# Clarity on opening a book with "action"



## Miskatonic (Nov 1, 2015)

When people advise to make the opening of a book exciting with action, are they talking about literally having an action scene going on, like a car chase for instance; or are they talking about someone doing something in general rather than just a general opening narrative giving the reader some type of introduction to what's going on?

Like someone could be leaving the house and getting into their car, then driving off to wherever they need to go.

When I think of action I think of car chases, shootouts, etc.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 1, 2015)

My impression is that it's about starting with _something_ going on. It doesn't have to be the action move kind of action, with fights and explosions - just someone doing something.

I think the idea behind the advice is to warn away from static openings, with long descriptions or explanation of backstory and such. It's more along the lines of "if you do this, you'll avoid doing this, and this, and this" rather than "do this".


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 1, 2015)

OK cool. 

I thought it was a bit absurd that they advised writers to have their books start out like an action film.


----------



## MineOwnKing (Nov 1, 2015)

The assumption is that a reader will sample the first few lines of an ebook on Amazon and based on that experience, either buy it or keep shopping.

The same goes for a literary agent reading a query sample. 

Therefore it needs to be interesting and contain a hook. 

There are some very helpful books on how to write hooks. 

Avoid beginning a book with describing the landscape. It's been done to death and no matter how cool your world is, writing about the color of the sky or mist in the trees, etc, will send your manuscript to the slush pile.

There is also a rising controversy about the need for prologues. I would avoid any prologue that contains 'telling' that leads into info dumping. Or just forget the prologue altogether.

I think getting the reader into the head of the main character right away can help. Get in there and stay in there with POV as the scene unfolds. 

A really kick ass cover never hurt either. Fantasy is a visual experience too.


----------



## kennyc (Nov 1, 2015)

This is as misleading as "show don't tell."  

All that's really required by the opening is to intrigue and interest the reader such that they 'turn the page' and keep reading.


----------



## goldhawk (Nov 1, 2015)

No, they mean action action. Like a James Bond movie. Start with your protagonist doing something in character, that is, showing his primary trait. Like James infiltrating an Russian army base. James is doing something quintessential to his character, spying.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 1, 2015)

goldhawk said:


> No, they mean action action. Like a James Bond movie. Start with your protagonist doing something in character, that is, showing his primary trait. Like James infiltrating an Russian army base. James is doing something quintessential to his character, spying.



But not necessarily. I can think of tens of thousands of literary fiction or chick lit novels that don't start out like James Bond. Like perhaps "Confessions of a Shopaholic" or "The Trouble with Our Stars" or "Bridget Jone's Diary". 

I think the same can be said for fantasy. Look at the intro for "American Gods." (I use this example all the time because I like it). Shadow is literally lying around in prison practicing coin tricks waiting to get out. But the hook is there, the characterization is there, the author poses questions that the reader wants answered. 

I agree with MineOwnKing and Kennyc that a good hook (Make the reader ask some questions and read on to find answers) is what is really important. 

I'm sort of starting to understand that "starting in the middle of some action" means start at a point in the story, with a focus on a character doing something, instead of: 

"Once upon a time there was a boy named Sam. Sam grew up in England with his mother and his father. He had blue eyes and brown hair…." Etc.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 1, 2015)

The opening needs to be interesting. Doesn't matter how you accomplish it - action, mystery, plot hook, the prose itself, &c.


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 1, 2015)

The Hobbit certainly had a unique and yet not overly exciting introduction.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 1, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> The opening needs to be interesting. Doesn't matter how you accomplish it - action, mystery, plot hook, the prose itself, &c.


This...

I'll also add that you should spend some time thinking about your story's true beginning. Typically, the advice I cling to is to start your story as late into the tale as you can. Following that advice usually brings action and/or the interesting/engaging parts to the fore.


----------



## kennyc (Nov 1, 2015)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> This...
> 
> I'll also add that you should spend some time thinking about your story's true beginning. Typically, the advice I cling to is to start your story as late into the tale as you can. Following that advice usually brings action and/or the interesting/engaging parts to the fore.



Yep! Agreed. Always good advice.


