What makes a story interesting to read?

[Biskit]

Secondly, for all I am two chapters in, there's really not much happening in terms of plot. People are basically doing things that won't have much to do with the rest of the story (there is some setup and character development going on)

As others have said, this is a bit of a "how longs is a piece of string" question. The first thing I would look at is whether your first two chapters pass @Steve Harrison 's test:

It's simply a case for me of being engaged and wanting to know what happens next.

Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next novels can sometimes feel like there's chapters with not a lot happening, but they're certainly engaging and I want to know what happens next, even after many re-reads. So, when your characters are doing things with little bearing on the rest of the story, are they interesting things? Is it something that a reader will find entertaining? Will they want to know what happens next? If the answer is no, then it's time to rethink. If it's yes, then the only concern I would have is the disconnect with the rest of the story, because if those events do prompt me to want to know what happens next and you don't tell me, then I will be pretty annoyed, which is probably breaking Brandon Sanderson's "promise" that @The Big Peat mentioned.

 

[Bramandin]

I don't understand how a story can have two chapters without any plot.

The plot is what the characters do. They are subject to the events of the plot and the decision makers that create the plot points that change the trajectory of events. We learn about the characters because of what they do in the plot. The story is the plot.

In fanfiction, there are a lot of stories marked "plot what plot" ... Oh, that's not what PWP means anymore. Anyway, I've written some character explorations and such that have nothing to do with having a cohesive reason.

 

[DAgent]

Not here, not by a long shot. None of my favorite writers have first sentences that hook. What they have is more like a musical composition that draws me in, phrase by phrase, until I realize that here inside this particular song, I am being happily surprised.

Joseph Conrad does this. Leo Tolstoy. Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler, Ray Bradbury, Edith Wharton, J.G. Ballard, T.H. White, Nevil Shute, and so on. Their prose is never plodding, but neither do they hook the reader in the initial sentence. In fact, the only case where I can remember being hooked on the opening sentence is One Thousand Years of Solitude, and while I enjoyed getting hooked, I never finished the book.

YMMV.

That's a good point, I'd be willing to bet that while some people will like reading a book that opens with a good opening hook, there will be others who dislike or even HATE that, and others that might notice it and be indifferent. And probably a fair few that for whatever reason, never even notice it's there.

Still, if it does work, it works, it just depends after that how well it keeps someones interest.

 

[therapist]

I used to have a clear idea of what kind of story engaged me. The more I read the more I realized I have no clue. The moment I think i'm finally closing in on it, I will be blind sided by a story that has none of the things I thought I liked.
This question is like asking what makes a good piece of music? And the best you can do to answer it is say 'have the instruments in-tune.'

 

[BAYLOR]

I used to have a clear idea of what kind of story engaged me. The more I read the more I realized I have no clue. The moment I think i'm finally closing in on it, I will be blind sided by a story that has none of the things I thought I liked.
This question is like asking what makes a good piece of music? And the best you can do to answer it is say 'have the instruments in-tune.'

Kings of the Night by Robert E Howard He was great at drawing you into the story from the first sentence.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

Giant evil robots and nekkid wimmin

Many a true word said in jest. Oh, but I might add; for extra kudos make the nekkid wimmin also evil, and add nekkid men!

 

[Swank]

That's all, including the literary casting.

What is "literary casting"?

 

[Toby Frost]

What would keep everyone reading from chapter 1 and 2 onwards the most?

As with most of these things, I don't think it's possible to create a list of things that will guarantee that a book will be interesting. Also, a brilliant writer could start with a page-long paragraph of purple descriptive prose and still keep the reader's attention. But I think there are things that will raise the possibility of it working.

To me, the safest bet is this: start at the point where there is a break from the norm, preferably a break that threatens intrigue or danger. Introduce a character (briefly), give them a problem (in SFF, this might well be life-threatening) and get them busy trying to solve it. Do not try to prime the reader with backstory that's "needed" to make the story comprehensible: if this can't be done with one character, use another. Drip the backstory in as the story goes. Make sure almost everything drives the story forward.

So, off the top of my head, you might start with something like this:

Rangar was fifty yards from the camp when he realised that something was wrong. It took him a moment to realise that he couldn't see the smoke from the camp-fire. He sniffed, smelling nothing but the forest. Unnerved, he heaved the deer down from his shoulders onto the ground, drew his axe, and crept forward through the trees.

That's not amazing writing but you see what I mean: there is a change in circumstances. From the events, we can figure out that Ragnar is probably a huntsman who is confident outdoors, without needing to be told that outright. Already we've got a character to follow and a mystery to figure out, which will encourage readers to keep going. A lot of making a story interesting is causing readers to ask questions that can be answered by reading on: Who is this person? Why have they got this problem? What is really going on? How will they get out of this mess?

