I'm working on improving my technique and part of the approach is saying more with less. Instead of going into long drawn out details that delay the story, I provide enough to set the scene and let the reader's imagination do the rest. I realize I still need practice at this, but I've also begun work on something else. Using the first paragraph to set up the rest of the chapter. What I mean by this is using that first paragraph to set things like the setting, time-frame, location, introducing the main character, adding tension, and generally trying to establish these things enough to get people interested enough to keep reading. To that end I'd like opinions about the paragraph below. This isn't a final draft by any means, but I do want to know what draw from it and if it seems reasonably interesting in that they might continue on, or toss the book. The conference room of Neo-Logic Technologies filled with the sound of cheers from the crowd of employees gathered there. Everyone in the room clapped as a small bespectacled man posed for the cameras, holding the check for the five-million dollar research grant. Everyone except one man. Victor watched him shake hands with a man in a business suit and smile, it was too much. Turning on a heel he walked out of the room feeling so angry that there were no words to describe it. Victor had never committed cold-blooded murder in his life, but right now it was taking a lot of willpower to resist the idea.
Hello Antaus, IMO, the bolded line is extraneous, if you're trying to cut words. You made it clear that it was too much when he turned around. The orange part can also go, if you change 'walked' to stomped or something similar to show the anger. He doesn't need words to describe it, because there's no one to talk to anyway. ETA: Also, the "turning on a heel" sounds weird to me. Should it be his heel? I'm not great with grammar, but I can usually tell when it doesn't sound right. Is it interesting? Yeah. I'd keep reading to see why he's so angry with the little man holding millions. Hope this is helpful
I'd flip the first sentence from passive to active. Something more like, "Cheers filled the conference room of Neo-Logic Technologies." Watch your epithets, too. You have a "one man," a "bespectacled man," and a "man in a business suit" all in the first few sentences. This sentence can go: "He walked out of the room" would suffice. Telling us he's angry is implied. And I'd be careful of ever writing "there were no words to describe it" since all writers do is describe things with words.
It's a nice opening paragraph. I like how you started with setting (conf room, guy with the check) before moving to the character. I'll break down what I see and show you my process. I'll keep pretty much the same structure. First, chop everything down. Remove all fluff and it frees up room for detail. The conference room of Neo-Logic Technologies filled with the sound of cheers from the crowd of employees gathered there. The Neo-Logic Tech conference room echoed with the cheers of gathered employees. [Just slimming. A lot of your phrases are implied and some are redundant.] Everyone in the room clapped as a small bespectacled man posed for the cameras, holding the check for the five-million dollar research grant. Everyone applauded as a small bespectacled man held the research grant's five-million dollar check. [The as-clause still bothers me, but it's not a deal killer.] Everyone except one man. (Omit) [This could stay. The reason I let it go was because of how you mentioned: the crowd, the man, the crowd (everyone), Victor, the man, Victor. My edits go: crowd, man, Victor. Which is much simpler.] Victor watched him shake hands with a man in a business suit and smile, it was too much. He shook hands with a man in a business suit and smiled for the camera. It was too much. [Here's where I stashed the "camera." You could toss a ; in there. I'm always leery about fancy punctuation in the first paragraph though. It's like a cry for attention.] Turning on a heel he walked out of the room feeling so angry that there were no words to describe it. Victor stormed out of the room. [You could try "Victor couldn't stand to see more. He stormed out of the room." Just in case it's not clear Victor is not the "man" and had been invisible up to this point.] Victor had never committed cold-blooded murder in his life, but right now it was taking a lot of willpower to resist the idea. He'd never committed murder. The only thing stopping him was a cold-blooded alibi. ["Never" takes care of "in his life". I shifted your strongest descriptor (cold-blooded) to the end where it lingers. Very important when closing the paragraph.] So that gives me this to work with: The Neo-Logic Tech conference room echoed with the cheers of gathered employees. **1** Everyone applauded as a small bespectacled man held the research grant's five-million dollar check for the cameras. He shook hands with a man in a **2** business suit and smiled **3** for the camera. It was too much. Victor stormed out of the room. He'd never committed murder. The only thing stopping him was a cold-blooded alibi. At 1,2, and 3 I would add specific detail. 1) What's an employee look like? Just name a couple. 2) What kind of suit? The reader doesn't even need to fully understand the detail. Just something that sounds fancy will make it look fancy. 3) Make the smile something annoying so that Victor has a reason to be irritated. The Neo-Logic Tech conference room echoed with the cheers of gathered employees. The accounting crew each with sports team mugs of coffee, the girls from records in an elbow to elbow flock, even a few corner-office honchos applauded as a small bespectacled man held the research grant's five-million dollar check. He shook hands with a man in a smartly pressed Brioni business suit and smiled wetly for the camera. It was too much. Victor stormed out of the room. He'd never committed murder. The only thing stopping him was a cold-blooded alibi. And that's draft 1. It's all sight and sound. That might be a negative . . . I don't know, but it's a start. It's worth noting that yours was 108 words and this is 92 words. So my advice would be to slim it down first and then fill it back up. I feel the best descriptions hit generally (which you did), specifically (which I added), and then emotionally (which you did). If you can get a mixture of the three, then there's enough for the reader to fill in while you guide them with tone and specific details. Everyone sees the scene differently, and you let them, to some degree.
