Writing a great opening

EileenG

Writing a great opening is hard. I haven't cracked it yet, but I have found some things that help, and some things that definitely don't.

Your opening has to do a lot of different things. It has to establish the setting. Think of this as the camera planing over the outside of the spaceship or across the crowded ballroom.

In recent threads here, reference to a doctor's surgery set the scene. If the story was set in the past, "a doctor's surgery lit by gas light" would do the job. Similarly, a character dreading a journey on an American Airways flight from Calgary establishes the story in modern day Canada.

Of course, your opening has to introduce your main character. You don't have to go into details, but you need enough to show if the MC is male or female, old or young, and ideally, give an idea of their personality.

The opening has to show or at least hint at, the inciting incident, the problem that starts the story for the MC.

Most important, your opening has to grab the reader. Very few people have the patience to wade through pages of description before the action starts. Work on the first paragraph, and particularly the first line until no-one can resist reading on.

So, a few ways to get it wrong.

Don't start with backstory. No-one except the author is really interested in your character's backstory. The reader wants to see what is happening now. Whatever backstory is really necessary can be woven into the main story.

Don't start with flashback, it's just a different form of flashback.

Don't start with dialogue. Normally, dialogue is great and really lifts a story, but if you don't have any idea about the characters that are talking, it won't work. One line of speech can work. For instance "All cars proceed immediately to Grafton Street. Major riot in progress." establishes the setting and gives a lot of hints about the MC.

Don't start with prologue. It's backstory in disguise.

Don't start with philosophy.

Yes, there are some great authors out there who manage to break all those rules in style, but for most of us, it's a great way to be round filed.

pickarooney

What's 'round filed'?

I'd disagree about dialogue, but it does need to be very succinct. Done properly, one or two lines of direct speech can set the scene, tell us about the character and kick-start the plot.

"Stawwry bud?"
We're in modern Dublin's north inner city, the speaker is a young male from an underprivileged background, there will most likely be some kind of confrontation in the next couple of seconds...

EileenG

pickarooney wrote: »

"Stawwry bud?"

This is something else to be very careful with. Phonetic spelling of accents can turn a great story into an unreadable one. If it start with phonetic spelling, your reader may finish at that point.

Unless the reader knows exactly how to pronounce the words as you have spelled them, and actually knows the accent you are aiming for, it won't work.

I'm from the Northside, and I have no idea what you have written.

Round filed = waste paper bin.

pickarooney

EileenG wrote: »

This is something else to be very careful with. Phonetic spelling of accents can turn a great story into an unreadable one. If it start with phonetic spelling, your reader may finish at that point.

It never did Irvine Welsh any harm. Or maybe it did, his non-native readership figures might be quite low. Some of the best writers (and I realise that's highly subjective) did prety much everything they could not to pander to readers' expectations.

mikom

EileenG wrote: »

I'm from the Northside, and I have no idea what you have written.

Seriously?

EileenG

pickarooney wrote: »

It never did Irvine Welsh any harm. Or maybe it did, his non-native readership figures might be quite low. Some of the best writers (and I realise that's highly subjective) did prety much everything they could not to pander to readers' expectations.

That's what I mean about some very experienced writers doing it well and getting away with it. But in general, it doesn't work.

Also, there is a difference between "literature" writers and the rest of us. Someone with a couple of Booker awards under his belt can do things that would get the average writer a form rejection letter.

And no, I really have no idea what you said in the quote.

PS. I just asked my 13 year old daughter, a Northside born and bred, to read the quote, and she has no idea what it means.

pickarooney

EileenG wrote: »

That's what I mean about some very experienced writers doing it well and getting away with it. But in general, it doesn't work.

Trainspotting was Welsh's first novel. He went from an unknown to a major literary figure on the back of a book written almost entirely in Edinburgh council estate patois. I don't know if it's deliberate, but "getting away with it" makes it sound like the writer is doing something wrong. Would you say Joyce "got away with" writing Finnegan's Wake? It would be a fair point as to many, myself included, it's unreadable, but I wouldn't begrudge him for breaking the mould.

EileenG wrote: »

Also, there is a difference between "literature" writers and the rest of us. Someone with a couple of Booker awards under his belt can do things that would get the average writer a form rejection letter.

I don't understand what you mean by a 'literature' writer unless as opposed to a journalist or biographer, but I would think most people on here write fiction.

EileenG wrote: »

And no, I really have no idea what you said in the quote.

PS. I just asked my 13 year old daughter, a Northside born and bred, to read the quote, and she has no idea what it means.

And would both of you just stop reading right there rather than read on and see what it meant?

A lot of your advice makes sense, but a lot of it also seems to boil down to "don't try anything original or challenging because you don't have the talent", no?

There was a lot of similar advice in the guardian article linked in the sticky, along the lines of "only good writers can do this, so don't try" which I find really counter-productive.