----------



## goldhawk (Nov 1, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> But not necessarily. I can think of tens of thousands of literary fiction or chick lit novels that don't start out like James Bond.



I didn't say a good story had to start with action. What I said was that when somebody says a story should start with action, they mean action; not description; not even a conflict. They  mean somebody, usually the protagonist, doing action.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 1, 2015)

Got it. That makes sense. I thought when you said "action, action. Like James Bond" you meant car chases and shoot outs etc. I understand what you mean now.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 1, 2015)

There are phenomenal books that start with description, but they adhere to the idea that the opening has to be interesting.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 1, 2015)

Yeah, again, I like the idea that the intro should pose a question to the make reader keep reading to find answers… 

Some concrete examples I have read are: 

Making someone do something out of character, like have a little old lady standing next to the MC in the library pull a gun out of her purse. 

Or, put someone in danger, but don't explain why: Like, have the cute/sweet waitress at the restaurant be pulled into the break room to see on the news that a killer is murdering other women in the town with the same name as her (The Terminator). 

Basically, pique the reader's curiosity.

Other examples of questions: 

What scary reptillian monster killed the worker? (Jurassic Park) 

Examples of first lines that make the reader ask a question: 

"I am the invisible man" 

"Through the fence, between the curling flower spaces, I could see them hitting." 

"There was a boy called Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it."


----------



## danr62 (Nov 1, 2015)

I heard an author, I think it was Brandon Sanderson, say that what he means by this is showing the MC being proactive, rather than reactive. Show the MC as doing something. 

So maybe rather than have the old lady pull out a gun, have the MC notice something off about her, and then she pulls the gun.


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 1, 2015)

Everything seems so much easier when you aren't working with a fantasy story with dozens of characters and multiple interwoven plots. Yes there is an MC, but he's like 9 and at the beginning of the book is on his quaint Ireland-esque island, blissfully ignorant of what lies before him.

I'll work on an intro. and then toss it in here to see if I'm headed in the right direction.


----------



## kennyc (Nov 1, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> .....
> 
> Examples of first lines....
> 
> "Through the fence, between the curling flower spaces, I could see them hitting."



Woo-hoo!




.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 1, 2015)

Opening to Titus Groan.  Brilliant. Particularly love the last two lines. Not even a character introduced unless you consider the castle a character in its own right, which some have argued:

Gormenghast, that is, the main massing of the original stone, taken by itself would have displayed a certain ponderous architectural quality were it possible to have ignored the circumfusion of those mean dwellings that swarmed like an epidemic around its outer walls. They sprawled over the sloping earth, each one half way over its neighbour until, held back by the castle ramparts, the innermost of these hovels laid hold on the great walls, clamping themselves thereto like limpets to a rock. These dwellings, by ancient law, were granted this chill intimacy with the stronghold that loomed above them. Over their irregular roofs would fall throughout the seasons the shadows of time-eaten buttresses, of broken and lofty turrets, and, most enormous of all, the shadow of the Tower of Flints. This tower, patched unevenly with black ivy, arose like a mutilated finger from among the fists of knuckled masonry and pointed blasphemously at heaven. At night the owls made of it an echoing throat; by day it stood voiceless and cast its long shadow.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 1, 2015)

Steerpike, so awesome… again to make my point, so many questions raised in my mind! 

What's up with the tower? Is it empty? What was it used for? Why are only owls in it now? Why 'blasphemously', did something bad happen there? Does the pointing to heaven actually represent someone inside pointing at heaven, accusingly?


----------



## MineOwnKing (Nov 1, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> Opening to Titus Groan.  Brilliant. Particularly love the last two lines. Not even a character introduced unless you consider the castle a character in its own right, which some have argued:
> 
> Gormenghast, that is, the main massing of the original stone, taken by itself would have displayed a certain ponderous architectural quality were it possible to have ignored the circumfusion of those mean dwellings that swarmed like an epidemic around its outer walls. They sprawled over the sloping earth, each one half way over its neighbour until, held back by the castle ramparts, the innermost of these hovels laid hold on the great walls, clamping themselves thereto like limpets to a rock. These dwellings, by ancient law, were granted this chill intimacy with the stronghold that loomed above them. Over their irregular roofs would fall throughout the seasons the shadows of time-eaten buttresses, of broken and lofty turrets, and, most enormous of all, the shadow of the Tower of Flints. This tower, patched unevenly with black ivy, arose like a mutilated finger from among the fists of knuckled masonry and pointed blasphemously at heaven. At night the owls made of it an echoing throat; by day it stood voiceless and cast its long shadow.



