Strictly action. I don't recall an ounce of humor in the whole grim business unless over-drawn baddies are humorous...;-)

He's doing anything and everything to maintain his audience. He has no political skills--his constituency is right-wing, obese, serially married drug addicts. There might be a district in California or Florida that might go for him, but he is a force primarily in his own mind and with the lunatic right who, throughout history, have been as ready to follow another idiot as the lunatic left.

This is his 9th novel, if memory serves, one of them was about the Kelly gang. "Oscar and Lucinda" is probably his most famous because it was made into a film.

“As if fascinated, he focused on the twirling object…”
Either he was or he was not fascinated by the twirling ring. “As if” is not necessary here.

“Never in his nearly twenty years with the company had he ever made such an uninterrupted trip.”
This seems very unlikely in 20 years. You might want to create a diversion by introducing someone fascinating, interesting or strange for him to meet to give him at least some mental hesitation about what he’s planning.

“With purposefully steps…”
With purposeful steps?

You are sinking into some potential Swifties here: “Thankfully he noted,”…doors slid open silently,…”purposefully” (I commented on but you are clearly on an adverb roll here)..briskly tapping down the concrete steps…

Writer after writer and guidebook after guidebook has a variation somewhere on “kill the adverbs.” They are criticized, rightly, as a lazy writer’s crutch. I’d kill all of these and find a better way to say more efficiently what you want to say in this opening.

You do a good job of condensing the elements of the guy’s life: some boredom with the job, defunct marriage, and the rest of the novel will have to either go back in time or go forward without this character, but you have started with a stark event. (You’ve started “starkly”!!!) I find the danger in such blunt openings to be in their bluntness. They are so clearly designed to be “grabbers” that they are over-used and thus a bit banal. Fleming always used such grabber openings and they served him well. However, he got beyond the banal by extending those opening scenes into spectacular cliff-hangers with more than one character as a focus. The effect was similar to yours: a violent opening to a violent story, but the effect was leavened by its length and detail so that the scene rather than the event became the hook to read on. The way you have approached this endangers your opening chapter because it is “just another suicide grabber” or can be seen as such. It is so short that we have nothing invested in the suddenness of the suicide and are left with the impression that it is a self-conscious “grabber.”

Nice invective but not very persuasive. If possible water landings are not part of a pilot's potential future, why do they practice water landing procedures? Why are there stories about Sullenberger's being "preparing for this all his career"? If water landings are not part of the job, why were the captain and first mate going through a checklist to prepare the plane for a water landing? I will refrain here from comparing big mouths with small minds.
For the moment.

Who's made Obama into a god? He won an election and a lot of folks are hoping that, with someone else at the helm, we can get out of trouble. How does that make Obama a god?

John: That sounds too much to me like the argument for capital punishment: "If it was your daughter/wife/son etc., what would YOU want done to them?" That's not a good argument for rule of law and neither is lionizing every person who does his job. You know what the drill is apt to be: talk shows, book deal, movie and promotion to a desk job, taking a proven pilot off the line where he could possibly save more lives by being in the cockpit. I still think making saints out of people who do what they should do is a mistake in the balance of things.

Incredible, simply incredible. "Credible" is an important word, Micky. It means "believable." Your screed here is incredible. Not only does it rant on about conservative mantras from the past, it is not at all responsive to what has been written here. Your words "touched a nerve" because ignorance and stupidity, not necessarily allies, always touch a nerve, particularly ignorance. You have not pointed out the errors of anyone's ways; you simply recite conservative myths about liberals based on what is needed to make an enemy without any reference to proof, example or context. And, again, you are totally irresponsive to the points made in this chain.

Seeing your inability to respond to anything written here with coherent or effective argument, please consider this chain closed to you from this end. Let others deal with you. And don't try to fake a "I won and he chickened out" argument. I've seen it before and it is as unresponsive as the rest of what you have written.

What crap! Blame it on the "liberals?" Why not listen to members of your conservative claque who turned their backs on her at long last. Where, oh where, did your deluded mind find ANY reference to a Down Syndrome child in my piece or any of the others in this chain? Why did YOU have to bring it up? There is nothing malicious in mentioning the fact that Sarah Palin's daughter is not married, yet pregnant, the same as Sarah herself was for her first child. That is not an attack; that is, in the words of one famous conservative: "stating some obvious facts." I must laugh, because the only alternative is to vomit, at your charge that "liberals" always resort to ad hominem attacks and name-calling while in the next sentence, you call somebody a "dirt-bag" and another a "liberal deviant." Have you ever read what you write or does it just come spilling out with no reference to facts or to the argument under discussion? I hope the rest of the country is getting as tired as I am of this irresolutely irrational garbage. The election just past seems to indicate that more and more of us are.

