|
SCENE ANALYSIS
Opening and Closing (1-5)
(4.0)
Does the scene feel like it opens, evolves, and closes properly, or does it feel awkward, improperly set, concluding too suddenly, or other issues?
Like opening here and the effect produced by the surprise contrast of the mysterious American from the future? (or is this a holoscene on a training vessel somewhere around the year 2020?) ; but as a whole it should be more cinematic and less anecdotal (see notes below).
The conclusion is comic relief and well done. The corporal is not killed and has no idea how close he came to death.
Complication/Plot (1-5)
Does the scene itself, the cirumstances contained therein, push the major plot line(s) and major complication forward?
Uncertain. Have to remain neutral on this for now.
Quality (1-5)
(4.0)
Is the choice of this scene in this place with this circumstance and characters as effective as it can be in the context of the story as a whole? In other words, is it needed, could it be made more effective, could it be replaced by something more effective in terms of creating story energy and pushing the plot lines/complications forward?
One has to assume it is. The very circumstance of the scene creates plenty of story energy and it appears effective if the intent is to introduce a crack team of time-jumping commando types from the future, or whatever.
Setting (1-5)
(4.0)
Does the choice of setting maximize opportunities for energetic story and narrative? Does it feel correct for the story circumstances depicted? Does it avoid the setting cliches of being in a car, plane, at a funeral, a birth, etc.?
It appears this particular scene and circumstance are well chosen for the purpose of creating energetic story and narrative, and certainly, the obvious cliches are avoided, unless of course lots of military sci-fi begins with this kind of set. ______________________________________
PROSE NARRATIVE
Clarity and Quality (1-5)
(2.5)
Do we clearly understand what is being said? And is the quality of the prose itself sufficiently competitive for the genre?
The quality of prose is fine, but some confusion in the narrative here. You note it's a Jap landing party but it turns out they are Americans from the future? The reader is confused. We do not even see the Americans costumed as Japs.
Issue:
“Nice detail on the backstory, Lisa,” Sgt. Stanley Foster broke radio silence as he clicked off the Baker biography icon and continued to ascend the bluff towards where he suspected the American lookout was located. “If I didn’t know better, I would think your fiancée gave you access to our personnel files.”
Who is Lisa? Is that a nickname for the tech gadget he is carrying? And who is who's fiancee? Is Lisa Norwood's fiancee? You have to clear these details up for the reader.
“Lisa is fully read in on OpSec,” the voice of Capt. Robert “Bobby” Norwood came through the landing team’s coms.
Again, who is Lisa? Was Foster originally talking to a person or to a tech gadget? The reader has to return to this and read repeatedly, believing something was missed. And throwing acronyms around like OpSec can get counterproductive if the reader is left in the dark; and "Bobby" isn't a terribly original nick for a guy named Robert. What about "Bullslasher" or something like that?
Further:
“Old General Tojo never needed permission from anyone to spy on everyone under his command,” the third member of the landing party, Sgt. Major Frank Washington had just finished stowing the landing craft and establishing a defensive perimeter around the LZ.
How does the above comment follow on what came before? If this guy is the third member, is Lisa the second?
Verve and Tension (1-5)
(4.0)
Is the narrative due to word choice or circumstances depicted sufficiently energetic and interesting or too quiet? Are circumstances created, words used, strings of dialogue spoken that spark tension?
The circumstance is certainly energetic. A man waits to be killed in a bizarre twist of fate that he can neither understand or predict, while his killers are joking, and the reader believes they are soldiers sent from the future. Many questions remain.
Originality (1-5)
(4.5)
Do the circumstances of the scene, the act of dialogue, the flow of the work feel original or cliche? Do you feel refreshed by it, or does it feel too familiar?
The circumstance is lively and creates suspense as well as mystery. What the hell is really going on?
Imagery and Movement (1-5)
(2.0)
Is there sufficient imagery and movement in the scene to prevent eye boredom? Remember, the reader is watching a film unfold inside their head.
Need to mix in the camera eye depicting corporal's movements and personal visuals with his interior monologue that will reveal his background. Right now you're choosing to remain 3rd person distant for the duration.
He pours his coffee, lights his cigarette, we see his face and hair, his eyes, the boredom, his eyes, and the sound of the water triggers the canoe on the Niangua ... then cut to Foster on the cliffs. Now you have the same issues. The dialogue is snappy (but confusing--see below) but the cinema craved by the reader is lacking. We want to see more visuals of the this guy scaling the cliff, see his hands pulling himself up, hear the chips of stone scittering down beneath him, and all that mixed in with the communications.
Character Depiction (1-5)
(2.0)
Are characters depicted in such a manner as to create interest? Do they feel sufficiently different from each other? Are they cliches? Are they sympathetic?
As above, we never get a clear visual of what these peeps look like. The background of the corporal is interesting and builds a little sympathy, but the killer-grunt banter on the cliff feels a lot like other killer-grunt banter from books and film. It's fun, sure, but it does not make them feel different or unique. Perhaps future scenes will do this. Consider creating a source of tension or implied tension between the grunts and their captain. They're way too happy!
_____________________
|