Of course I want them. That's why I asked. It is a pleasant surprise to have received so much good constructive criticism. I hesitated before asking. I'm glad I decided to take a chance.

>>>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.
>
>When I read it, I took it as in they were recently married, and thought maybe that would be a twist later in the story.
>

OK, this is two of you now so I will change it. I assumed the reader would take it the way I meant it. Bad mistake!

>>
>>>- 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).
>
>I didn't even think twice about scenery in those two paragraphs, but I'm sure I would have noticed after a while. I enjoy reading Grisham (even though I can rarely spell his name correctly), and he is very vivid with scenery.
>
>>>- 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 took the Armani and the "recently married" idea and made her out to be a gold digger.
>

Another bad misstep on my part, then. She is not a gold digger at all. She is a smart, capable, successful woman with money in the bank who fell in love with a man. About him we will say no more at the moment.

>>>- 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....
>
>I enjoyed that part. I thought it was interesting, and yet again, added to the gold digger idea.
>
>>>- 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.
>
>I personally thought that last sentence was a little odd myself. I didn't quite "get it".

OK. On this point I am feeling a little stubborn. It's all about tone and that's what I was trying to establish.

>>>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!!!
>>
>>>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).
>
>First Scarlett Johanssen, and now Susan Sarandon?

I couldn't possibly satisfy both of them at once. Do I really have to choose?

Thank you again for the constructive comments.