Hello RossLighting,
Review ready:
Firstly, the first sentence isn't so good. Why is Richard's last name the same as the "quiet town of Nixon." I mean, I can see a lot of potential in that last quote, you just have to apply it correctly. Maybe you could write it as how his rapping footsteps awoke the crows and sent shockwaves through the buildings as it was that quiet. And the security is suspicious. If it was a quiet town, then why would anybody want to target that? Remember that you still haven't introduced Richard as an important figure. Personally, try to make it an important city, like Los Angeles, New York, or (my favourite), even Tokyo. And you've just introduced the mayor. This is surprising, because if his last name is Nixon then the reader would expect him to be, at least, the lord of the manor, or the earl of the town, or the chieftain, etc. etc. And the next sentence is no better. The grammar is technically incorrect - I would write it as:
The mayor looked surprised as another unsmiling bodyguard appeared, pushing a large trolley. On top of the trolley was what looked like a large lump - nobody could tell since it was covered by the sheet.
Back to the review - how would the mayor know what to do if he didn't know it would happen (the reader would estimate this, otherwise the mayor shouldn't be surprised).
Again with the commas. The next sentence. Why would the mayor flick the bills? You didn't even write for whom the money was for, so how would the mayor know? And it is supposed to be 'hand' not 'hands'.
You suddenly mentioned this man on the roof. Wouldn't somebody notice him. And you didn't mention what obstacles were preventing him from having a comfortable position. When you described his clothes, then you should have put in the carrier bag, because the introduction of the bag is unusual. Plus, you should mention the camera details. What lens? What magnification? What resolution? Then you tell us the man took out the smoke grenade two times. This is a bit of a contradiction, unless if he is planning on using TWO smoke bombs.
Then you say about the book. Since you haven't mentioned the time travel theory yet, then it is a bit stupid to do that. Maybe you could write about it when the man arrived back home.
Then you say about the fleeing people. If everybody fled for cover, wouldn't they want to go outside? Because you added the sentence that the security convinced the people to get up. But why would they fall? I mean, they would want to get back up again and run, not just stay there.
The back on the roof paragraph was a bit extreme. The sudden 'pad' not time machine is a bit of a surprise - he just stepped into it. It must be a bit big then, and he would have to press a button or click a lever regardless of size. Next, if he admired his photos, that means that he might be a journalist when you haven't even said his name yet. And what about his history? Does he really need to have this much of a close-up? And if he could use this time-machine, assuming he travelled to today, he would have made much more money as a scientist. That reminds me, you haven't even said what's the time in Richard Nixon's day. To make it less confusing, then you should say era, and also the dynasties of both Nixon and the stranger. The last bit is OK but it leaves a burden of doubt, a cliffhanger. If you aren't planning on writing a sequel, then this move is dumb.
Sorry if my writing is a bit harsh - but I hope you have gained something. Please reply!!!!
Points: 346
Reviews: 22
Donate