I like most of these suggestions but I stumbled on the "cold-blooded alibi" phrase - I just don't know how an alibi could be cold-blooded. And it's a pretty significant change in meaning to suggest that Viktor WOULD actually murder this guy if he knew he could get away with it. And then in the original version I didn't think we needed a qualifier for "murder" unless we're saying that Viktor HAS committed hot-blooded murder... So I think the final sentence of both versions needs some work. (I'd also probably start a new sentence once Viktor is introduced. We're going from a description of the general scene to one guy's reaction to the scene--seems like that deserves a delineation.)
I kind of agree with you. I thought it was a little out there too when I sorted that out, but I was trying to reuse everything I could. "Convincing alibi" would make more sense, but the paragraph needs to end with a bit of punch. Call it a 2nd draft correction.
Right now I'm just spitting ideas down on paper to get them out, there's going to be a lot of revision later on down the road.
I'd second @Homer Potvin on this. I don't want to pick over or change your words. However, it's good to get into the habit of using active voice whenever you can. That's not to say that passive voice is bad, but it has a different effect on the passage. When in doubt, try them both and see which one gives you the effect you're after. It's also good to allow readers to draw their own conclusions about a character's motives. Leaving a room where everybody else is cheering, while contemplating hypothetical murder is a good enough indication that your Victor guy is angry. The reader will figure this out, and by figuring it out, will be personally drawn into your story. That's what 'showing' can do. By Victor's actions, you've shown us that he's angry. You don't need to 'tell' us this as well. Do watch out for comma splices, though. That's when two complete sentences are separated by a comma. That is actually incorrect punctuation. Victor watched him shake hands with a man in a business suit and smile, it was too much. You could puntuate it in several ways, depending on the effect you want. Victor watched him shake hands with a man in a business suit and smile—it was too much. Victor watched him shake hands with a man in a business suit and smile. It was too much. or Victor watched him smile, shake hands with a man in a business suit, and it was too much.
I have a very quick question on this sort of thing as well. Not trying to hijack the thread, but it is related to commas and getting the flow of the sentence right. I've noticed that I tend to describe a character's interaction or reaction after or during speech to break up the passage. Is it grammatically correct to use a comma after (he said), because to my mind the rest of the sentence is still following on. For example, it may read like this: “I don’t know yet,” William said, his face unreadable as he drew away from the light. or “Hmph, seems that way,” he said, bargaining for more time and not sounding fully convinced. “There must be something I’m missing...” My sentences only really make sense as part of the 'he said', rather than being separate. I notice I do this a lot. I was just curious if what I've written above flows okay or if it needs fixing. Thanks!
Those are right. The first is an absolute phrase (aka nominative phrase). It introduces a new noun and then describes it. It won't have a real verb (maybe a linking verb, but that's it). William said, his face unreadable . . . "His face unreadable" is the absolute phrase. You tacked on a dependent clause with it too (as he drew away. . .). Nothing wrong with that. Absolute phrases are always separated with commas. The second has a present participle phrase he said, bargaining for more time and not . . . Sometimes these take commas, and sometimes they don't. You do add one when: the phrase comes at the beginning Racing to the door, I lost my pants. the phrase comes at the end and is separate from what it is modifying. I opened the package of black tar heroin, chuckling evilly. the phrase is in the middle and nonessential The tax assayer, denying his station, is hated by all. Sometimes they work both ways, depending on the sentence. They change the meaning though. I watched my toddler, sipping a mojito. I watched my toddler sipping a mojito. The thing is though, after said, you almost always add a comma. Even when it makes NO sense. I still haven't had anyone explain why this is so: "You're harshing my buzz," the President said, and high-fived the Chief of Staff. It's a compound predicate and you don't separate those with commas, but I've done searches through my ebooks looking for ". . . said and . . ." and there aren't any. When another action happens after said, everybody uses the comma. I have a theory about that, but it's fairly stupid and I've typed too much again.
Thanks everyone for your comments. That puts my mind at ease because it had become a big stylistic choice for me. Very helpful post, appreciate it. Your technical knowledge surpasses mine for sure. I must admit I still have a lot to learn about the formal conventions and rules of language. I have a fairly good instinctive understanding of the rhythm and beats in a sentence but reading what you put helped me to see how it all fits together.
