How quick do we need to start?

[Jo Zebedee]

I have finished-ish two first of a series/ standalone books. One i start with a bang and keep going with pace, which suits that story. The other goes slower, spends time getting into the bigger cast of characters, and a more complex world. I don't think the writing is too much different in terms of quality, but it means i am sort of resigned, depressingly, to the slower one probably never hooking quicky enough to find a home.

Some of my favourite books take their time at the beginning, have we lost the art of being patience or are we being driven by an agenda that doesn't fit every book? Or should i go bang-bang, here's the whammy hit even if i don't think it is right for the book?

 

[allmywires]

I definitely think there's power in a slow start, as long as there's intrigue. I don't like (mainly because I can't write that way) big, showy starts with lots of action and drama, and I think with that you do run the risk of exhausting yourself if your story isn't meant to be that way.

It depends on what story you're telling, really. If you are talking about the stuff you have up in the writing group at the moment, I think it might be a classic case of overanalysis/over-tweaking. You need the backstory, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. And besides, you know you have a good story, plenty of people have told you so!

 

[Mouse]

I'm with amw. Also, I don't understand why you think AC has no hook. Who's told you that?! I have almost no attention span and it hooked me. Blimey, mine starts with a guy having a bath! Hardly gripping stuff.

 

[chrispenycate]

Quickly. Adverb.
Depends what he's gripping.

Slightly more seriously, us more mature readers are accustomed to a bit of foreplay, it's the TV generation that need instant gratification. And if you can hook them and hold them with your "start with a climax and build up from there" first book they will give you the licence to be a touch less immediate with later ones, as long as they achieve a climax somewhere.

 

[Warren_Paul]

Slow starts aren't the problem exactly, it's why they are slow. I thought Steven Erikson's books all started slow, but the thing is, every element of the scenes had something relevant to the overall plot that gave it intrigue and drew my interest. There wasn't any content just thrown in there to take up words. If I don't see the relevance of a scene, I'll lose interest. That's why I'm instantly put off books where they start with characters that are just going about their ordinary lives, doing ordinary things and having ordinary conversations.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Ah, but therein lies the worry, what if it is a good book that no one reads cos it starts too slow? Am i stuffing it with the start?

I'm with amw. Also, I don't understand why you think AC has no hook. Who's told you that?! I have almost no attention span and it hooked me. Blimey, mine starts with a guy having a bath! Hardly gripping stuff.

yes, but that is what hooked me. I could have been Jenn, i was there.

SIf I don't see the relevance of a scene, I'll lose interest. That's why I'm instantly put off books where they start with characters that are just going about their ordinary lives, doing ordinary things and having ordinary conversations.

See, i love that. Most of my favourite books start with ordinary people and then i am drawn in. Plus if i am not drawn into the characters and like them why do i care when things go wrong for them?

I suppose it is all horses for courses.

 

[Abernovo]

Not everything needs to be rushed. There's something to be said for a slow cooker.

You've written the first two episodes of the trilogy. Which is it that's slower, the first, of the second? If the second, then readers will hopefully come to it knowing the characters and want to know more about the world in the novel. If the first volume, then, yes, there's the potential for risk in a slow start, but there's also the potential to create a world/universe that will make the reader want to read the entire trilogy.

Certainly, from what I've seen, it's a strong story.

 

[SciFrac]

Slow starts aren't the problem exactly, it's why they are slow.

I agree wholeheartedly. I too need to see the point of a scene, or it needs to pose some interesting questions. The first chapter of "The Firm" is just some men talking at a table, but it's a gripping hook IMO, and I don't even enjoy books like that. Tension, character, set-up, tone, language... it all contributes, and the best sellers do all of them well.

 

[thaddeus6th]

I find this a bit tricky too.

Just working on the start of my WIP. There's some violence early on, and then a bit of light-hearted bonhomie between a brother, sister and the brother's servant (who's more of a friend than a minion).

On a related note, there's a bit earlyish in the book which I rather like, and I think when it comes time to set the sample size I'm going to try and make it so that most/all of that's included, as it'll hopefully encourage readers to buy the full book.

Instant action can work for a beginning but I don't think it's necessary, and if it's not right for the book I wouldn't include it.