Both of you are hovering about the center of her problem: her ego has completely subsumed her personality. Unfortunately for her, she didn't realize that John McCain was the center of attention, or should have been, not her. She thought it her right to take center stage and now stands amazed that some thought her arrogant and out of her element. "Cognitive dissonance" is the phrase that comes to mind...

A list for consideration:
My Sister, My Love- JC Oates-a fictional account of the Jon Benet Ramsey case but the writing is superb and rises above the tabloid nature of the story while satirizing some of the characters we have all grown to know so well.
Child 44- A truly scary book, bringing to life the Stalinist era so vividly that you can almost imagine it could happen again.
A Fraction of the Whole- Steven Toltz-Australian novel, perhaps not available in stores here but well-worth the postage and the weight--over 1,000 pages in paperback. It's the story of a VERY dysfunctional family, told with great humor and relish by a debut novelist.
Indignation- Philip Roth-More dysfunction as a Jewish kid, a genius, from New Jersey flees to a pastoral small college in Ohio to get an education, avoid his increasingly mad father and escape the draft for the Korean War. Memorable stuff.
The Story of Edgar Sawtelle- Wroblewski- Makes my list as well as others'.
Beet- Roger Rosenblatt- Laugh-out-loud funny novel set on a college campus. Serious undertones make this more than farce, but not so much as it gets in the way of the laughter.
Red Cat- Peter Speigelman- a rip-roaring, tightly paced mystery novel
Wild Nights!- JC Oates- Yeah, I know, too much Oates, but this is an imaginative, moving and funny novel of the imagined deaths of famous authors. Probably nobody but Oates could have written it and it is a hoot and thought-provoking at the same time.

Those are my favorites, but it seemed to me to be a good year for novels. Too bad many Americans are not reading them any more.

Hartford Nicholas Crowley detested the snow, that kept him from leaving home.
[Get rid of the comma after “snow.” It’s confusing and wrong and a bad way to start. “First impressions etc.”]

bumble headed
[bumble-headed]

A resonant thud came.
[Very inactive, useless verb. You only have 500 words. Don’t waste one on “came.” Why not eliminate “resonant” and simply state: “a thump echoed through the [whatever space he is in, use the opportunity to create an atmosphere quickly. This sounds like a story set in the past—language, sconces, candles, etc. Help us be sure by being more careful with your thuds!]

Obviously, they would not be going away.
[If it is obvious, why state it? Take out “obviously”and use “Whoever it was would not go away” to make clear this is not an expected visit.]

Stomping to the door, he threw it open without a care, bellowing,
[Too much. The man is curious, not immediately angry. “Stomping” implies that he does care enough to react to the knocking with anger and bellowing should be followed by a :]

“Who goes there?”
[Sounds like a sentinel. He’ll ask for the password next!] You can show his impatience by a simple: “Who is it?”]

whom he had known for years,
[Unnecessary. It’s clear from his reaction that he knows her. Get to the action.]

Anger filled her words. “I am no fool. I came this way, before all this blasted snow had begun. I am here, you may as well let me enter.”
[Needs serious editing. Delete “Anger filled her words” and let the words show the anger. Take out the comma after “way” and after “here. Use a period and let “You may as well let me enter” be more forceful as a sentence. You are slipping into over-use of commas and it disturbs the rhythm of your phrases.]

“Pass through, if you’re so inclined.”
[Really? Again, almost gatekeeper-like and one of those sentences that marks this as a period piece. Keep it ONLY if you intend this is period piece and for him to be largely unsympathetic as a protagonist.]

which ribbon to go with your bonnet?”
[“To go” clangs on the ear. “Should go” or “goes” would be more felicitous here.

His hearing must have left.
[Too obvious. Again, you’re wasting space and words with a phrase that can be proved another way. “Pardon,” he said, incredulous.” might work]

He could not believe how insensitive he had become.
[Get rid of “had become.” It’s passive voice and there hasn’t been a long enough span of time for him to “become” anything. “He rued his insensitivity.”???]

Grabbing a candle sconce, he lit it
[You can’t light a sconce. The sconce is only what holds the candle!]

He had not known, she even showed interest in the male species.
[Why on earth did you toss in a comma after “known” ??? The whole sentence clatters. “He had never known her to show the slightest interest in any male” would do fine and, if there is some resonant feeling for her in him, you could add “Certainly she had never evidenced any in him.”]

