Post-Disaster First Chapters

[The Judge]

Following on from HB's request for everyone to take a deep breath here, let's also bear in mind that what we mean when we write isn't necessarily what is understood when someone else reads what we have written. That's particularly the case with any words which have an emotive context to them.

• For those posting, please think carefully about what you're saying and try to imagine whether it's possible for someone else to misinterpret what you've said, and think about re-wording it so there's less chance of inadvertently upsetting someone. And if we think the upsetting someone isn't inadvertent, then you're in trouble.
  
• For those reading the posts, re-read carefully before getting het up, and consider whether in fact you are misinterpreting what was intended. In particular, do not assume something is directed at you personally just because it appears to be in answer to something you may have said or thought, and especially not if it's simply the case that what is said appears to disparage your own fiction.
• For all of you, less of the testosterone, please. It plays merry hell with the blood splatters when we take offenders down to the Staff Room dungeons.

While I'm here, if reading has shown me anything, it's that for every rule there is going to be an exception. All kinds of openings can work. All kinds of openings can be utterly pants. And in every case where I've started a book which I've chucked because the first chapter turns me off for whatever reason (which, frankly, happens more and more nowadays), I've seen reviews which praise the novel in question.** Undoubtedly, though, there are greater difficulties producing an effective opening with some avenues than others. Which isn't to denigrate them, it's merely pointing out that there are problems ahead for the unwary.


** My taste and judgement are perfect, of course. However, if every novelist has to write just to please me, there are going to be a lot of people out there whose tastes and judgement fall far below the exalted heights mine reach, who will have nothing to read. Let's make allowances for those poor souls; they need books, too.

 

[Phyrebrat]

** My taste and judgement are perfect, of course. However, if every novelist has to write just to please me, there are going to be a lot of people out there whose tastes and judgement fall far below the exalted heights mine reach, who will have nothing to read. Let's make allowances for those poor souls; they need books, too

Yes, I can vouch for that personally. You're the most exacting and demanding reader I've ever come across - but also the brillest.

JUST DON'T DO UNHISTORY THINGS

pH

 

[The Judge]

I aim to please.

 

[night_wrtr]

Ugh, Way of Kings (no idea if that's the book you are referring to, but your comment just brought it to mind).

Yes it was! And I agree. Perfectly sumarized.

 

[night_wrtr]

Because you don't have to start with your MC (although that is imo super risky once you're past any prologue).

I remember another thread not long ago that we touched on this. Might be worth diving into a bit more, because I personally like the idea of seeing the antagonist first.

 

[Ihe]

Back to the original point, life and death in the first chapters have never stirred me--if it's the MC at risk, that is. If it's the MC's pet, or the awkward, clumsy friend, or the sibling that is at risk, stakes can be very real. The whole concept revolves around expendability. If there's a sense that a certain character is expendable, then you fear for that character. Think Game of Thrones before and after the First Big Death. Once you become aware almost anyone can go, the stakes are through the roof. Before that point in the story the whole thing seemed a whole lot more mellow. That is why, as someone else pointed out, killing off the MC in a fourth book has real stakes where before it didn't. Once the reader feels the MC's arc has mostly concluded, they automatically become expendable, even if they're starting another arc. A lot of the times it's not even about life-and-death. Tension can come simply because of this sense of expendability, at which point the character is much more susceptible to sudden plot-twisty deaths that haven't been built up tension-wise.

 

[Bagpuss]

You were after some examples of post-disaster openings:

• Endymion by Dan Simmons opens with Raul Endymion sitting in a jail cell waiting for his execution - and the rest of the duology is a long flashback of how he got there;
• Downbelow Station by C.J. Cherryh opens with a refugee convoy arriving at Pell after the disastrous evacuation and explosion of Russell's station; and
• Curse of the Mistwraith by Janny Wurts opens on the aftermath of a sea battle where they're searching for survivors of the sunken ships.

Out of those three examples, the only story where the disaster is really relevant to the rest of the story is Endymion, because that story is, at least partially, about how he ends up in jail. The evacuation of Russell's Star and the sea battle in Mistwraith are really only plot devices to interest the reader and to allow the characters to be plausibly put into other situations that then further the overall story arc.

In my view there's no intrinsic problem in starting Chapter 1 with a scene set in the aftermath of some massive disaster (or indeed a minor disaster), but you still have to link that post-disaster scenario into a story with a comprehensible narrative arc and appealing characters. In Mistwraith, for example, the sea rescue, voyage back to land, subsequent criminal trial and everything else that happens in the first few chapters of the novel are basically all about character introduction and setting up the world. The main plot of the story doesn't start until one of the characters gets exiled.

 

[The Big Peat]

I remember another thread not long ago that we touched on this. Might be worth diving into a bit more, because I personally like the idea of seeing the antagonist first.

Good point well made! I know a few people who say show the antagonist first (its particularly big in Hollywood); its quite common in fantasy to have the antagonist shown first in a prologue, then have the MC take the first chapter (best of both worlds innit). Yes, I definitely think showing the antagonist first is a good alternative option; if they're named, they've got just as much plot armour mind, but something like the White Walkers i.e. henchpeople can get the tension.

I was actually thinking of an example of a post-disaster opening today that featured an antagonist - Sharpe's Sword:

Spoiler

It starts with Colonel Leroux, a French officer with some intelligence connections, and Captain Delmas. Their cavalry unit has been routed; capture is probably imminent; and if captured, Leroux's valuable information will be lost as his name will be recognised and parole refused. There's been a disaster; he has to react to it instantly; we know he's going to survive because we've read the blurb.

The stakes aren't his life but the intelligence, which is the sort of thing I've been talking about. But! Does it add extra tension? Arguably no, because the blurb once again signals there's a hunt for him and his intelligence.

But then, if blurbs always killed dramatic tension, would people still for dramatic tension in their openings/have blurbs?

In any case, Leroux murders Delmas and steals his identity; the British won't parole Leroux, but who gives a crap about some schlub called Delmas? Which is both a cool resolution and great character building; the disaster allows us to get to the core of him and what really matters quickly. And I think that's one of the strong things about this (I said that already though, right?) - stress shows people free of affectation. Particularly great for deceitful heroes and picaresque fantasies.

 

[CTRandall]

Disaster by its nature brings about change, so post-disaster is essentially a new beginning, full of possibilities for characters who are faced with massive changes in their lives and circumstances. It seems a natural place to start a story, as long as the author knows which story he or she is telling. For me, the obvious place to start is, how do the characters adapt (or fail to adapt) to change?