 

[stephen.samuels]

You see I think that a slow start is hard to do. I tried with my WIP but on critique it didn't go down well. And honestly when I read it back, I was inclined to agree. So I changed it and we'll see...

Although I do think you can build intrigue with a fast pace.

 

[Boneman]

Read Patrick Rothfuss... that's all I have to say. Except: hardly a hooky start from him, and then book two has incredibly slow pace, but it's building on the premise of the first book, so I love it. You will please both camps - the 'all-action' and the 'reflective worldbuilders' that way...

 

[Glitch]

That's why I'm instantly put off books where they start with characters that are just going about their ordinary lives, doing ordinary things and having ordinary conversations.

Sometimes these scenes are needed to show how the character grows/changes throughout the story.

It can also help the reader identify with the characters and see themselves in the story.

 

[prizzley]

Slightly more seriously, us more mature readers are accustomed to a bit of foreplay, it's the TV generation that need instant gratification. And if you can hook them and hold them with your "start with a climax and build up from there" first book they will give you the licence to be a touch less immediate with later ones, as long as they achieve a climax somewhere.

"If" being the critical word. Instant hooks often don't fulfil their promise, unfortunately. I love a slow start that builds to a thrilling climax.

 

[Dozmonic]

Write for your audience. If you want to attract the ADHD monkeys, then start with a bang. But if you would rather attract those who have the staying powers to suck a werther's original rather than chew it (ye freaks!), then write it at the pace they are happy with.

 

[stephen.samuels]

Read Patrick Rothfuss... that's all I have to say. Except: hardly a hooky start from him, and then book two has incredibly slow pace, but it's building on the premise of the first book, so I love it. You will please both camps - the 'all-action' and the 'reflective worldbuilders' that way...

he has an incredible skill, no doubt about it, but I think you have to have a proficiency in writing that particular pose.

 

[Phyrebrat]

This thread has really lifted my spirits.

A short while ago I asked a (stupid) question about POVs as I was under the (stupid) misconception that you could only have one POV throughout your whole story (Yeah, really, I thought that until TJ disabused me of it).

Recently I've been trying to write a snappy opening for a WIP which really doesn't want a bang-pow-kaboom opening as it is a supernatural bittersweet romance. I even wrote an opening scene where the supernatural element is immediately introduced. It really spoilt the pacing and exposition and I have now written a softer, more human opening.

So, yeah. I was hit with the stupid stick. Or, perhaps more appropriately, the taking-things-too-literally-stick.

pH

 

[HareBrain]

I much prefer a slow, intriguing opening to a crash-bang one. Sometimes the intrigue can come from a single word, or unusual image (though that's quite a personal thing). Mostly it comes from something new.

Maybe it's not even intrigue so much as interest.

 

[James Coote]

Do you prefer the slower starting book over the faster one?

I much prefer a slow, intriguing opening to a crash-bang one. Sometimes the intrigue can come from a single word, or unusual image (though that's quite a personal thing). Mostly it comes from something new.

Maybe it's not even intrigue so much as interest.

I think the issue is how quickly that newness gets expanded on. It can be explained too quickly and take all the mystery out, but equally if it isn't mentioned again until half way through the book, as a reader I do find myself looking at the increasing thinness of the pages I've yet to turn and wonder just how much of the book is actually going to be the meaty exciting bits that deal with the central issue

 

[Gordian Knot]

Speed is not the issue. Fast or slow, the book has to grab the reader, get them intrigued, and have them wanting to keep turning the pages. I try very hard to step back from myself and read what I have written as if I were the reader instead of the writer. Do I want to continue reading this?

 

[C. A. Mitchell]

I'm having a problem with this. My first chapter opens with a bang (well, a pop), but then chap 2 goes back and fills in the gaps. I don't think it works... I'm thinking of making chap 1 a prologue, which should hopefully hook the reader. Then, I can afford to slow things down in chapter 1 and introduce things properly.

Personally, I want to know a character before he goes diving into a story, but in the days of free opening samples, I'm wary of starting too slow (and I'm writing YA). It's a tricky one...

By happy coincidence, I bought my first Patrick Rothfuss book last night