 

[PadreTX]

What makes a story interesting to read?

A combination of interesting plot, interesting characters, and interesting environment. It also helps if a previous book in a series was read and enjoyed.

Problem is, sometimes for unexplainable reasons something that has the parts to be interesting ends up isn't, and some without all the parts ends up interesting.

Not to mention what is not interesting for a majority might be very interesting for a few.

 

[Bramandin]

What makes a story interesting to read?

A combination of interesting plot, interesting characters, and interesting environment. It also helps if a previous book in a series was read and enjoyed.

Problem is, sometimes for unexplainable reasons something that has the parts to be interesting ends up isn't, and some without all the parts ends up interesting.

Not to mention what is not interesting for a majority might be very interesting for a few.

Darnit, I was going to make a point about how Snuff can start with some dry worldbuilding and we as readers trust the author enough by book forty-something to slog through it, but Colour of Magic starts that way as well. "The Rules" changed with prologues becoming unfashionable, but I still think that "the rules" are for people who don't know what they're doing and are afraid to make a mess.

 

[DLCroix]

What is "literary casting"?

A lot of people think they first need to have the characters and the world of the story and then they try to fit the story into that world and with those characters, so they're not doing one thing, they're actually doing two. That is to say, these writers start with a forced situation in which the creative process is hampered by another process that is one of adjustment. I consider that to be starting backwards.
Instead, I think it's much easier to spend some time thinking about what kind of story we'd like to write and then evaluating similarly themed stories that have been written. The idea is to identify the archetypes according to gender and see how to subvert them. Then, only then do you have to think about which characters are most useful for that story. That is, as if it were a casting of actors.

 

[Swank]

A lot of people think they first need to have the characters and the world of the story and then they try to fit the story into that world and with those characters, so they're not doing one thing, they're actually doing two. That is to say, these writers start with a forced situation in which the creative process is hampered by another process that is one of adjustment. I consider that to be starting backwards.
Instead, I think it's much easier to spend some time thinking about what kind of story we'd like to write and then evaluating similarly themed stories that have been written. The idea is to identify the archetypes according to gender and see how to subvert them. Then, only then do you have to think about which characters are most useful for that story. That is, as if it were a casting of actors.

Personally, both approaches blow my mind.

The story and the character should be the same thing. All these "approaches to writing" ideas where we separate plot from character, plot from world, plot from theme drive me nuts. Stories are about people that things happen to because they are those people. Stories happen in a place because the story wouldn't happen in another place.

There is a kind of schizophrenia in treating aspects of a story as ala carte.

 

[The Big Peat]

That's a good point, I'd be willing to bet that while some people will like reading a book that opens with a good opening hook, there will be others who dislike or even HATE that, and others that might notice it and be indifferent. And probably a fair few that for whatever reason, never even notice it's there.

Still, if it does work, it works, it just depends after that how well it keeps someones interest.

To state the obvious - you'll never do something everyone likes. It's not a feasible goal. It's how many people you get to like it.

If you can find 30,000 people who buy all your books, you'll have a fine writing career. 30,000 is, when you come down to it, not a lot of people. Providing you can find them to sell to them, the list of feasible approaches that can make 30,000 people happy is really big.

The main practicality problem is that reaching these people without trad publishing is hard, and loftier goals even harder - and trad publishing has a series of gates garrisoned with people who are mostly only interested in the stories they think have the potential to sell much more than that (even if they regularly don't). And the trend right now is for books that go for the jugular right away with their hooks.

Which does kind of suck if you'd like to keep up with contemporary publishing but don't like that. Note how Skip's list of favourite authors is the authors of yesteryear. Most of mine are too, and none of the recent ones are big fishes. Note Toby's advice. It's generally spot on, but I'd quibble about making the opening situation life-threatening because even while I think it's good advice for today's market, I've lost count of the number of books where I open it up for a look, find a dreary action scene, and shut it. Not, I hasten to add, that life-threatening = action all the time. Plenty of ways to skin that cat. But it does for many.

In any case, there we go. Learn the "rules", and then decide when to break them. You want to write a book that has a fairly slow opening with minor tension, that establishes a scene and has little if any change going on? Pratchett, as mentioned, could start with world building info because he was funny while he did it. Hossain, whose recent Gurkha and Lord of Tuesday I adore, starts with a character waking up - change, but little hook - and I think it works because he's an ancient djinn, and he's out to do some ancient djinn sh*t, and the first person he meets is this human who explains how much people have changed. Wecker's Golem and the Djinni starts quite slow but not only does it have great voice, it offers a really intriguing window of change - a man asking for a golem wife. Because you know that will end poorly!

