Two short alternative openings

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brian G Turner

Fantasist & Futurist
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
26,686
Location
UK
Originally, I wanted to start my prologue with a sense of movement, and effectively describe a journey over a half page to generate a sense of dynamicism to the opening.

However, I'm finding in my latest rewrites my use of third person limited is moving much deeper into the character experience. This moves me further from "writing a film in third person" and allows for more immediate impact - potentially.

I'd like to explore reactions to these two alternative openings - the first as normal limited, and the second as a deeper limited.

Both stop at the point where they converge.

My feeling is that the second works better, but I'm grateful for second opinions:


1. Opening one - the descriptive POV

Rynell spurred his horse across the ford. He was exhausted, dust-stained and stiff from riding. His mount was lathered with foam across its flanks. He stayed focused on maintaining pace, pushing on with a punishing gallop into gnarled woodland.

He had kept away from the towns and skirted around villages so that only small folk might see him. Loose hooded robes kept his features hidden: it would be dangerous for him to be found alone outside the imperial capital.

The hunting track he now followed weaved uphill, sunset reds streaking through naked boughs as they enclosed him. Growing shadow encroached and the stars made bold their appearance.



2. Opening two - the deeper POV


Killing King Abican III was easy. Lord Rynell led the old man to his bathtub, then suddenly twisted his head with a sickening crunch. The dead king flopped into the water, splashing the floor with pink rose petals. Then Lord Rynell called for the guards, as arranged.

Lord Rynell stayed long enough to listen sympathetically to a eulogy, and then the proclaimed ascendency of the eldest son as Narrah II.

He left quickly after.

This was partly in case the new king turned unexpectedly treacherous. But it was also because he needed to see to the health of his adoptive father, before attending Councillor Mulrek’s grand meeting at the end of the month.

For this, Lord Rynell had to ride fast and alone, and anonymous, lest he be attacked by bandits, or recognised by enemy agents. It was far too dangerous for anyone else to know the location of the Cardinal Pontiphas. Too many cardinals had long been assassinated. And that demonic fanatic, Father Dinemetis, was doing everything he could to poison loyalty within what remained of the Order. Lord Rynell could trust only Comulos and Lowan to assist him.

The health of the Cardinal Pontiphas was unchanged. Physically and mentally he remained frail, and frequently forgot himself and his surroundings. Even Councillor Mulrek, for all his powers, said he could not cure a disease of the mind.

Lord Rynell left trying not to think upon the upsetting illness, but instead on how Mulrek’s grand scheme would see his adoptive father as a figurehead for rebuilding the Order, under Rynell’s unchallenged authority. There lay that one hope from the situation.

Riding to Lord Nomron’s duchy in Cammenia proved an exhausting journey. He had to cross the boundaries of four kingdoms to reach it. By the time he approached the duke’s castle he was dust-stained and stiff from days of hard riding, his horse lathered with foam from the final gallop.



Which do you feel works best?
 
Hiya, the problem for me is the second, whilst potentially the more engaging start, doesn't read like it's close to point of view.

Killing King Abican III was easy.

physically, yes, maybe, but didn't he feel anything? Excited? Did he flex his fingers, getting ready for the moment. At the moment, it's a statement, and I'm not being pulled in by it.



Lord Rynell led the old man to his bathtub, then suddenly twisted his head with a sickening crunch.

the adverb in the second sentence struck me, and then I started noticing them all. I'm not an adverb denier, I use them a lot, but I didn't think this one brought me closer. To be closer, I'd have needed to know how he led the old man - is he senile, doped, is it normal procedure? When he twisted his head, was it sweaty with the heat from the bath, how did the skin feel?


The dead king flopped into the water, splashing the floor with pink rose petals.

I liked this better, but again it's removed from the character experience. Did one of the petals land on his foot, making it damp, did the water make a noise?


Then Lord Rynell called for the guards, as arranged.

And, I have a thing about then, and there are two in this paragraph which makes me feel I'm being walked through a scene. I'd like to know how he felt about killing the king, was he nervous, ambitious, coldly professional. As it is, I know about the action and not the character. Does that make sense? And without knowing it, I'm lost with this first paragraph because I don't think it's going to be a book about characters.

Of the two, I prefer the first as written (I can see the scene in my head, and at least have an idea what's motivating him), but if the second was pulled in closer, if I could hear some of his thoughts and emotions, not the cold actions, then I think it might be the more engaging. Hope it's helpful.
 
I was going to critique but I think Springs echoed a lot of my thoughts.

The hook sentence with the second paragraph is much stronger, but the ''then suddenly'' drags me immediatly back out. My view is the second beginning with stronger verbs and language, but the rest made much shorter is the most engaging. Just a suggestion but would it be possible to have the hook from the second as a thought during the ride in the first ?

Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but I think combined they could be stronger.
 