EileenG

Of course I don't mean don't try anything original or different, but you do have to do it very well.

If the first line of a story I picked up was in a form or language I didn't understand, no, I wouldn't keep reading. If I'm already hooked by a great opening, and I meet that same line on the third page, I would probably see what it was about.

Don't forget, your reader doesn't know if "Strawwy bud" is a different language, or an accent, or just someone who is off his head. If you want to set your story on the Northside, with a gurrier who wants to start something, there are better ways of doing it.

pickarooney

EileenG wrote: »

Of course I don't mean don't try anything original or different, but you do have to do it very well.

I agree with that, certainly, but I would consider that whatever you write, you should strive to do it very well and there's a world of difference between saying that and saying "Don't do it".

EileenG wrote: »

If the first line of a story I picked up was in a form or language I didn't understand, no, I wouldn't keep reading.

Fair enough, but not everyone would react the same way

EileenG wrote: »

Don't forget, your reader doesn't know if "Strawwy bud" is a different language, or an accent, or just someone who is off his head.

I'm tempted to make a poll, but can't think of an appropriate forum

EileenG

My point is that your OPENING has to grab the reader. This is where you invite the reader into your story. Once you've got her firmly hooked, you can challenge her in all sorts of ways. But if the opening doesn't want to make her read on, you'll never get to that point.

There are a lot of books out there. The reader has to decide quickly which one she is going to spend her time and money on. She's not going to buy something just because it might get good later on.

This is not just my opinion. I've been asking a lot of editors and a couple of agents what they look for, and they all say the same. You've got to have an opening that sets the scene and makes the reader say "I've got to find out what this is about".

Every editor says the same thing: a weak opening almost always leads to a messy muddled book.

mikom

EileenG wrote: »

Once you've got her firmly hooked, you can challenge her in all sorts of ways. But if the opening doesn't want to make her read on, you'll never get to that point.

So, are we just talkin' females here who stop reading if the first line of a story is in a form/language they don't understand?

EileenG

No, but statistically, the majority of editors and book buyers are female.

And you are missing the point here. Getting your book or story read is a privilege. No-one HAS to read it, the fact that your reader (male or female) is willing to invest the time needed to read it, is a favour to you. If he or she shells out money to read it, even better. So you don't abuse your reader by not doing the best job you can.

EileenG

"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking 13."

"All children, except one, grow up."

"It had been an odd sort of day. We had sausages for breakfast, and we never get sausages on a Tuesday."

"The sky above the port was the colour of television, tuned to a dead channel."

"They shoot the white girl first."

"He was so mean that wherever he was standing became the bad part of town."

"We went to the moon to have fun, but the moon turned out to completely suck"

"It can hardly be co-incidence that no language on earth has ever produced the expression 'As pretty as an airport'."

"The majority of Terrans are six-legged."

"Damn them. Prince Djetthro-Jason eyed the masked males and the unpleasant array of instruments they were preparing to use on him."

"Just when I thought my day couldn't get any worse, I saw the dead guy standing next to my locker."

"They told him he wouldn't feel it when the energy beam ripped him apart. They'd lied."

EileenG

pickarooney wrote: »

It never did Irvine Welsh any harm. Or maybe it did, his non-native readership figures might be quite low. Some of the best writers (and I realise that's highly subjective) did prety much everything they could not to pander to readers' expectations.

And Welsh did not open with phonetic spelling. He started with the memorable "Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family."

pickarooney

EileenG wrote: »

And Welsh did not open with phonetic spelling. He started with the memorable "Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family."

The film starts with "Choose life..." The book opens with the far less memorable "The sweat was lashing oafay Sick Boy; he wis trembling."

dcmu

pickarooney wrote: »

The film starts with "Choose life..." The book opens with the far less memorable "The sweat was lashing oafay Sick Boy; he wis trembling."

One of the most engrossing, captivating opening chapters to a book I've ever read, too.

pickarooney

EileenG wrote: »

This is not just my opinion. I've been asking a lot of editors and a couple of agents what they look for, and they all say the same. You've got to have an opening that sets the scene and makes the reader say "I've got to find out what this is about".

Every editor says the same thing: a weak opening almost always leads to a messy muddled book.

I don't think anyone's arguing against writing a good opening, just about what actually constitutes a good opening.

As an aside, I'm not sure that what publishers and agents look for is necessarily a good indication of what makes a good, as opposed to a sellable book. Call me cynical, but I don't think they're that much different to record labels or TV networks whose criteria for picking something up is more often than not based on budget and marketability.

EileenG

Let's not get into the "good" v "salable" thing. I assume we are all writing because we want to sell our books?

If you think you have a masterpiece that is so original that no publisher will pick it up, then go ahead and self-publish. Having talked to people who did this successfully, it sounds like far too much work and hassle for me.

