Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/42039
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Warning: I have ADHD and this might be a little ramble-y, sorry.

I'm completely stumped. I'm trying to get into writing fiction but I feel that I've hit a roadblock. My story is told from the first person in a "diary" format. Well, not a "dear diary" diary, but it's more for the purposes of narrative/chronology with the dates and stuff. It isn't me writing about my day, it's me telling my story to historians.

...The point is, It takes place in the early future, 2020, after nearly two hundred striking workers are massacred at "Arlin Factory." The six that survive form a socialist insurgency group with the plan of gradually gaining more and more support, a-la Che Guevara. I've read Che's "Guerilla Warfare" and so I have good knowledge of their tactics and have a very clear grasp of their ideology. My problem is that I can't write a violent/emotional scene without sounding super... purple. Things like over-complicating words and generally being dry. It sounds like I'm a historian and not a storyteller. I couldn't even describe the massacre well.

> Several armored cars pull up, with "MPDC" emblazoned on the side. Six policemen in full gear close in. "Riot police, masks on." I whisper. A voice is broadcast from the helicopter. "_THIS EVENT HAS BEEN DECLARED AN UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY. LEAVE THE AREA OR YOU WILL BE ARRESTED_" Defiant, we step forwards, approaching the barrier. The police tighten their formation. Suddenly, a burst of machine gun fire tears through the first picket line. Harris drops, along with thirty other men. "FALL BACK," I yell. They do. Well, the people with me do. I feel a bullet strike my chest, and as I look back I realize the reason I'm not dead is because it had already been through two others. We flee.

I feel that I'm using too many periods, and the actual event seems emotionless. I'm thinking of going all-in and simply explaining the massacre from a "recalling" point of view, because I don't fully believe I can make the massacre seem horrible without having already wrote about the characters before. Would it be more correct to explain it as a "background event" like the following?

> (This is probably the second/third page, the first few pages being when the group is fleeing after "something bad" happens and they go pick up an old friend, who is former military)
> 
> "So... what happened to Harris?" he asks, breaking the silence.
> 
> Confused, I answer best I can. "We lost him at Arlin, sir. One of the first to go."
> 
> "Arlin?"
> 
> "Yeah, feds shot up the place. Only six guys survived, far as we know. Lost our friends, lost our job. Lost our lives."
> 
> He looks at me, puzzled. "...What?"
> 
> I repeat myself, "The factory workers were on str-"
> 
> He rolls his eyes, "I'm not _that_ old, dude. I meant what _happened_ to him."
> 
> "I... His body, you mean?"
> 
> "Yes. Also... don't call me sir, makes me uncomfortable"

As another example, I tried writing the intro of Saving Private Ryan as a warmup, but it felt horrible.

> A river of machine gun fire rips through the craft. Explosions, everywhere. A dozen men killed instantly. I frantically try to undo my vest but blood starts to cloud my vision. The sounds of battle drown out most voices, except the screams of the wounded and dying. We fire upwards, best we can, just enough to make it to the seawall.

It feels very... empty, but at least in this example I had something to go off of that isn't my imagination. Does jumping straight into the action not translate into literature?

Original score: 11