A novel's beginning, take two (950 words)

[cyberpunkdreams]

There's plenty of examples for novels that start with action, too, but that's not the point. There's an opinion that the readers nowadays - especially agents - have a very short attention span, even more so when the writer is someone new. George R.R. Martin and Stephen King can write as slow an intro as they want, people will buy and read the book because they know the writer and feel confident it's going to get interesting earlier or later. A beginner must get interesting stuff going right away, because otherwise there's no reason for an agent to keep reading-they are known to look for a reason to stop reading, not for a reason to continue. So, I believe that starting with action is more likely to work for a beginner. (Although you can never be sure what will actually work, of course...)

Yes and no. Neuromancer and Leviathan Wakes, for example, were both first novels, and I don't think George R. R. Martin was particularly well known when A Game of Thrones was first published (although sure, he had been writing for a good long while).

Anyway, I agree completely that you have to make your novel interesting from the get-go. That's why the opening sentence is always crucially important. But I just think that there are a lot of other (and often better) ways to do it that to dive straight into the main action of the thing.

 

[Loren]

Yes and no. Neuromancer and Leviathan Wakes, for example, were both first novels, and I don't think George R. R. Martin was particularly well known when A Game of Thrones was first published (although sure, he had been writing for a good long while).

Anyway, I agree completely that you have to make your novel interesting from the get-go. That's why the opening sentence is always crucially important. But I just think that there are a lot of other (and often better) ways to do it that to dive straight into the main action of the thing.

I still think, and it is more of my own intuitive feeling, that publishers are refining their formulations for what gets put on the top of their stack.

They are trying to maximize their financial gain near-term, so increasing sales volume by getting more successful sales is the driver here.

I bet this is pushing the trend toward accepted writing style. There is a difference between total books sold and best literature. It's akin to the pop-song culture. The music industry has long been tuned toward turning out volumes of hits. Those songs are not, for the most part, long lived works of art. Some are, but pop music is more like quantum foam as artists pop into and out of existence quickly.

While some claim the internet is leveling the playing field for people to get known, it is really just cranking up the overall noise level. Yes, you can throw your work out there for everyone to see, but you are competing in a much larger universe than you would have been 20, 30, or more years ago and the grass is higher than ever.

I expect the trend to continue as publishers refine and hone their formulas for what is preferred and what is not. As such publishers will be driving the market as much as the market will be driving them.

 

[Jackie Bee]

Anyway, I agree completely that you have to make your novel interesting from the get-go. That's why the opening sentence is always crucially important. But I just think that there are a lot of other (and often better) ways to do it that to dive straight into the main action of the thing.

So we both agree that we need to try to be interesting right away, to our best ability. The question is, what else apart from action is instantly interesting? Introducing the character in her usual life - before things begins to happen - is unlikely to be interesting. (In fact, many comments to this and the previous version of this piece, were like - cut the dialogue, cut the background, cut her thinking about what the open space usually looks like, get right to the virus part, etc. It looks like most readers felt that I was actually too slow in getting to the action, not too fast... I guess the bottom line is that you can't please everyone )

 

[Loren]

So we both agree that we need to try to be interesting right away, to our best ability. The question is, what else apart from action is instantly interesting? Introducing the character in her usual life - before things begins to happen - is unlikely to be interesting. (In fact, many comments to this and the previous version of this piece, were like - cut the dialogue, cut the background, cut her thinking about what the open space usually looks like, get right to the virus part, etc. It looks like most readers felt that I was actually too slow in getting to the action, not too fast... I guess the bottom line is that you can't please everyone )

I may beg to differ. You can make it interesting.

I am working with starting with the introduction of my main character. She is in the end of a relationship, which is part of her daily life. There's no violent drama, but a prevailing sense of gloom that hangs over her as she makes her plans of leaving. That part is but a few hundred words long before something happens.

However, the first sentence explains a lot: She was a professional woman at the end of anther dysfunctional relationship when word came that an old boyfriend from Cambridge University was trying to reach her.

Things change on a sudden note with a call from her mother and a phone number to contact this former classmate. By the end of the call we have 670 words into the story and we already know a lot about our heroine, but we are still left with a mystery about the reason for the call.

The message leads to the 'call to action'. This part is more complex in that it paints the initial challenge for our hero, bla, bla, bla.

My point is that it doesn't take a huge number of words to lay a foundation and if it is well written it should keep the reader engaged (at least that is my hope for my own work).

