Frame-Up
by E. Christopherson & Brad S.

critique: Martyn Bedford

* * * * *
Introduction

With so much strong competition on YWO.com, the success of Frame-Up in winning this professional appraisal is an indication of how highly the other writers on the site regard the extract from the novel. It’s worth bearing that in mind when considering the following appraisal. While I do offer praise, I tend to dwell longer on the areas of concern – as I perceive them – because, ultimately, constructive critical feedback is more useful to you, I hope, in making the novel better still. But let me say right here at the outset that I enjoyed, and was impressed by, these opening chapters. And, of course, my critical comments are those of just one reader and fellow writer – yours to accept, or reject, as you see fit.

Appraisal

Let’s start with the opening couple of lines. The first sentence (“You want me to frame myself for murder?”) is a terrific hook, but the next sentence undermines it, somewhat, with the fussiness of descriptive detail distracting the reader’s attention. (“Will Pruett stood with his back to a nine-foot tall arched window overlooking the entire 50-block sweep of Central Park.”) Do we need to be told that the window is nine feet tall? Do we need to be told that the park stretches 50 blocks? For me, the impact of the brilliant opening sentence is diluted because, instead of being allowed to digest Will’s remark, I am made to calibrate the figures into a mental picture of the window and the park (How high is nine feet . . . How far is fifty blocks?) So, I would suggest rewriting the sentence along these lines: “Will Pruett stood with his back to a tall arched window overlooking Central Park.” Simplified, it still creates a visual impression and leaves the first sentence to resonate a little longer in the reader’s mind.
Following on from this, the opening is generally more cluttered and complicated than it needs to be. We begin with this brief, two-line exchange between Will and Zeeva, then rewind 30 minutes to lead back up to this point, then almost as soon as that earlier dialogue scene begins we have a digressionary paragraph which informs us about Will’s father being on death row, and why, and the fact that Will never knew he had a father until recently. Then, we return to Zeeva and Will’s rather expositional dialogue about their respective attitudes to the death penalty, along with some information about the pro- and anti-campaigns. If I was reading this in book form, rather than on-screen, I would have had to assimilate all of the above before I’d made it very far down page 2. So, for me, it raises a concern over reader orientation and narrative focus. I think what’s happening is that you are trying to tell too much too soon – a common problem in the opening pages of a draft – and, indeed, the pacing and organisation of material settles down after this point. I’d suggest holding back some of the material and working it in a little further on. For example, all of the background to Will’s father could easily be removed from this scene and relocated to Chapter 4, when Will goes to see his father in prison, and/or into Will’s thoughts as he heads off to the crime scene in Chapter 3. I would also take care not to include too much factual stuff about the death penalty in this opening conversation – there will be ample opportunity to go into all this later, and it contributes, here, to a sense that Zeeva and Will are being used by the author(s) to impart information to the reader. It makes the dialogue a little clunky and explanatory, whereas generally your dialogue is sharp and authentic.
When Zeeva informs Will that a high-powered defense attorney will be advising them, I would have her tell him that a police contact with investigative and CSI experience will also be helping them to make sure they frame Will in such a way that: (a) he will be a plausible enough suspect for the cops to believe he did it, and (b) the circumstantial and other evidence that puts them on to him can be readily disproved once the journalistic “sting” operation is made known. A defense attorney, by himself, wouldn’t have enough detailed knowledge of the workings of police investigations to cover all bases on this and Will would probably know that and want added reassurance that the scam will work and that, if it does work, he will be cleared in due course. I realise that Zeeva is setting him up, but she would still endeavour to make it as convincing as possible to Will that the scam is being properly planned and executed (pardon the pun) . . . and he would almost certainly challenge her on this, more than he does, without that added reassurance.
Following on from this, I feel Will would also need to consider – or discuss with Zeeva – the likelihood of this journalistic ruse making any material difference to the campaign to abolish the death penalty. I’m sure there must have been high-profile cases in the U.S. where an executed man was later proven to have been innocent, but these actual miscarriages of justice have not led to the end of capital punishment. So why would a fake miscarriage of justice have any more impact on the public (or political) conscience? Will would at least mull this over, or challenge Zeeva about it, before committing himself to such a high-risk project. And she would need to be ready to convince him. One line of argument open to her, perhaps, is that in actual miscarriage-of-justice cases there’s always a lingering suspicion of guilt in the public perception whereas a journalistic scam would expose, beyond all possible doubt, that the system is flawed and prejudiced and that, as a direct result, innocent men are wrongly accused, convicted and executed. I think it’s necessary and important to address this early in the narrative so that the rationale and motivation (for what is, after all, the key set-up for the plot) are firmly in place.

