How about this for an opening?

[RivkahChaya]

Having researched the novel extensively, and read a lot of early 20th century English prose, I think I know how to write like a man writing in 1914.

I have an undergraduate degree in English literature, and I agree with Ally that it isn't really working.

Also, what's wrong with using 'of' a lot? Are you a writer yourself, or have you studied creative writing?

I'm not any kind of professional writer, but I've published a couple of short stories, and I used to write movie reviews for a local publication (and FWIW, got paid to do so), and once did a humor column on auto maintenance, which I think you'd really have to see to get the idea-- oh, and I took three creative writing classes in college, all As; anyway the general idea is to use as few words as possible, so unless there is a really compelling reason to use "__ of __" there is usually a simpler construction. You don't need to say "in the presence of a priest." You can say "to a priest," which makes more sense, since they are alone, and gives you a better parallel construction with the comment about the confessional, which I think is supposed to be funny, but isn't, because it takes so long to get there. In the last sentence, you don't need to repeat "the course of my life," since you just said it. You can say "my course."

Some of those " __ of __" could be changed to "__'s __" people wrote that then. It didn't go out of favor in formal writing until later, and anyway, this is supposed to be a diary (I checked your website). Victorian-Edwardian authors were wordy because they got paid by the word. Your diarist is writing in his spare time, so his style will be different.

There is such a thing as positive criticism, you know.

You posted it. If you wanted only positive feedback, you should have said so.

[Errata]

The narrator is in touch with a lot of information because he's lived in Whitechapel from 1888 to 1914 & has access to several volumes of newspaper cuttings about JtR, & has friends among the police. Something about the way I write makes me want to write as someone else.

SW

Men and women did speak differently. It's a subtle difference, usually in choice of phrase. Certainly Polish women did. Not wholly dissimilar to how the stereotypical New York Jewish woman sounds, with elliptical phrases, apologies, denials, all the while being terribly blunt... the "Not that I'm complaining" or even phrases like the Southern "Bless his heart" which means that you are complaining, but acknowledging it's not really their fault. They just didn't use confrontational language like "Nothing would alter him" or state such bold dissatisfaction. I get what she is saying, and I get that she was supremely unhappy in her marriage, and had an almost irresistible urge to throttle her husband into some sort of display or reaction. But she sounds British debutante sulky, not immigrant mature unhappy.

The voice just doesn't ring true. It isn't that the language and phrasing is wrong, it's just not a great fit for who I presume the character to be. I know it sounds like we're ganging up on you, and it's not like a whole lot of us are qualified to judge you. But an intro is what pulls a person in, and if they are sitting there wondering why it doesn't sound quite right, you can lose them in the first paragraph.

[Simon Webb]

No, I mean "__ of ___".

lots of money
pleasures of the bedroom (and you forgot the "the" the second time you used it, how's that for massive repetition)
presence of a priest
long periods of my life
section of the river
course of my life
confession of Jack the Ripper

....and so on

One should never attempt to sound old-fashioned if one really does not know how they sounded. It doesn't work.

Having researched the novel extensively, and read a lot of early 20th century English prose, I think I know how to write like a man writing in 1914. If one overdoes period-speak it can sound very creaky. Also, what's wrong with using 'of' a lot? Are you a writer yourself, or have you studied creative writing? There is such a thing as positive criticism, you know.

SW

[Simon Webb]

Is Mrs. Kraski supposed to be Polish? What is her first language supposed to be? Polish or Yiddish? If you are trying to create a narrator who makes attempts to be both amusing an accurate, then I think would have a person who would try to recreate the foreign dialect of the person he is recounting.

In my experience, Eastern European (Slavs and Baltic/Mediterranean people anyway) gentiles, as well as Ashkenazic Jews are very direct people, who don't speak in euphemisms like "pleasures of the bedroom." If she wants to spare the priest, she'd probably use a foreign word she's pretty sure he knows, but that he has the option of pretending he doesn't know.

Another reason for doing that, besides verisimilitude, is that it breaks things up. Each character has a separate and distinct narrative voice, even though you are writing in the first person. It's like painting with more than one color.

Also, unless you are really going to try to master a particular dialect of Victorian English, you can write in the third person, but with a single POV character. I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but I know there are some really good books written that way.

There's an American author named Sharyn McCrumb, who writes mystery and suspense novels (and wins tons of awards) that often have two or three separate narratives in different time periods, and each one will have its own POV character, but except for an occasional prologue, she is usually true to her POV character, in that the reader is never privy to anything the POV character doesn't know. And when she is writing about the past, say the US Civil War ear, she is very knowledgeable, great with minor details, that make everything authentic, but she still uses modern language in the narrative.

Now, not all her novels are like that. She has written first person novels, and she has written novels with many POV characters, who don't know one another until they start meeting in the last few chapters.

I'm just saying that if your goal in using the first person is to confine the perspective, you don't have to do it that way. A third person narrator does not have to be omniscient.

The narrator is in touch with a lot of information because he's lived in Whitechapel from 1888 to 1914 & has access to several volumes of newspaper cuttings about JtR, & has friends among the police. Something about the way I write makes me want to write as someone else.

SW

[RivkahChaya]

Is Mrs. Kraski supposed to be Polish? What is her first language supposed to be? Polish or Yiddish? If you are trying to create a narrator who makes attempts to be both amusing an accurate, then I think would have a person who would try to recreate the foreign dialect of the person he is recounting.