My thoughts on this was that the first was closer to the character than the second. I am not sure how to critique this because I don't see much wrong with either. I thought the first read better though. But I liked how the second told more of the story.
 
Hi, Brian. Springs and Anya have already said most of it for me. The second has a better hook in the first paragraph, but doesn't keep me involved me after that. Sorry. :eek:

The first gives me a good scene to imagine and it's nicely compact as an opener but it's more abstract - he's riding fast, hiding from people - why? With the in-depth piece, I know instantly a king has been killed.

It might be possible to combine the two, as previously suggested. Best of luck.
 
I much preferred the first. It isn't perfect (among other things you might want to re-think pushing/punishing so close together) but it's immediate, evocative and contains enough mystery to make me want to read on. The second to me reads as one massive info-dump. I also can't see how it's meant to be deeper POV -- not helped by the fact he's apparently thinking of himself as Lord Rynall all the way through.
 
Hm, good points - I think rather than a deeper POV I've really just used a different angle on normal limited - it's just that it's less focused on describing every passing detail.

The intention was to make a more immediate impact in the first few sentences, though perhaps that's not necessary. :)
 
I agree with The Judge - the first is better imo. I prefer mystery and the second told me too much, too quickly and didn't sustain my interest. The first did sustain my interest and after I'd read it, I wanted to know more. IMO the first also has much more of the sense of movement that you're looking for.

Hope that helps.
 
I agree with the others.

Less is more:)

1st one is atmospheric and makes you wonder what's happening. The other works on the premise that the reader hasn't got an imagination, so you try to give them the image in an info dump disguised as POV.

I'm sure the 1st was from a piece you put in the WG. Keep it simples as they say.:)

PS: punishing/pushing didnt cause me a problem. Sorry TJ
 
I have to agree with the general concensus that one is better, but the King's murder is a very good hook that also establishes character. Why not just add it to opening one and go with that?





































.
 
Last edited:
I liked the second opening much better. imho there is a lot going on which immediately engages my interest by all the questions is raises.

Why was Abican killed so abruptly and why would Rynell who must be a trusted intimate murder him in such a callous manner? Obviously a conspiracy to ascend Narrah to the throne is in play - is Narrah an active player or a manipulated pawn? Rynall certainly doesn't trust Narrah as he beats a hasty retreat after the coronation. Does he fear being betrayed by the betrayer or being found out in his complicity to murder the father?

For me, this is good stuff which draws my interest and leads me to turn pages. It gets a little too busy in the last couple paragraphs though. Too many characters with motivations and subplots in motion are introduced too quickly for me to follow.

The first opening is a guy riding a horse - ?

I agree with the poster who suggested combining the two.
Opening 2 for the intro followed by Opening 1 to show the direction the protagonist is going.

Again, I only speak from my own readers perspective relating to what catches my interest. I will also be the first to admit I prefer character driven stories to plot driven stories.
 
Originally, I wanted to start my prologue with a sense of movement, and effectively describe a journey over a half page to generate a sense of dynamicism to the opening.

However, I'm finding in my latest rewrites my use of third person limited is moving much deeper into the character experience. This moves me further from "writing a film in third person" and allows for more immediate impact - potentially.

I'd like to explore reactions to these two alternative openings - the first as normal limited, and the second as a deeper limited.

Both stop at the point where they converge.

My feeling is that the second works better, but I'm grateful for second opinions:


1. Opening one - the descriptive POV

Rynell spurred his horse across the ford. He was exhausted, dust-stained and stiff from riding. His mount was lathered with foam across its flanks. He stayed focused on maintaining pace, pushing on with a punishing gallop into gnarled woodland.


(To me there's a few conflicts here :- we have dust stained even though he's just ploughed through a ford - I know, it's possible, but it jars ever so slightly: plus the stayed focused on pace somehow seems odd when attached to galloping - pacing to me suggest a steady 'distance' covering speed as in, say a marathon as opposed to a ten minute sprint)

He had kept away from the towns and skirted around villages so that only small (- small? tall people have to live in towns? - unless you mean few) folk might see him. Loose hooded robes kept his features hidden: it would be dangerous (yet here he is. 'could be awkward' - maybe) for him to be found alone outside the imperial capital.

The hunting track (hunting tracks - suggest to me a careful, stalking, little used way, not something you would gallop along) he now followed weaved uphill, sunset reds streaking through naked boughs as they enclosed him. Growing shadow encroached and the stars made bold their appearance.(a bit too sudden a transition: also jarring against the enclosing boughs)


Much prefer this opening though - there's intrigue and action and the reader is drawn in to the reasons why our intrepid rider is 'out and about'.