These are my main concerns and suggestions arising from the opening chapters. As you’ll see, I’ve said little about the writing . . . due to the fact that it’s generally assured, taut and effective both in terms of style/tone and fluency/coherence. The storytelling is well-paced; the shifts between Will’s and Samantha’s viewpoints well-handled, and you establish them effectively as characters and in their respective situations. You are generally skilful at balancing description, reflection, dialogue and action within a scene, but I especially liked Chapter 2, where Sam is at the murder scene. It’s a powerful, graphic scene, strong on visual and sensory impression and filtered effectively through Sam’s perspective. The investigative dynamics and the dialogue exchanges between the various participants seem highly authentic. And the chapter ends with a good twist, as Lynch’s partner Panetta vows to go solo on this one, threatening to exact revenge on the killer if he gets to him first. At this stage, of course, we don’t know that Panetta is in cahoots with Zeeva so, for the moment, we are left to fear that – with a crazed cop out for revenge – Will is in even greater danger than he imagined if he implicates himself in the murder.

Synopsis

The idea of an investigative journalist implicating himself in a murder to expose the wrongs of the criminal justice system and the death penalty is a brilliant concept which, I imagine, would grab the attention of any prospective agent or publisher. Reading the synopsis and seeing where you take this opening premise, I’m equally impressed by how you complicate the plot (in a good way) through various neatly disguised twists and turns. If you don’t manage to get the novel published yourselves you could sell the story outline to Harlan Coben for a fortune! It’s obviously hard for me to say, from a summary, how well the rest of the plot works in practice but, looking closely at the synopsis, it all seems to hang together. One very picky point, though – Will is described as shaven headed in an early scene; then, at one point in the synopsis, he visits a strip club wearing a Rastafarian cap . . . well, I don’t know about Rastafarians in America, but British Rastas have their hair in dreadlocks that hang down well below any cap or wool-hat they might be wearing. So maybe Will needs a dreadlock wig as well as a cap? But then, of course, as soon as he was arrested and taken into custody, it would become apparent that he wasn’t a Rasta, which in turn would raise doubts in Sam Ortiz’s mind about Will’s guilt – or at least make her wonder what he was up to. It’s a fussy point, I know, but one which does need tidying up. The other concerns I have centre on the extent to which Will and Sam influence the successful outcomes of their respective dilemmas (Will to clear himself; Sam to solve the murder.) Usually, in a genre thriller, the hero/heroine needs to be active in winning the day rather than having it won for them by external circumstances. I don’t know from the synopsis whether you take care of this in the closing stages of the novel but I thought I would flag it up. One final niggle – the synopsis is dominated by Will’s storyline, with few references to Sam’s. So, I have a slight concern that her strand of the novel might fall by the wayside a little. Maybe it doesn’t, in fact, but it seems to do so from the synopsis.

Conclusion

In conclusion, then, this is a terrific idea with bags of potential. A novel which opens well (even allowing for the problems I’ve raised) and has all the makings of a fine and original thriller that’s strong on plot but also has substance in terms of character and theme. Can I wish you all the best with it. I hope my feedback proves helpful.

Martyn Bedford
for YouWriteOn.com