Now, what I am arguing here is an academic point and not necessarily a recipe for what you should do. You are welcome to write your story as you feel best. You are the captain.

Slow or fast is probably not so important as long as the story clicks, then things will fall into place with a sense of some urgency or mystery that keeps the reader turning pages.

 

[cyberpunkdreams]

So we both agree that we need to try to be interesting right away, to our best ability. The question is, what else apart from action is instantly interesting? Introducing the character in her usual life - before things begins to happen - is unlikely to be interesting. (In fact, many comments to this and the previous version of this piece, were like - cut the dialogue, cut the background, cut her thinking about what the open space usually looks like, get right to the virus part, etc. It looks like most readers felt that I was actually too slow in getting to the action, not too fast... I guess the bottom line is that you can't please everyone )

I think there must be dozens of ways, literally! Consider all the contemporary fiction novels that manage to hook readers even if they don't have any action at all. True, a day in the life of an ordinary office-worker might not hold much interest in itself, but there are still things you can do. The main thing is to generate interest in the character. You could add a little drama -- perhaps she's having relationship troubles? Or something exciting happens on the way to work that's got nothing to do with anything, but still grabs the reader's attention. Ask yourself why you're telling this person's story, as opposed to anyone else's? What makes her interesting? Why should we care? Maybe add a little foreshadowing. Or you could do something completely different, such as start the story in the middle and tell how it started with a series of flashbacks? Stealing Light does this very effectively.

Please bear in mind as well that I'm not trying to persuade you to do something different -- just to entertain the thought. This kind of abrupt introduction to the real excitement always sits wrong with me, but it's just my opinion, of course. Although, that said, I am struggling to think of any novel I've read recently that starts this way.

I think the urge to get straight into the action also comes from the nature of reading on a screen on a forum. Reading someone's prose on here can be a real chore (even if it's really good!), just because you're reading on a screen. You just want the writer to get on with it. It dictates a completely different pace to reading a book (or even something such as a Kindle).

 

[The Judge]

I do think it has one (quite common) overall problem. That's just jumping into the story or the "big deal" straight-off; no scene setting, no introducing the characters first, etc.

I think lots of people do this -- obviously you're excited about your story and want to jump straight in.

Me - I do this. It is a comment I had on my crit so this interests me.

Many writing advice gurus tell us to 'get in as late as possible' - to open the story with the hook/the bang. I'm sure if we start by introducing the characters etc then we would be slated for a boring start?! Obviously there must be some happy middle-ground here but when we get such conflicting advice, it makes my head hurt!! Is this just a matter of taste do you think?

I can only talk for myself not any writing gurus, but for me it rather depends on the story. To my mind starting at the point where everything changes for the protagonist is vital, ie the call to arms, the jump into the future, and everything I've read from professionals -- writers, agents and publishers -- says the same. But I don't think that necessarily has to mean the inciting event has to come in the very first paragraph, let alone the very first sentence. A thriller can certainly open with the leap into the taxi or the bomb exploding, because that's the point of a thriller. A novel which is about people -- especially a book about one particular person -- doesn't require the actual bang in the first line. But it must have a hooky opening and the promise of the bang coming very quickly hereafter.

I hope Jackie will forgive me if I've misunderstood, but I got the impression this is a story about the plague, not Grace, and indeed this is only a prologue showing the first news of the plague deaths. If that is the case, then to my mind there's little point in giving extensive detail about her and her life since she is presumably going to be dead when the story actually starts in the post-apocalyptic world of Chapter One. If, though, Grace or her children are in fact at the heart of the novel, then it might be different, and some little scene setting might be in order to show what is lost. Though personally I'd try and bring the greater part of that into play after the opening paragraphs.

For you, Alex, I don't think anyone was suggesting you write an entire chapter about Charlie and her life and work, it was simply the sudden time jump gave us no time (ha!) to have a feel for what she was doing, and the actual transition from present to the past was, if you'll pardon my saying so, a tad clumsy in its execution, so reading it was confusing. An intervening paragraph showing the others and the surroundings and what she is doing and perhaps why would have helped no end -- basically just an extension of your opening para but with more detail, perhaps another hundred words or so -- and then the clear jump would have resolved a good few of the issues, I think.

Basically, the opening line has to hook. The inciting event has to happen quickly. The gap between the two depends on style, plot, character and story type.