|
First, a comment: you hint elsewhere that this episode (or maybe the whole book) is based on real-life experiences. If so, that's fine, but you still have to be careful to portray the events in a believable manner, no matter how unbelievable they seemed in real life. The reader has only your assurance that the events are based in fact, but your assurance can't outweigh a conspicuously unrealistic narrative.
(quoted text is in italics)
About this time, the man from the CIA spoke up. He informed me there was more. He told me that, in the course of the investigation, they had stumbled upon the fact I had no birth certificate and, as far as they could figure out, the majority of my records began at the time I was adopted. Therefore, I was a prime candidate for a covert operation they were putting together and he was there to recruit me. He also told me that, from what they could find out, I legally didn’t even exist. They thought that if I were to take their offer I could essentially become anyone I chose to be. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Here I was being told that I didn’t exist and this was a good thing?
I presume that this excerpt doesn't represent the opening paragraphs of the story, but I'll proceed as if this is the beginning.
I think you're missing a great opportunity, because a scene between the CIA recruiter and the man-without-a-past is potentially riveting, but only if we get to see it. In this passage, we hear about it in retrospect, by which time the event and its impact have already passed. I would much prefer to see the scene played out in "real" time. Why, for example, does the narrator conclude that the recruiter is real CIA, rather than from some other organization? Seeing this interaction would be more interesting that reading about it after the fact. This would also let you avoid the rhetorical problems of multiple past-tenses.
Alternatively, you could start with the narrator already on assignment, then flash back to the recruitment scene. You'd need to be careful to avoid it seeming contrived, though.
My naturally suspicious nature tells me that the CIA would only tell me that I don't exist if they had something in mind beyond recruiting me. Likely they'd suspect that I'd already done something under the cover of anonymity; otherwise, why in the world would they reveal my anonymity to me before they'd secured my cooperation?
Also, I have trouble believing that the narrator wouldn't have discovered his quasi-anonymity already by himself. How did he get a driver's license? How did he get into college? How did he get a job? How does he file taxes? How did he get into the military? Is he in the military? Even though he was adopted, he'd still have encountered difficulties by now. These are mundane issues, to be sure, but they must be addressed if the situation is to seem realistic (whether they occurred in real life or not).
Beyond that, you might tighten up the prose a bit. Perhaps "CIA recruiter" or "CIA guy" or "guy in the suit" rather than "the man from the CIA" in sentence one? Get rid of "He informed me there was more," because it does nothing but interrupt the flow of the prose. Maybe "they had stumbled upon the fact" could become "they'd learned" in sentence three? In general, if your narration is supposed to be in a character's voice, then cumbersome phrasing will seem false, unless the cumbersome phrasing is deliberate and intended to yield some effect.
One other point--avoid the phrase "a good thing" whenever possible. It's a cliche and a throwaway that adds nothing to one's writing.
The whole scenario reminded me of a bad “Mission Impossible” program and I really didn’t want any part of it. My commander gave me two weeks to think it over but, as far as I was concerned, I knew the answer wouldn’t be what they wanted to hear.
Be careful, because just about every reader will have the same thought re: Mission Impossible! You need to make sure that the setup is believable, while making sure not to overplay the "this is just like MI" angle. I would also suggest removing the phrase "as far as I was concerned," because it muddies the pace.
After I left the meeting I couldn’t think clearly so I took off for the rest of the day and drove down to Georgetown, near where the Anacostia river fed into the Potomac River. I found a place where not many people went and which was out of the way. Here, at least, I could think without any interruptions.
This is a nice moment, sort of a retreat to the narrator's "Happy Place." You can probably get rid of the last sentence, because it's self-evident, and consider removing either "where not many people went" or "which was out of the way." The two phrases are close to redundant. Also, the phrase "I couldn't think clearly" suggests (given the context) that some kind of mind-affecting substance has been used. If this is not the case, and if the ambiguity yields no benefit, then you might consider clarifying or altering this point.
In some ways I felt betrayed by everything. I thought I had found a place in life and for the first time I felt like I belonged, only to have it taken away from me with a single phrase. You can’t imagine how hurt and angry I was at that point about being adopted. At that moment, suddenly, I had no control over my own life. I couldn’t “Be all I could be” because of something I never had any control over to begin with. I knew I would never be allowed to get past or forget that I was second best, a mistake if you will.
This paragraph doesn't thrill me, and I'd suggest a careful reexamination and rewrite to avoid the impression of artificial self-pity. The entire thrust of the paragraph is summed up in the last idea—that he was a mistake. Honestly, you could write a whole novel about that, even ignoring the whole CIA storyline. The sudden undermining of his identity, wrought by the knowledge that his past is different from what he'd always known, is a wrenching experience. "Betrayal" is an entirely valid feeling, because his birth parents gave him up and because his adoptive parents never told him, but it's interesting that he thinks of himself as a mistake. Surely the adoptive parents took him in deliberately?
By the way—where is his adoptive family? If they're alive, I simply can't believe that he wouldn't confront them with his new knowledge.
At the end of the two weeks I once more was called into the commander’s office to give my final decision on the offer they had proposed.
This paragraph should be removed.
I asked my Commanding Officer if I had any other options that they had not covered. His response was that if I didn’t take this offer, the only recourse would be to take an early discharge. He told me that I would get an honorable discharge, but I wouldn’t be able to reenlist in any branch of service. He also informed me that my reserve status would be canceled.
This is important information, but be careful how you convey it. The current format is "I asked him a question. He answered a question. He gave additional information." Consider replaying this scene through dialogue, or even with a single, evocative sentence from the commander. Also, set the scene—where are they meeting? Is he on good personal terms with his Commander? Is anyone else in the vicinity? In the next paragraph you reveal that agents are in the room, but they aren't there until you tell us. Put them in the room for the whole scene, or they seem like afterthoughts.
After hearing all of this, I felt like there was no other way of dealing with the matter at hand so I looked him in the eyes, stood up, and saluted him. I told him to start proceedings for an early discharge. I could not in good faith go along with what they were asking of me. I turned around and walked out the door, not saying anything to either of the agents present in the room. I felt at that moment that my country had let me down. Even though I knew that really wasn’t so, I couldn’t help feeling that way.
The narrator consistently frames the issue as a betrayal, the reasons for which are another whole novel in themselves! His commitment to his military service must be pretty weak, if he's willing to walk away so abruptly, good faith or not.
Again, be aware of heavy phrasing. "The matter at hand" doesn't sound real to me. "Stood up" indicates that he was sitting, but why? It seems more likely that he'd be standing the whole time, since it's the make-or-break moment of his service. Also, at this point he's still in the service, so he can't just "walk out the door" until he's dismissed. "Present in the room" is redundant—either they're "present" or they're "in the room," but you don't need to say both.
At this point the reader has no reason to feel that the country has let down the narrator, so it doesn't seem real that he feels that way, either. Give us more information, or else rephrase the idea; otherwise, it makes the narrator seem overblown and self-involved, giving us little reason to care about his dilemma.
But don't be discouraged--these criticisms are actually pretty minor and can be easily remedied.
Good luck in your continued writing.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(48 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