I want to be a commercial success and earn lots of money.

dcmu

EileenG wrote: »

Let's not get into the "good" v "salable" thing. I assume we are all writing because we want to sell our books?

If you think you have a masterpiece that is so original that no publisher will pick it up, then go ahead and self-publish. Having talked to people who did this successfully, it sounds like far too much work and hassle for me.

I want to be a commercial success and earn lots of money.

That's a terrible assumption to make. A lot of people here write because they love to. And these people will refuse to allow their work to be compromised simply so they can shift a few more copies.

My two cent is simple enough: I'm dead set against a catchall template for writing. It's a horrendously stifling concept. Writing is about creativity, not about story-writing by numbers.
I have read many books which break your rules, and it's not because these people are established writers; it's because they are talented, brave and creative writers.

iguana

EileenG wrote: »

My point is that your OPENING has to grab the reader. This is where you invite the reader into your story. Once you've got her firmly hooked, you can challenge her in all sorts of ways. But if the opening doesn't want to make her read on, you'll never get to that point.

There are a lot of books out there. The reader has to decide quickly which one she is going to spend her time and money on. She's not going to buy something just because it might get good later on.

That's not actually true though is it? Pretty much everybody decides to read a book based on either the synopsis on the back cover or a recommendation from someone. If the synopsis sounds intriguing or entertaining people will read at least a couple of chapters unless they are pure muck. Obviously if the first sentence/paragraph is fantastic you feel instantly captivated and are less likely to stop reading, but very few books captivate their audiences instantly.

In fact it's pretty common for a book to take a chapter or two to set up the lives of the characters before launching them into the plot. The idea being that we see what made the character happy and care about them before their lives are turned upside-down.

EileenG

iguana wrote: »

In fact it's pretty common for a book to take a chapter or two to set up the lives of the characters before launching them into the plot. The idea being that we see what made the character happy and care about them before their lives are turned upside-down.

I think this might have been true ten years ago, but not now. Just as fashions in film change (I saw Pretty Woman recently and couldn't believe how slow it was compared to the pace of modern films), so do fashions in books.

Take a look at the books on the best seller list, AND the ones short-listed for the major awards, and you'll find they nearly all jump into the action quickly.

Perhaps as a writer, you look at books differently to the average reader, but I reckon that most readers now want to get to the characters doing interesting stuff as soon as possible, they are not prepared to put up with chapters of set-up first.

Oryx

I read a hell of a lot. These comments are for those who hope to sell, rather than who write purely for the love of it.

I choose a book based on the first paragraph. If the writer doesnt get me there, I dont buy the book. If the paragraph hooks me, Ill flick a bit, read the back cover, and then decide.

I tried and failed to read Trainspotting. Roddy Doyle's trilogy I loved, even though I sometimes struggled with the phonetics in that. So I think phonetic dialogue depends on your cultural background and the amount of effort youre willing to put into the book.

It took me three attempts saying 'Stawwry bud' in my head before I copped what it meant. I dont mind working that hard when reading a book, but standing in a bookshop, it could make me move on to the next title.

Agreed on the prologue, which I generally skip, and then suffer for it.

And for every rule there is, you have rule breakers, who break them well, and set the Next Big Trend. The key thing is though, to be able to do it well.

EileenG, I need to know what books those opening lines are from.

EileenG

Oryx wrote: »

EileenG, I need to know what books those opening lines are from.

Maybe I should make that a competition? Some are famous first lines, some are personal favourites.

EileenG

dcmu wrote: »

That's a terrible assumption to make. A lot of people here write because they love to. And these people will refuse to allow their work to be compromised simply so they can shift a few more copies.

My two cent is simple enough: I'm dead set against a catchall template for writing. It's a horrendously stifling concept. Writing is about creativity, not about story-writing by numbers.
I have read many books which break your rules, and it's not because these people are established writers; it's because they are talented, brave and creative writers.

If you are writing purely for the love of creation, then I apologise for bothering you. Keep working at whatever is making you happy.

Just remember that while you may feel driven to write your book, absolutely nobody feels driven to read it.

pickarooney

(unless it gets put on a college reading list)

dcmu

EileenG wrote: »

Just remember that while you may feel driven to write your book, absolutely nobody feels driven to read it.

Nobody feels driven to read any book Eileen. At least not to the level the writer feels about writing it, regardless of whether or not it follows a generic template for "success".

Kelticweb

mikom wrote: »

Seriously?