In my experience, Eastern European (Slavs and Baltic/Mediterranean people anyway) gentiles, as well as Ashkenazic Jews are very direct people, who don't speak in euphemisms like "pleasures of the bedroom." If she wants to spare the priest, she'd probably use a foreign word she's pretty sure he knows, but that he has the option of pretending he doesn't know.

Another reason for doing that, besides verisimilitude, is that it breaks things up. Each character has a separate and distinct narrative voice, even though you are writing in the first person. It's like painting with more than one color.

Also, unless you are really going to try to master a particular dialect of Victorian English, you can write in the third person, but with a single POV character. I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but I know there are some really good books written that way.

There's an American author named Sharyn McCrumb, who writes mystery and suspense novels (and wins tons of awards) that often have two or three separate narratives in different time periods, and each one will have its own POV character, but except for an occasional prologue, she is usually true to her POV character, in that the reader is never privy to anything the POV character doesn't know. And when she is writing about the past, say the US Civil War ear, she is very knowledgeable, great with minor details, that make everything authentic, but she still uses modern language in the narrative.

Now, not all her novels are like that. She has written first person novels, and she has written novels with many POV characters, who don't know one another until they start meeting in the last few chapters.

I'm just saying that if your goal in using the first person is to confine the perspective, you don't have to do it that way. A third person narrator does not have to be omniscient.

[Ally]

No, I mean "__ of ___".

lots of money
pleasures of the bedroom (and you forgot the "the" the second time you used it, how's that for massive repetition)
presence of a priest
long periods of my life
section of the river
course of my life
confession of Jack the Ripper

....and so on

One should never attempt to sound old-fashioned if one really does not know how they sounded. It doesn't work.

[Simon Webb]

You use too many "thats", "would" and " ____ of ____" constructions. Too much passive rather than active language.

Also "when she was still called Mrs. Kraski, Mrs. Kraski would..." is just awkward. I understand what you are attempting to do but it makes no sense and it needs to be reformatted. If you don't want to give away her name for whatever reason in the beginning, you still need to reformat it.

I think you mean "____ or ____" constructions? I've thought a bit more about your comments - the repetition of 'Mrs Kraski' is meant to be amusing, and to reflect the eccentricity of the narrator. Some of the other language is meant to suggest an old-fashioned style: he's writing in 1914 (as it later transpires) about events in 1888 & 1903. He's a scholarly type, an ex Catholic priest who was once a bookish Jewish boy, bred in a book-shop, father a printer.

I'm now doing my third careful revision/trawl through for errors.

You might like to visit my website:

http://tinyurl.com/lpdirect

Thanks again,

SW

[Simon Webb]

You use too many "thats", "would" and " ____ of ____" constructions. Too much passive rather than active language.

Also "when she was still called Mrs. Kraski, Mrs. Kraski would..." is just awkward. I understand what you are attempting to do but it makes no sense and it needs to be reformatted. If you don't want to give away her name for whatever reason in the beginning, you still need to reformat it.

Thanks for you very interesting response.

SW

[Ally]

You use too many "thats", "would" and " ____ of ____" constructions. Too much passive rather than active language.

Also "when she was still called Mrs. Kraski, Mrs. Kraski would..." is just awkward. I understand what you are attempting to do but it makes no sense and it needs to be reformatted. If you don't want to give away her name for whatever reason in the beginning, you still need to reformat it.

[Simon Webb]

I've copied & pasted the opening of my new novel about JtR below. Any opinions/observations? The book's still in the revision stage but the opening's very important, especially as the book may have to stay Kindle-only. The format here has taken out my indented paragraphs & some italics.

SW

When she was still called Mrs Kraski, Mrs Kraski would complain to me about her late husband, saying that he never changed, but was exactly the same man all through their life together.
‘When he proposed to me, he said that he was steady,’ she protested; ‘as if steady was what a romantic girl dreamed of.’
‘Then why did you accept his proposal?’ I would ask her.
‘Oh, because he was so handsome. And he had a good job, working for a coffee dealer back in Krakow; and he had saved up lots of money to come here to England. I didn’t know that steady meant that he would never change. Nothing would alter him. Not coffee, or my cooking, or drink, or bad news. Even the pleasures of the bedroom...’
At this point I coughed, to remind her that the pleasures of bedroom should not usually be mentioned in the presence of a priest, except perhaps in the confessional.
‘But was he a good man, Mrs Kraski?’ I would ask. ‘If he was steady in goodness, then surely you shouldn’t complain.’
‘Yes, I suppose he was good,’ she would admit, folding her arms under her large bust, and looking a little downcast.
‘The English have a phrase for a man who doesn’t change,’ I reminded her. ‘It is usually reserved for old men, particularly old bachelors. They say the man is set in his ways.’
As for myself, I think that I have been set in my ways for long periods of my life, but there have also been great changes that have set me into new ways – like a ferryman who crosses the same section of the river every day for years, but then the river dries up, or moves its course, or the ferry-boat is wrecked, or a bridge is built, and the ferryman has to find a new occupation.
The times when the course of my life was truly changed are three in number: my baptism into the Roman Catholic faith at the age of twelve; the time I heard the confession of Jack the Ripper; and the day when I finally succumbed to the charms of Mrs Kraski.