[Stingy Jack]

I agree on the overwhelming amount of techno-babble. It is really only needed when you are introducing new technology that the reader may not be familiar with. But, if your protagonist is a soldier, then he/she should talk like one. Even if the reader doesn't know what exactly a BFG-2000 is, we will know that it is a rifle of some kind by the other words that we do know (butt and stock). I do think that the introduction is rushed. I understand you wanting the reader to question a lot of things, and to leave those questions unanswered for a while (after all, that's what suspense is all about! And it makes for a good read). But, there is a thing called "suspension of disbelief" that horror writers in particular have to pay close attention to. We, as readers, need to believe that the unnatural things that are occurring are actually happening. Otherwise, we are too detached from the story for it to be effective. Most horror authors will begin their stories with completely natural events, and then gradually introduce elements of the supernatural. This way, the reader finds himself completely immersed in a horrific, supernatural tale and believing it, before he has had a chance to realize what happened. This is Lovecraft's style. Your story, however, starts with a character who is stranded in a place that he calls "Gloom". Okay, I guess I have to accept that he is there. But how did he get there? That's the big question! Your explanation, though, is rushed as well. "One day ... a pinhole opened between Gloom and our world." That's it. Then you go on to describe the scientists checking it out, and the first team of scientists enter only to get fucked up the ass. But, you have done nothing to aid me in suspending my disbelief. I gave you the opening ... the soldier is in Gloom. But, then you give very little aid in helping me to believe that a pinhole opened somewhere on the city's outskirts. Personally, I wouldn't have told the discovery of the pinhole from the viewpoint of the narrator. He wasn't there, so his telling of it is totally second-hand knowledge. This contributes to the problem. If you want us to believe something, you have to take us there, first hand. I would tell that part of the story through the point of view of a third-person omniscient narrator. Maybe make this part your prologue. Have your omniscient narrator describe the guy who is stumbling about the railroad tracks doing whatever it is that he is doing there (looking for cans, checking for faults in the rails, whatever. But it should be completely natural actions). Then he hears something, a humming ... or sees a shadow behind some trees ... and goes to check it out. He makes his discovery, calls the police. The scientists come ... show all this. Have the scientists discuss what they think it is. I know it is boring exposition stuff, but I think it might be necessary. You can always write all the good stuff first, then go back and hack out the not-so-fun, setting-up-the-story stuff. There is nothing wrong with shifting the point of the view of the story, either ... so don't be afraid of that. Faulkner's As I Lay Dying and The Sound and the Fury shift viewpoints with every chapter! Write your prologue from third-person omniscient, then the rest of the novel in first person. But, that's just a suggestion.

I was going to say something else, but I forgot what it was. Give me a minute.