It would seem the person is trying to let you know that he/she is from the posh northside as opposed to Darndale, Coolock etc...
Possibly, Malahide or Portmarnock...
The "Story bud" call is heard a lot on the west of dublin...I myself heard a greeting on a 78A bus at one time...many years ago...the dialogue went like this...
"Story bud..." Skang #1
(a pause)
"Story you?" Skand #2
"Story me!" Skang #1
Skang #1 went to sit in a different seat and the journey continued without another word.
I myself was trying to hold back from bursting out laughing...(didn't want to get into a right carfuffle)

Killer_banana

I think the majority of guidelines for writing are for people who want to write ficiton to sell it. If you write simply for the love and never intend to sell it then write want you want and just enjoy the journey. It's lot easier and less unburdened anyway. I persona; write for both reasons, although it is primarily for the love because in the modern market the likelihood of getting published is depressingly slim even if you write a complete masterpiece.

As for a gripping opening, I think it depends on the type of book. If you're writing a thriller then some sort of action or intrigue is required A.S.A.P but for the majority of other books (in my experience) and few chapters stting up the action won't make readers give-up, well depending on the length of the chapters. :P

As for opening with dialogue, I've seen countless books open with dialogue and I think it's quite a good way to start a book as you're suck into the scene striaght away. That said it should be quick dialogue followed by a quick set up of the scene and not a full blown conversation by two faceless characters in a featureless room.

As for 'Stawwry bud' I'm Galway born and bred and know what that means but then again I tend to read aloud (under my breath) rather than in my head so it might make a difference.As for phonetic spelling I htink it is a dodgy choice. It can work brilliantly if done well...but it can be complete disastour if not. I personally loved Wuthering Heights but completely loathed every situation which involved Joseph opening his mouth. :P

EileenG

Killer_banana wrote: »

As for a gripping opening, I think it depends on the type of book. If you're writing a thriller then some sort of action or intrigue is required A.S.A.P but for the majority of other books (in my experience) and few chapters stting up the action won't make readers give-up, well depending on the length of the chapters. :P
:P

I'm sorry, I don't agree. Thrillers are one of the genres I don't read, so I can't comment. But I know that any time I go to a bookshop, I read the first page of anything that looks likely, and if it hasn't grabbed me by the end of the page, I put it back and look for a book that does. There is no way I'd wade through a few chapters waiting for something to happen.

Have you ever watched American Idol or X factor at the audition stage? Then you'll know the way you can usually tell within five notes if the singer is actually able to sing and is likely to go through. It's the same with writing. Any writer who can't manage a decent opening is not likely to get much better a hundred pages on.

Okay, there's an exception: text books and reference books. I'm prepared to put up with dry openings there for the sake of the information in it. Not in a novel.

pickarooney

American Idol? You're going just a bit too far down the road of catering for the attention-span-deficient methinks.

You also keep coming back to equating a 'good' opening with a narrow definition of something attention-grabbing. A good jacket design could prove at least as important a factor to browsers who don't want to give a book a fair shot.

Fair enough, if the first couple of paragraphs are excrutiatingly poorly written it would be reasonable to assume you're dealing with a bad writer. But then, millions have bought a book with begins with:

The Da Vinci Code wrote:

Renowned curator Jacques Saunière staggered through the vaulted archway of the museum's Grand Gallery. He lunged for the nearest painting he could see, a Caravaggio. Grabbing the gilded frame, the seventy-six-year-old man heaved the masterpiece toward himself until it tore from the wall and Saunière collapsed backward in a heap beneath the canvas.

It's action-packed, to give it its due, but it's a horrible piece of prose.

A quick straw-poll suggests that not everyone picks up a book, reads the first page and discards/buys it.

shqipshume

I heard a famous author say,Do not take creative writing classes avoid it at all cost and write raw.When you start just write it like you would see it walking through the character or characters, and imagine family friends as them people doing the things you wish them to do in the book.

I would love time to write a Book.I was and avid writer of children's stories and mysteries.But sadly lost the patience.

pickarooney

Why not write a 1000 word short story for the competition (see my sig)? Could be fun.

Memnoch

Sadly, EileenG is right. Fiction has changed, and so has literature.

If Henry James was an unpublished writer and his first book was the Ambassadors, there's a good chance it might never get picked up by a publisher today and even self-published that it would gain the recognition it deserves. Writers cannot live in a vaccum, however much we might desire.

The fact is that people have multiple forms of entertainment available to them, more interactive forms, some might even argue, more exciting forms. I only read 'The Ambassadors,' for the first time a few months ago. I had to really force myself past the first 100 + pages. I recognised the quality of the prose, but I didn't really begin to enjoy myself till much later.

You have to understand, MOST people read for enjoyment. Even those of us who are seeking enlightenment don't want it to feel like work. It's so much easier to play a video game or go to the pub or watch a tv program. Of course I believe that there is a deeper enjoyment we can get from a good/great book that is unparalleled, but you have to actually read it first.

