>>No grumbles on style, and it gets my interest. But a few points, if you want them:
>>
>>- His "new" widow? What happened to the old one?
>
>New as in she just became a widow.

Well that's my point - it's superfluous as, unless she kept him on ice for a few months, the fact that it's his funeral tells us that anyway.
"New bride" is fine, as in "Ben carried his new bride over the threshold"

>
>>- no mention of what type of day it is. In a way I'm glad you didn't have it raining, a cliche used in so many burial scenes in films.
>
>You're right, that sure is a cliche. What I wanted to do was immediately grab the reader's interest in the two main characters without a lot of distractions. No question some scenery will be needed. As a matter of personal taste I prefer a story that is tight and quickly paced to one that goes on for pages describing some minor detail. (Elmore Leonard famously said that he tries to take out the parts readers skip over).
>
>>- talking of cliches, does it have to be Armani?
>
>No. Good point. The idea was to show that they have some money, but you're right, Armani is a cliche. I will try to come up with something different that expresses the same idea in a way that will be understood by the reader. I believe you need to have a certain amount of respect for the reader's intelligence. Just not in an obscure way -- that's the tricky part. I can't stand writers who seem to be trying to demonstrate that they're smarter than you are.
>
>>- I can't imagine a pink garter belt costing more than coke and what's the point of focusing on this detail. And why probably? You're the one writing so you decide whether it did or not - she and Charlie would know, so how come you don't?
>
>A little exaggeration never hurt anyone <g>. And who cares whether it technically cost more or less? I want to be a writer, not an accountant....

But why "probably"? and why was a pink garter so dear? I could understand "decorated with real gold thread, costing ..."

>
>>- The last sentence is superfluous - who she was was "Beloved Mother" and what she meant to them was "Beloved Mother" - obviously, so George is not too bright.
>
>Let me think about that. Interesting thought.
>
>>One last thing: I think it's an Americanism to say "A couple hundred" as opposed to the British "A couple of hundred" but I'm not sure whether you guys would say it was grammatically correct.
>
>I am not going to allow the book to be sold in the UK (lol). Too many bloodyminded language mavens. KIDDING!!!

Aye, but seriously, I've noticed this many, many times, that you guys say "a couple hundred" where we put "of" in. I just wasnt sure whether that is US grammar.

BTW I hope you used "maven" in the "expert" sense, rather than "freak" :-)

>
>>BTW I've dabbled in writing all my life - and one day I'm going to carry on with the novel I started 2 decades ago, before life got in the way :-)
>
>That's sort of what I'm thinking. I see the smiley but life is always going to be in the way, isn't it? It feels like the time is right. I talked for years about running a marathon before finally doing so. I have talked for years now about writing a novel (to a small handful of people). Time to give it a try or shut up about it.
>
>And after THAT I will finally have sex with Susan Sarandon (lol).

And she looks better now than she ever did back in the day!

>
>Thank you for the detailed, constructive criticism.

Your welcome

If you fancy swapping drafts for perusal and criticism, I could always send you mine. I sent it to a friend for constructive critique, in the hope that a bit of encouragement might spur me on. It took him so long to get round to it that I'd lost the impetus - and than he only went and done and CRITICISED it anyway! MO-FO! :-)

Since then I've got more into the music and stuff and have actually composed the odd song.