His friend had grown into a lovely woman, when he had not been looking
[Dreaded comma toss again and an awkward image. “Paying attention” would be better than “looking” in terms of the time element.]

She agreed, they went to the study to sit.
[Delete “She agreed.” That also rids you of another damned comma!]

When she finished telling him, how she had fallen in love, and that the father of the babe left her, he had one thought. “Why not wait for marriage?”
[Incomprehensible with all the commas, the use of the word “babe” and the strange concluding question. Why not simpler: “She told him how she had fallen in love, what that led to and how the father, hearing of her condition, left her.” Hartford had only one question: “Why wouldn’t he marry you?”]

“I had no earthly clue he would leave me!”
[I suggest that at this point she establishes an added element to the story and her plea by nailing the bastard who abandoned her, thus increasing the leverage on Hartford to comply with her bizarre request. “The coward could not accept responsibility for me or for a child. He simply ran away.” A bit close to a cliché, but so is the rest of the story so it fits and it could work on Hartford’s own sense of manhood and responsibility.]

Panic in his eyes, he stood. “What?”
[Let US read the panic. A simple “What?” would do the job. And most guys would want to sit down rather than stand up upon hearing such a request!]

“I have no earthly idea what to say.”
[On top of “no earthly clue” this is even more reason to cut the previous sentence I commented about earlier.]

“I ask for permission.”
[?? Permission for what and from whom? Very unclear, particularly coming so fast. This whole ending seems totally contrived and without rationale. Yes, there is a word limit, but somewhere here you have to show that Hartford has long-desired her. Take every chance you have to make that clear before the story winds up or this ending is just a “Huh?”]

Hartford would love her, instead.
[Instead of who or what? The dastardly breeder of her child? His dog? The neighbor girl with better legs and a larger dowry? VERY unclear]

Not being a fan of romance fiction, I still took the job of commenting seriously and that makes me blush. I find this a mere sketch from concepts that often rule romance novels but the best of them do flesh out SOME character and give some subtext. This is a surface approach to a decision of great import to the two people involved. I’m not sure it’s possible to make it work in 500 words or less, but if it is to work, it has to have more character, sooner, and some hint as to what period it is set in. A romance should make us happy or disgusted that the couple gets together. This just leaves us puzzled. Good luck with your writing.

Ah, but you miss my point, perhaps intentionally. Obama so far has not indicated a liberal theocracy and that disturbs some liberals and is confounding the most prescient conservatives. He is approaching the tasks ahead of him as a pragmatist and my question is how successful conservatives are going to be if they don't take him seriously as a pragmatist. I don't think even the Republicans are in the mood for any more ideological nonsense after the disasters of the past 8 years.

This is not even CLOSE to an accurate picture of any college campus because it is so over-the top, but the kernels of truth are there and that's what makes it so funny. I think students of today would recognize many things about their campi in the book, but it is still inflated, far-out satire.

The fact remains that the main characteristic of Palin is her LACK of depth, made possible by a slavish devotion to conservative bumper sticker thinking. She feels she need not get into any depth because her shallowness works for her and that same shallowness allows her and those like her to pretend to conservative credentials while shamelessly and eagerly adopting policies and practices that are directly counter to conservative principles, some of which I pointed out. That very shallowness is also at the base of her appeal to a certain element of the electorate which is clearly tired of thinking for themselves. That's why they listen to the "hack right wing talk show hosts bloviating" so slavishly.

You may not come off as a prototypical elitist politician either, but I don't think I would vote for you for anything and I see no reason to vote for Palin for anything merely because she is "not" something. She may be "groomed and fast-tracked," given more principles to memorize and mouth at a suitable occasion, but that does not guarantee she will contend for anything. As Obama fulfills his promise, IF he fulfills that promise, of pragmatism and thoughtful government, "elitist" may come back into credit as well as "pragmatist." I see neither term applicable to Palin now or in the future, no matter how much "grooming" she may receive.

And as a non-conservative, Sarah Palin doesn't frighten me in the least. She appalls me, but that is a far-different reaction than fear.

Kent:
I think I was careful to limit the link between evangelicals and conservative thought to the Republican Party and to conservative tenets specifically. I may have problems with the concept of Christianity in general or any other organized religion, but in this specific case, I was focusing on the lack of thought on the right side of the political and religious spectrum, not on the concept of Christianity as a whole or evangelicals as a whole.

But that's not what I said! He is NOT being ideological one way or the other! Pragmatism is pretty centrist and that's the direction in which he seems to be headed.