If you think that this hasen't affected literature and writing at every level, you're sadly mistaken. Take a look at Ian McKwan for example. Arguably the greatest current day literary writer. Been nominanted for several Bookers. Each book is something else. Pick up any of his books, open it up... how long does it take before you are immersed in the story? Does something exciting that catches your attention happen straight away?

Let's take two examples. It's been a while since I read these, so I might be a little fuzzy on the details...

Enduring love: Immediately grabs you because there is a dangerous situation, a man and a boy in a hot air baloon stuck and in trouble and you know something is going wrong. You have to find out what happens next. Yes it's a joy to read, but there is also impetus in the story that makes you want to turn the page, again and again.

Saturday(my favorite McKwen novel): Begins with the MC observing a plane approaching London believing a terrorist attack is about to happen.

I also remember being similarly carried along by Amsterdam

I cannot think of a novel of his that took me more than a couple of pages to get hooked. I never felt like I had to wade through a lot of text before I began to really enjoy and get a feel for the story. That is his skill. This is not the case with a lot of classic literature however.

If a writer such as McKwan understands this, then it's arrogant of us to think we are immune.

You want to write for yourself, fine. But if you don't write a story that captures your readers attention and keeps it page after page after page, no one is going to want to read it, not even, if you give it away for free.

shqipshume

pickarooney wrote: »

Why not write a 1000 word short story for the competition (see my sig)? Could be fun.

I cant see your sig

pickarooney

Memnoch wrote: »

Sadly, EileenG is right. Fiction has changed, and so has literature.

I'll see your Ian McEwan and raise you a Donna Tartt. The Little Friend took 10 years to write and almost as long to read, but sold by the truckload. Nothing happens for 500 long pages. Many of those who bought it hated it, but equally many loved its plodding story and laborious descriptions.

shqipshume wrote:

I cant see your sig

It's just a link to this:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055831744

Memnoch

pickarooney wrote: »

I'll see your Ian McEwan and raise you a Donna Tartt. The Little Friend took 10 years to write and almost as long to read, but sold by the truckload. Nothing happens for 500 long pages. Many of those who bought it hated it, but equally many loved its plodding story and laborious descriptions.

Okay that's just silly. If you want to you can pick out a writer to point out an example of anything. Of breaking any rules. I'll accept that there are exceptions when it comes to rules in writing. Some rules are more fundamental and harder to break than others... but generally, the chances of the first draft of your first novel being picked up by the first agent/publisher you send them to isn't great. Chances are you're gonna have to work on several drafts and maybe more than one novel and probably several agents/publishers before you get picked up. That's not to say that the above scenario doesn't happen, but it's equally important to note that it doesn't happen often enough that you should bank on it.

There is no end to the list of current successful writers that I could have used to make my point. I picked McEwen, because he's considered to be the foremost of those writing today, at least this side of the Atlantic. He's won the Booker more than once, been nominated frequently. He's at the pinnacle of literature right now and definitely among the best if not the best.

So you can pick out some random author to illustrate your point, but there's no comparison between her and McKwen. Find someone of equal or greater stature, otherwise the comparison is moot imo. I mean it's only a matter of time before he wins the friggin Nobel Prize.

Of course if we were doing it properly we would pick up all the NY Times Best Sellers for the last five years and go through their openings, but that's unrealistic.

pickarooney

Honestly, I just don't get this argument at all. Your first paragraph bears no relation to anything that's been said on the thread so far so I'll just ignore it, if it's all the same to you.

I also think it's ludicrous that you pick out one random author, big him up as the example to end all examples and then just dismiss my suggestion (an author who, incidentally, spent 6 months at the top of the NY Times bestseller list).

It also seems to me to be a paradox to herald an original, inventive writer as an example for anyone to copy. If you want to emulate a great writer, the last thing you need to do is try to be like him.

Memnoch

pickarooney wrote: »

I also think it's ludicrous that you pick out one random author, big him up as the example to end all examples and then just dismiss my suggestion (an author who, incidentally, spent 6 months at the top of the NY Times bestseller list).

I picked McKwen simply because I do think he is the example to end all examples. Though, of course, there are many other great writers out there. If you want to go by the Best Seller list alone then Twilight and the Da Vinci Code and Harry Potter have probably been the most dominant in recent times? The point I was trying to make was that writing a gripping story wasn't too good for McKwen, so it certainly shouldn't be too good for us.

It also seems to me to be a paradox to herald an original, inventive writer as an example for anyone to copy. If you want to emulate a great writer, the last thing you need to do is try to be like him.

Copy? When did I say you should copy anyone? When did I say anyone should "be like him." The only way I want to emulate McKewn or "be like him," is to write a novel that has a gripping, page turning story that is also beautifully written. There are countless aspects that go into the writing of a novel. That make up a writer's voice. I would never tell anyone to copy anyone's style.

