Jordan edits

Jordan said:
set up: Molly's priest was murdered at the church three weeks ago. Father O'Leary, the new priest (*wink*wink* if you remember log line #1), has just arrived and Molly is showing him from the church to the rectory. (Side note: Originally from Dublin, Molly immigrated to Chicago with her family five years ago.)

The four sentences:
How must the buildings that were so familiar she hardly noticed them look to Father O'Leary? Three years ago, she compared the Gothic chapel, its stone facade flanked by blazing maples in a carpet of lawn, to her parents' church in city center. At the time, St. Adelaide seemed a suburban oasis; three weeks ago she was disabused of that notion.

"I'm sure it'll get to feelin' like home soon enough," she murmured.
---

How must the buildings that were so familiar she hardly noticed them look to Father O'Leary?

The construction was hard for me to follow. What's your sentence kernel-- buildings look to Father O'Leary? See how far the subject is separated from the predicate? When you want to simplify, go for the verbs and clauses. Right away, I'd identify the "she hardly noticed them" as the confusion-- it's a clause in the middle of the main clause? How to simplify? Reduce a clause to a phrase? Try:
How must the buildings that were so familiar to her look to Father O'Leary?
You could also get rid of "that were"--
How must the buildings so familiar to her look to Father O'Leary?

I still don't immediately understand what you mean, but the construction isn't as tongue-twisting.
Three years ago, she compared the Gothic chapel, its stone facade flanked by blazing maples in a carpet of lawn, to her parents' church in city center.
Do we need to know anything three years ago? I'm confused about what you want me to understand here. You've set up that this church looks familiar to her, but she's wondering what Fr. O will think of it. That's very much set in the now. Why go back three years to a different situation? How about let her show the church now to him or look over it now? I'm not sure what you're accomplishing going back three years, AND bringing in another church-- I can't get any sense of this church or what Fr. O is supposed to be seeing or how the church will look to him. As far as topic sentences go, this one ("How" sentence) doesn't seem to match the paragraph.

I would suggest trying out a sentence or two set in the NOW, with her and Fr. O looking at the church. What does she draw his attention to? What does she want him to notice and not notice?

At the time, St. Adelaide seemed a suburban oasis; three weeks ago she was disabused of that notion.

I'm assuming St A's is the church they're in right now and not the one in the city center? (We always called the Chicago city center the Loop or Downtown... but then of course, she's from Dublin, and maybe they refer to the center as the city center. :) Anyway, see the problem with introducing this other city church-- it confuses. Two churches. Which is St. A's? Yes, you probably have already mentioned St. A's as the church Right Now, but this got a little scattered... esp. when you bring in "three weeks ago". That's the third separate time period in a paragraph. What do you NEED? You are probably meaning to contrast the St. Adelaide of pre-murder and the St. Adelaide of the post-murder. That's actually complicated enough without bringing in the distant past.

I like the idea of the murder changing her sense of the place-- but don't make your reader work so hard to figure out what you're getting at. Try writing it plainly first, to make sure you're getting it across, then embellish. But really, I think you're trying to do too much for one paragraph. This might not have bothered me in two paragraphs or three, if you took your time and really explored what was happening Right Now in p. 1, then the distant past in p.2, and the disabusing in p. 3. If that's too attenuated, see what's important to keep and make sure everything is clear.

"I'm sure it'll get to feelin' like home soon enough," she murmured.

Now is she saying this to herself or to Fr. O? If it's to Fr. O, see, that's why you need him more in the paragraph, looking around at the church, nodding as she points something out. We don't have any sense that it doesn't feel at home to him, because the paragraph has all been about her. Consider at least having her see him glance around before she murmurs, and add "to him", because you can murmur to yourself too. Try something like:

She saw his curious glance at (something). "I'm sure it'll get to feelin' like home soon enough," she murmured to him.

Be thinking of a paragraph as a unit of meaning. The meaning should extend from the first sentence somehow, and everything in the paragraph should contribute to something. It's sometimes hard to make everything unified-- but if you like both parts, just consider two paragraphs. If it's worth stating (the question about Fr. O), it's worth developing or exemplifying or showing. And if her memory of before is worth exploring, it might be better in a "past" paragraph of its own.

I know I'm always saying, "Take it slow." But don't try to compress too much.

I love Chicago settings, and mysteries centered on a Catholic parish? Yum. (Memories of a Catholic girlhood, not that I ever would dare to -- even now-- imagine the murder of a priest or nun!!!!! I was easily intimidated.)

Alicia