And so on and so on.

I think the one fairly immutable law is you must show a change - or at least an impending change - that will lead to an interesting scenario. Even if you go back to the slowest, most scene-setting epic fantasy, you see it fairly quick. Pug in Feist's Magician has to find shelter from a storm and in doing so reveals he may have magical powers. Bilbo's birthday will mean change in Lord of the Rings. Rand sees the rider in black real quick in Wheel of Time. Allanon shows real quick in Sword of Shannara. About the only one of those stories that doesn't do this is Eddings' Belgariad, where it a) opens with an info-dump prologue b) then gives us a summary of Garion's homey childhood. But even then, Eddings uses bits in it to say "greater things await him", which is also on the blurb and the title, and it is very homey and appealing, so Eddings uses our knowledge of the genre/book and our desire to see nice cozy idyllic scenes to cheat. But not many can.

 

[DLCroix]

Personally, both approaches blow my mind.

The story and the character should be the same thing. All these "approaches to writing" ideas where we separate plot from character, plot from world, plot from theme drive me nuts. Stories are about people that things happen to because they are those people. Stories happen in a place because the story wouldn't happen in another place.

There is a kind of schizophrenia in treating aspects of a story as ala carte.

I respectfully disagree. Going back to the subject of the thread, I think that a story will be interesting for the reader if the characters who experience these events, are happy or sad with them, and ultimately succeed or fail, have a treatment or approach that is somehow new to the reader. But I think the story always comes first, everything else comes later. At least I always ask myself first: what is happening, what is the fact?, and then, to whom?
Anyway, it's just different points of view yours and mine.
For example, Faulkner said, about his novel As I Lay Dying, that he began by imagining a group of people whom he then put in a dangerous situation. I mean, he started with the characters and then wondered what to do with them.
On the other side of the coin, Kurt Vonnegut first had the idea for the novel Slaughterhouse Five and then started thinking about the characters.
That is, both points of view are valid.
I prefer to work with the story first because it makes it easier for me to create the beginning, development and outcome. I like to think of the characters as fossils that I only get to know as I unearth them. So, since I already know the ending, I wonder what those characters have to do to get there. But, according to the story, I decide to show only the features that are most useful to develop a certain plot. However, that is my style of work. You have your own view of the matter and that's fine too.

 

[The Big Peat]

To me this is like cars. You can't have a car without all the components. You can't sell someone a motor and watch them go vroom vroom. It's the whole experience of the car that drivers talk about.

But if you're building cars, or are a mechanic, then a car is just a list of components that go together and you can absolutely replace the motor and so on. Will it be a different car after? Sure will. That's why you're doing.

Or ingredients in a meal. The lemon sauce on a dish might seem at integral part of a dish to the person eating it. To the person who cooked it and agonised over lemon, or orange and thyme, or tarragon cream, before deciding lemon, not so much.

Tbh, it's madness to me to assume that writers shouldn't take such a granular, list of components approach to the craft at times.

And as DLCroix points out, all stories start out as one aspect from which the writer builds, because we pretty much only ever get one aspect at a time when that initial idea strikes. It's more or less impossible not to reduce it to components at that point in my book.

 

[DLCroix]

This point is important. Because assuming the lead or MC is the engine of the story, what if the engine fails and like @The Big Peat says, you have to change it? For some reason automakers know that the engine for a particular model absolutely needs to have certain characteristics precisely because they started with the design or blueprint for that particular vehicle. Then they built the engine and all the other components.

This is especially relevant when removing characters. The most common way is to kill them. But, let's say you've grown fond of the MC and two or three sidekicks; so one solution is to create other characters so you don't have to change the plot so much, right? The fact is that, until that situation arose, in reality you didn't even know of the existence of those characters. They were only born (and died) due to a plot necessity.

George R. R. Martin is an expert in killing his protagonists. Therefore the characters (including the MC) are nothing more than tools to carry out the story.
This is made clear, for example, in Saving Private Ryan. It is where it is most noticeable that the characters seem to be puppets of destiny and where even the apparent MC dies after completing his mission.

But we can also think that history is the true protagonist. This is common in group adventures: Frodo, another utilitarian MC, is in fact blurred by the complexity or grandeur of the events Tolkien narrates. Undoubtedly they are all very endearing, but there is no clear protagonist or one who does everything alone.