At this point, I think I've reached the limit of my ability to articulate what I'm trying to get across. So I'll leave you with the following:

Once you complete your novel you're going to be sending your "query package" out to publishers and agents. This will typically comprise of a Query letter, a synopsis and the first three chapters (or 50 pages) of your MS.

This is going to sit in a slushpile of multiple perhaps dozens of daily submissions (depending on the reputation of who you are submitting to). The Agent's assistant will at some point in their busy, busy schedule open up your package. They will GLANCE at your query letter. If they don't see an exciting hook or something else compelling in those three paragraphs/300 words of your query letter, they will send you a form rejection.

If your hook manages to catch their attention, they will look at your opening pages. Each page has to grip them, has to force them to take time out of their ridiculously busy day to read the next and the next until they reach the end of the submission. At this point they might look at your synopsis and if they are still in love or see true marketability they will invite you to send the rest of the Manuscript.

Now, you might be able to keep someone reading purely on the strength of your prose. But what really keeps people turning pages is that burning question, 'What's going to happen next?' If someone doesn't care to ask that question about your work, their incentive to keep reading will diminish rapidly. It's a common misconception among new writers that elaborate prose is somehow a substitute for a strong story. It isn't.

Writing a gripping story and being creative are not mutually exclusive.

EileenG

My point is not that we should cater to the American Idol mentality, it's that you can tell almost immediately when someone is good or not, and whining for a second chance because "I sing a lot better in the second verse" (or "The second chapter is really good") doesn't fool anyone.

Like most people, I'm busy and broke. Before I invest money and several hours of my time in a book, I want an assurance that it's going to be worth it.

Memnoch

EileenG wrote: »

My point is not that we should cater to the American Idol mentality, it's that you can tell almost immediately when someone is good or not, and whining for a second chance because "I sing a lot better in the second verse" (or "The second chapter is really good") doesn't fool anyone.

Like most people, I'm busy and broke. Before I invest money and several hours of my time in a book, I want an assurance that it's going to be worth it.

Eileen I think everyone agrees you need to write a good opening, but there seems to be some contention about what comprises one.

iguana

EileenG wrote: »

My point is not that we should cater to the American Idol mentality, it's that you can tell almost immediately when someone is good or not,

And equally you can tell if someone is an engaging writer without the book diving straight into the action. I'm pretty sure nobody on those singing shows begins their song by bursting straight into the rousing climax. They begin with the beginning of the song and most songs begin softly and work toward a crescendo. However if someone is a good singer it's clear immediately and listeners are willing to keep listening.

In the same way good writing is obvious immediately without stupid gimmicks. Because they thing is unless the writer is fantastically witty attention grabbing openings are often often clearly nothing more than a gimmick.

EileenG

I never ever said that an opening had to be a gimmick. But it has to hold the promise of something good to come. And endless helpings of backstory and description don't do that.

iguana

EileenG wrote: »

I never ever said that an opening had to be a gimmick. But it has to hold the promise of something good to come. And endless helpings of backstory and description don't do that.

But what do you think if a book starts straight into a normal scene in the protagonist's life? The first few pages have him/her at work/shopping/cooking thinking they are having an ordinary day and giving the reader a taste for who they are dealing with. And then on page 10-50 the character finds a dead body/wins the Lotto/discovers a cheating partner, etc and the plot is set in motion.

I really don't think it's necessary to fling the reader straight into the action. It's ok to give them a taste of the world that's about to change first. A good writer can engage the reader's attention while describing something ordinary and even boring, maybe not for an entire book, but certainly enough to keep them interested until the plot takes off.

Dublin141

Maybe I'm weird (entirely possible) but I tend to feel that if there is a lot of action packed into the first paragraph with the intent of "hooking" a reader then it isn't going to be sustainable and will only lead to a more boring interlude where the reader is simply waiting for the next piece of action. Something of an anti-climax. I'm not saying it should be dull - just that not many books can sustain that kind of action without the reader getting bored and skimming. When there is a gradual build up of excitement, there is no disappointment, you know you're heading somewhere and if the writer does a good job then it will be a gratifying wait.

Sorry to Dan Brown but his writing is a prime example of the former imo. He throws in lots of exciting stuff within a few pages then has to fill up the rest of the chapter with dry information or what amounts to characters waiting around for the next bit of excitement to happen. I don't think that flows well, but he obviously sells well. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that the first few chapters of Twilight are pretty dull. Hasn't stopped all the fans of it waiting for the "good" bits. Stephenie Meyer manages to do everything we're told is wrong and still be a commercial success.

All that said, I don't judge a book by the first chapter or even page. And I enjoy characters, I like to know what's happened to them, their motivations, what their lives are like before the story begins. I'm just one type of reader but I can't believe that a story has to necessarily jump straight into action to be successful. Old classics are still selling and most of them begin with a long meander. I don't think that strictly abiding by a set of rules is always the best idea for creativity either. I think that if the intended audience find the writing engaging then they will keep reading.

