I liked the writing, but I found the story to be fact-based rather than emotion-based. I would prefer to be able to connect to the MC. What is driving him? What is his goal? I would like to be a participant in the scene and to feel the MC’s emotions, rather than be an outsider looking on. If you know nothing about the MC or the conflict around which the plot will revolve it is difficult to create empathy for the main character’s situation.
I would also be careful with prologues. Apparently most agents (and many readers) don’t read them. I would skip this and move straight to the first chapter.
I liked the idea, and the opening nearly worked for me. The second person present tense nearly worked for me, too. I have to admit though I sensed some kind of a voice dissonance here. IMHO, the entire setting called for a more colloquial style, something more along the lines of King's Dolores Claiborne: casual and slangy, as if addressing an unseen listener. Here, I thought, it sounded a bit too literary and grammatically correct to convince me in this setting. I couldn't believe the kind of person who would do such a thing would use this kind of voice.
I liked the writing, but I found the story to be fact-based rather than emotion-based. I would prefer to be able to connect to the MC. What is driving him? What is his goal? I would like to be a participant in the scene and to feel the MC’s emotions, rather than be an outsider looking on. If you know nothing about the MC or the conflict around which the plot will revolve it is difficult to create empathy for the main character’s situation.
I would also be careful with prologues. Apparently most agents (and many readers) don’t read them. I would skip this and move straight to the first chapter.
I liked the idea, and the opening nearly worked for me. The second person present tense nearly worked for me, too. I have to admit though I sensed some kind of a voice dissonance here. IMHO, the entire setting called for a more colloquial style, something more along the lines of King's Dolores Claiborne: casual and slangy, as if addressing an unseen listener. Here, I thought, it sounded a bit too literary and grammatically correct to convince me in this setting. I couldn't believe the kind of person who would do such a thing would use this kind of voice.
But overall, very interesting!