2. Opening two - the deeper POV


Killing King Abican III was easy. Lord Rynell led the old man to his bathtub, then suddenly twisted his head with a sickening crunch. (how? did he have him in head lock?) The dead king flopped (technically the king's body flopped the king wasn't doing anything anymore) into the water, splashing the floor with pink rose petals. Then Lord Rynell called for the guards, as arranged. (as a reader I'm excluded from the 'arrangement': and I don't likes it)

Lord Rynell (too many Rynells) stayed long enough to listen sympathetically to a eulogy, (and hardly doing a runner) and then the proclaimed ascendency of the eldest son as Narrah II. (stayed long enough implied he had left already)

He left quickly after. (he left before)

This was partly in case the new king turned unexpectedly treacherous. But(? starting sentence) it was also because he needed to see to the health of his adoptive father, before attending Councillor Mulrek’s grand meeting at the end of the month.


For this, Lord Rynell had to ride fast and alone, and anonymous, lest he be attacked by bandits, or recognised by enemy agents. It was far too dangerous for anyone else to know the location of the Cardinal Pontiphas. Too many cardinals had long been assassinated. And that demonic fanatic, Father Dinemetis, was doing everything he could to poison loyalty within what remained of the Order. Lord Rynell could trust only Comulos and Lowan to assist him.

The health of the Cardinal Pontiphas was unchanged. Physically and mentally he remained frail, and frequently forgot himself and his surroundings. Even Councillor Mulrek, for all his powers, said he could not cure a disease of the mind.

Lord Rynell left trying not to think upon the upsetting illness, but instead on how Mulrek’s grand scheme would see his adoptive father as a figurehead for rebuilding the Order, under Rynell’s unchallenged authority. There lay that one hope from the situation.

Riding to Lord Nomron’s duchy in Cammenia proved an exhausting journey. He had to cross the boundaries of four kingdoms to reach it. By the time he approached the duke’s castle he was dust-stained and stiff from days of hard riding, his horse lathered with foam from the final gallop.


(Much too info dumpy for a dynamic prologue - more like the beginning of 'Star Wheres')

Which do you feel works best?

As I said above I much prefer the first - The second takes the intrigue and excitement of the first and smothers it in difficult to follow dumping IMO.

Hope I helped

TEiN
 
The first one for sure, intriguing and mysterious, the second is too much info dumping, and although a lot happens it doesn't feel that way...

Also point on horses (sorry) hard riding is fine if you have that sort of horse, but galloping quickly tires them out, sounds impressive and possible in short bursts, most long distance horses work in walk, trot and canter (a large loping canter) varied over the terrain, a hunting track wouldn't allow anything faster than a trot really, being narrow, winding and uneven...also foam usually only occurs around the mouth, and where tack rubs against the sweat; so mainly along the neck, chest (if martingale is there) and also where your legs/feet hang (depending on how skilled a rider you are)...also, fun fact, if your horse is seriously sweaty wherever you touch/pat it, instant foam...very funny.

Another problem you have is the ford...putting a seriously hot horse through a running ford (usually very cold) is instant leg/tendon/muscle problems...you have basically killed your speed and lameness is almost certain...only way around this is stop before the ford to cool the horse off, go through the ford, then quickly dry the legs with towels/cloths vigourously trying to put the heat back in, then walk your horse for a while (unmounted) to check for lameness...otherwise your horse will founder and you'll have to continue on foot...
 
I think the first has more potential, but some of the language feels a bit like it's straining to inject excitement to stop the reader wandering off.

The hook for me in the second version is the detail of the rose petals. If you could include this image in the first version without giving too much else away, I think this would up the intrigue.

A question to ask with the first, though, is why start it there? What's the significance of crossing the ford? It leads nowhere in itself, and is only loosely part of a longer scene. It turns out to be merely illustrative of his ride, and I'm not sure that's a strong enough opening.
 
A question to ask with the first, though, is why start it there? What's the significance of crossing the ford?
Perhaps ironically, in view of some of Brian's posts on other threads, it's potentially a very strong visual/cinematic opening if the ford is only a shallow watersplash -- same as riders cantering through puddles, throwing up the water and showing speed and desperation.

Anyhow, it occurs to me that riding through the ford might perhaps be one way to link to the murder since it would kindle his memory -- the water splashing up, droplets on his skin, autumn leaves instead of rose petals etc. That's if he's the kind of character to think about what he's done and have his memory jogged in this way.
 
Definitely the first. I found myself drifting a lot during the second. The name 'Lord Rynell' was used too much, and is that how he thinks of himself? Also (and you can't do anything about this!) it's so close to my cousin's name that when I first glanced at it, I thought it was my cousin's name! :p
 
I remember when I posted the original prologue, someone pointed out the king's murder was a hook, so I wanted to experiment with putting that first for greater opening effect.

The idea was to use past tense "Killing King Abican had been easy" - but decided I was in danger of either confusing my tenses, or repeating "had" too often in just the first paragraph.

I liked the flow and the ability to provide some limited background (which could be edited down) - and especially the fact that I was moving away from "writing a film".

However, I quite agree with the comments - as ever, they are quite fair.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads


Back
Top