EileenG

iguana wrote: »

But what do you think if a book starts straight into a normal scene in the protagonist's life? The first few pages have him/her at work/shopping/cooking thinking they are having an ordinary day and giving the reader a taste for who they are dealing with. And then on page 10-50 the character finds a dead body/wins the Lotto/discovers a cheating partner, etc and the plot is set in motion.

I really don't think it's necessary to fling the reader straight into the action. It's ok to give them a taste of the world that's about to change first. A good writer can engage the reader's attention while describing something ordinary and even boring, maybe not for an entire book, but certainly enough to keep them interested until the plot takes off.

At a writing group recently, a woman read out a romance where the heroine watched the hero on the train in the morning as she usually did. There was an entire journey with nothing but her thinking about her work, life and how much she'd like to meet the hero. It was boring as hell. The next day, the heroine almost missed the train, and for the first time, the hero spoke to her, and she spoke back.

The writer was the only one who didn't see that that was the place to start the story. It didn't have to be big bombs or bangs of any sort, but it had to have something.

I honestly think you don't have to have 10-15 pages showing ordinary life, because unless you tell the reader otherwise, she'll assume that your accountant/music teacher/housewife is an ordinary person with a typical life. Showing her changing nappies and worrying about the cost of a plumber doesn't make her more ordinary, it just makes her boring.

Memnoch

You don't necessarily have to have explosions and actions and the hook straight away, but there has to be SOMETHING there, to tell us why this story is different to others.

The reality is that VERY VERY few writers can pull us in on the strength of their prose alone.

The last book that did that for me was Joseph O'Connor's Redemption Falls, and you know what, I gave up after about 150 pages. Because as much as I admired the writing, I just couldn't endure it anymore. But while I was reading Star of the Sea, I couldn't stop, I had to keep turning the page.

Twilight and the Da Vinci code but tell us the same thing, nowadays, for the majority of the readers, the plot is king. Twilight was a success not because Myer broke all the rules. But because she wrote a story that engaged a certain audience. ( Now personally, having watched Twilight, I could not find a single redeeming thing about the story and despaired at the foolishness of teenage girls that allows such crap to be peddled, but everyone has a right to enjoy what they want. With the Da Vinci Code, at least there was an engaging mystery there, not just angst ridden teenagers agonizing over their first kiss.. god don't get me started.)

Even if you don't want to jump into the story straight away, even if you want to explore the mundanity of the world before unleashing the excitement, there need to be hints, that something isn't quite right. There's nothing wrong with building up to it, but there needs to be SOMETHING there. I can't remember the last book I read where this wasn't the case.

Currently reading: John Le Carre's A Most Wanted Man. Next on the list, Terry Pratchet's new novel, followed by McKwen's.

iguana

EileenG wrote: »

The writer was the only one who didn't see that that was the place to start the story. It didn't have to be big bombs or bangs of any sort, but it had to have something.

I think that's a very limited view. A book is usually very much about the characters. A great book can be one where not much happens but the characters draw you in, but on the other hand I've yet to find a book with a fantastic, exciting premise and characters I couldn't give a shít about. You might as well read the plot synopsis on Wikipedia instead of the book.

You don't have to love the characters, you can hate them or have mixed feelings about them, but you need to care on some level. Of course it's possible to dive straight into the story and still have characters who resonate with your reader but getting to know an interesting character can drive the story for quite a while before the main plot comes to the fore. Perhaps the woman in your class had just not drawn a particularly engaging lead.

pickarooney

Memnoch wrote: »

followed by McKwen's.

Sorry about this, but it's bugging me - is there some reason you keep writing his name like this?

I think there seems to be a bit of a trust issue - readers who make a decision on the first pages don't trust the reviews and synopsis that have other readers believe that this will be a good book worth investing a few hours in.

Does that sound plausible?

EileenG

iguana wrote: »

I think that's a very limited view. A book is usually very much about the characters. A great book can be one where not much happens but the characters draw you in, but on the other hand I've yet to find a book with a fantastic, exciting premise and characters I couldn't give a shít about. You might as well read the plot synopsis on Wikipedia instead of the book.

You don't have to love the characters, you can hate them or have mixed feelings about them, but you need to care on some level. Of course it's possible to dive straight into the story and still have characters who resonate with your reader but getting to know an interesting character can drive the story for quite a while before the main plot comes to the fore. Perhaps the woman in your class had just not drawn a particularly engaging lead.

The point was that the boring train journey DIDN'T reveal the heroine's character in any way, it was just boring. It was only when she was actually talking to the hero that her sarky sense of humour appeared. I'll put up with a lot for a heroine who can do an entertaining bitch.

