoming muddled and the timeline unclear.
Post a Comment