Writing a great opening

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If Henry James was an unpublished writer and his first book was the Ambassadors, there's a good chance it might never get picked up by a publisher today and even self-published that it would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.

pickarooney

Memnoch wrote: »

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.

I couldn't get my wife or my sister to plough through my mess; that's when I figured something was majorly wrong

EileenG

If there's an author I know and like, I'll buy the book. If it's been recommended by someone I trust, I'll buy the book. I will not buy based on a synopsis or the blurb on the back, because no matter how enticing they sound, if the writer is crap, I'm not going to enjoy the book. That's when I start reading, to see if I get hooked.