Killer_banana

EileenG wrote: »

At a writing group recently, a woman read out a romance where the heroine watched the hero on the train in the morning as she usually did. There was an entire journey with nothing but her thinking about her work, life and how much she'd like to meet the hero. It was boring as hell. The next day, the heroine almost missed the train, and for the first time, the hero spoke to her, and she spoke back.

The writer was the only one who didn't see that that was the place to start the story. It didn't have to be big bombs or bangs of any sort, but it had to have something.

I honestly think you don't have to have 10-15 pages showing ordinary life, because unless you tell the reader otherwise, she'll assume that your accountant/music teacher/housewife is an ordinary person with a typical life. Showing her changing nappies and worrying about the cost of a plumber doesn't make her more ordinary, it just makes her boring.

Pages and pages of a character sitting on a train just thinking and thinking about their life is obviously never going to be interesting no matter what part of the novel it comes in. If she had in fact done something on the train or something had happened on the train that was everyday but told us something about the character or the events to come then this opening might have worked.

I agree 10-15 pages of absolutely nothing is a bit much and is quite boring but I think some set-up does no harm. No book should just have a chapter about the character worrying about money and changing nappies for no reason because, as you said, it's boring and if it doesn't further the plot then there is no point to it. However if the writer takes some time to show a quick run down of the character's normal day so we can meet their friends, family or whatever characters are important to the plot and get an idea of things to come then I don't see the problem. Obviously in this day something should happen which furthers the plot or at least sets up an event to further the plot but that thing doesn't have to happen straight away. I'm rambling now and not making much sense so I'll stop. I hope someone understands what I mean. :S

As for fiction evolving, it has and I agree that books need to open quicker than classics did but that said I really don't think the have to start straight into the action or the turning point for the character. There are many more forms of entertainment today but I think if someone is willing to sit down to read a book (I'm not saying it's chore but some people nowadays think it is) then they're also be willing to wait a few minutes for the event with kick-starts it all. I guess in a way it comes down to reading pace. If someone reads slowly then it can seem like nothing is happening at all for them yet if someone reads quickly then the set up won't seem very long at all.

Memnoch

pickarooney wrote: »

Sorry about this, but it's bugging me - is there some reason you keep writing his name like this?

Ya, I actually even checked the damn spelling before joining this thread. I guess it's one of those things where a bad spelling gets stuck in your head and you keep repeating it.

I think there seems to be a bit of a trust issue - readers who make a decision on the first pages don't trust the reviews and synopsis that have other readers believe that this will be a good book worth investing a few hours in.

Does that sound plausible?

That's a very good question. I'm not sure there's a good answer to it though. I'm sure every reader has their own process. I think most readers go for authors they like. If they like a book by an author they will seek out other books by the same writer to recapture the enjoyment they got from previous work. I think the next step from that is genre. Everyone has their favourite. In this case I think synopsis and reviews do make a difference. If the sound of the story appeals to them, then they might go for it. I know I picked up a sci-fi book because the synopsis interested me and it had a recommendation from one of my favourite sci-fi writers.

I'm not sure how many readers check out the first couple of pages. I tend not to. I usually make my decision based on the back cover blurb. But it's a pretty widely reported phenomenon that a lot of readers DO check out the first few pages.

I think most readers know what kind of stories they like to read, and seek out such stories, and this is especially true in genre fiction. But genre fiction is that precisely because it is story focussed. Not to say that you can't have well developed characters in genre fiction. But I think we are talking more here about contemporary and literary fiction, which is a slightly different kettle of fish.

There aren't easy guides for readers here. So many books out there, with no easy way to categorize them in the broad umbrella of "general fiction/literature." Hard to catch a reader's attention, hard to market to a reader. That's why topical/controversial books tend to do well in this genre. Myself, as a literary reader, I rarely browse the literary shelves (I tend to do that for my favorite genres though). Because browsing is too hit or miss. Instead, I seek out books that I've heard about or that might have won awards. Maybe I'm missing out on some good fiction, but it's not like I have a shortage of stuff to read. So I can see why readers will check out the first few pages to help them decide.

This is why as a literary writer the bar is so much higher. You must have strong prose, deep characters AND a gripping story. Nothing is optional. As for reviews, I don't pay too much attention to them. Publishers tend to be very devious about them anyway...

"Praise for the author." Which is usually praise for a previous book but made to look like it's praising the current one. Quotes taken out of context. Again, I think literary readers are more discerning and aware of these things.

There are a lot of books out there. You want to give readers every chance to pick yours. This means not compromising and striving for the best in every way.

Here's an easy test. Find some strangers who don't know you. Who like to read in your genre. Give them your book. Tell them to let you know even if they don't finish it and lose interest. It's hard getting someone to even look at your work, even harder to get them to finish it and give you feedback when they don't know you personally.