Personally I think the problem is that some writers tend to believe that the characters are people of flesh and blood. They are not. We are the ones who give them human qualities and defects, but these must be functional to the story we are telling.

 

[The Big Peat]

Personally I think the problem is that some writers tend to believe that the characters are people of flesh and blood. They are not. We are the ones who give them human qualities and defects, but these must be functional to the story we are telling.

But if they believe that, that becomes their reality and some of them do fantastic work with it. Hell, beyond a certain point I don't disagree with them. I've literally just discovered a quality in one of my characters as I was writing. I looked at a line I'd written and it told me something about the character. Did I give the character that, or did the character tell me something about himself - something that after a certain point I should not change because it'll ruin the integrity of the story?

To me, neither approach is wrong.

 

[DLCroix]

But if they believe that, that becomes their reality and some of them do fantastic work with it. Hell, beyond a certain point I don't disagree with them. I've literally just discovered a quality in one of my characters as I was writing. I looked at a line I'd written and it told me something about the character. Did I give the character that, or did the character tell me something about himself - something that after a certain point I should not change because it'll ruin the integrity of the story?

To me, neither approach is wrong.

That is the miracle of writing, when the characters seem to take on a life of their own precisely because the muse is inspired and plunges you into a creative maelstrom in which from being the master you become a kind of medium who only transcribes what she dictates to you. And it is perfect, because a brain process is successfully combined with the writing objectives in which at the beginning, suppose you had a previously designed plot or scheme, you knew more or less what events were going to happen but perhaps you did not know how this was going to happen. I mean the form. It's like saying: "I have thought of everything, I just need to write it down". So, those fragments that we visualize in our mind as if we were watching a movie, are the most difficult to achieve since they come armed even with the soundtrack. In such cases, the brain hands you the baked cake. That is why the sensation that is usually experienced is one of ecstasy. You say happy: wow, I'm on a roll.

And indeed, it is advisable to write down everything the muse whispers to you. But you also have to remember that you are not at her service, it is the other way around. This is seen more clearly in the editing process, where, once that moment of euphoria has passed, you come back down to earth and sometimes discover that many of those fragments, beautiful and all, and that you wrote in the middle of the boiling, they may not add much to the story or even need to be removed from the draft.
But nobody takes away you the eaten and danced, right? So anyway you save them somewhere. Perhaps they will serve as material for a story or another novel.

So, as you say, we can conclude that in reality no approach is wrong, since our brain learns the more we put it to work, it creates associative networks. But for that to happen, we need to ask ourselves certain questions. Otherwise it is difficult for the answers to appear.

 

[Steve Harrison]

But if they believe that, that becomes their reality and some of them do fantastic work with it. Hell, beyond a certain point I don't disagree with them. I've literally just discovered a quality in one of my characters as I was writing. I looked at a line I'd written and it told me something about the character. Did I give the character that, or did the character tell me something about himself - something that after a certain point I should not change because it'll ruin the integrity of the story?

To me, neither approach is wrong.

It's really interesting seeing how other writers operate.

I prep my novels in my head as a central idea and a series of incidents (plot points) that work up to the finale. I might have a few shadowy characters lurking at the fringes of my 'vision' of what the book is all about, but the actual characters don't appear with any clarity until after I start writing. They wander in and make themselves at home in the story. Backtracking and editing can then make them part of the whole.

It could be that my subconscious has created these characters and queues them in the wings until they are called onstage, but consciously I have no interest in or clear idea of my characters until I start the novel. I do fear that this won't work one day, but I'll tackle it then!

 

[DLCroix]

It's really interesting seeing how other writers operate.

I prep my novels in my head as a central idea and a series of incidents (plot points) that work up to the finale. I might have a few shadowy characters lurking at the fringes of my 'vision' of what the book is all about, but the actual characters don't appear with any clarity until after I start writing. They wander in and make themselves at home in the story. Backtracking and editing can then make them part of the whole.

It could be that my subconscious has created these characters and queues them in the wings until they are called onstage, but consciously I have no interest in or clear idea of my characters until I start the novel. I do fear that this won't work one day, but I'll tackle it then!

In fact, in the second book of my series, all the characters are secondary, since it is more of a kind of chronicle, but the one that we could say becomes the main character (at least it is in the third book) is a political policewoman type Gestapo (although the series is science fiction) whose squad is suddenly annihilated, so she has no choice but to continue alone. Also this happens in the middle of the story.

Then I discovered how an unforeseen situation, because obviously you don't have it considered in the plot, forces you to sit at the table to discuss the new terms of the contract, and of course the salary increase with your actress, she very pissed. "Either you pay me well or I'll fry you", she told me. How cheeky, haha!