Once upon a time this kind of opening might have been okay.

Modern writing has evolved and is also a slave to corporate decisions that manage publishing houses.

Now, if you want to win the love of an agent, publisher, consumer, even if you wrote the greatest literary fantasy ever this way, chances are it's going to the trash.


----------



## kennyc (Nov 1, 2015)

MineOwnKing said:


> Once upon a time this kind of opening might have been okay.
> 
> Modern writing has evolved and is also a slave to corporate decisions that manage publishing houses.
> 
> Now, if you want to win the love of an agent, publisher, consumer, even if you wrote the greatest literary fantasy ever this way, chances are it's going to the trash.



I disagree completely.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 1, 2015)

While I understand the argument regarding modern trends in literature & corporate influences, I don't agree completely. For most writers, this is probably true. However, a writer with enough skill (like Peake in 1940-1950s) would still find a place and a following in today's market. 

I hear a lot about the "modern reader". As I became more & more serious about writing, I initially bought into the idea that modern readers don't like the older styles, but I grew to question that thinking. After all, I'm a modern reader and I love that opening, which goes against the standard, modern advice of not opening with description. Considering the book is still widely read, how can it be that "modern readers" don't like this style? 

Your opening, just as the rest of your story, simply needs to be interesting. There are a multitude of ways the achieve that effect. None of them should be off the table.


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 1, 2015)

MineOwnKing said:


> Once upon a time this kind of opening might have been okay.
> 
> Modern writing has evolved and is also a slave to corporate decisions that manage publishing houses.
> 
> Now, if you want to win the love of an agent, publisher, consumer, even if you wrote the greatest literary fantasy ever this way, chances are it's going to the trash.



You are correct about the agents and publishers. But not about consumers. Yes, there are consumers who will only settle for modern cinematic style writing. But they are by no means all. Readers will buy anything that is interesting to them. And there are infinite ways to interest readers. The truth is that you can't turn book appeal into a formula. If you could then all published books would be hits, but they're not. Not by a long shot. Agents and publishers don't know what will sell anymore than the random man on the street does. 

Personally (and by no means am I presenting myself as a representative of readers as a whole, rather an example of how varied readers are), I cannot stand the modern cinematic "start it with action!" approach. Nothing interests me so little as throwing me into the middle of some type of action when I don't yet know the characters or the setting and have no context for the thing. I just end up not caring and tossing another book aside. These days I can tell by the opening sentence if the writing is going to be boringly cinematic. Most recently written books apply. I've learned to seek refuge in classics instead.


----------



## Penpilot (Nov 1, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> The opening needs to be interesting. Doesn't matter how you accomplish it - action, mystery, plot hook, the prose itself, &c.





T.Allen.Smith said:


> This...
> 
> I'll also add that you should spend some time thinking about your story's true beginning. Typically, the advice I cling to is to start your story as late into the tale as you can. Following that advice usually brings action and/or the interesting/engaging parts to the fore.



This is generally how I feel.




MineOwnKing said:


> Once upon a time this kind of opening might have been okay.
> 
> Modern writing has evolved and is also a slave to corporate decisions that manage publishing houses.
> 
> Now, if you want to win the love of an agent, publisher, consumer, even if you wrote the greatest literary fantasy ever this way, chances are it's going to the trash.



I don't know, I think if something is good enough, it's good enough. It just has to be interesting enough to make the reader keep reading. I mean just take a look at the opening two paragraphs of Harry Potter. Not exactly action packed, but there's enough to make one keep going.



> Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much. They were the last people you'd expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious, because they just didn't hold with such nonsense.
> 
> Mr. Dursley was the director of a firm called Grunnings, which made drills. He was a big, beefy man with hardly any neck, although he did have a very large mustache. Mrs. Dursley was thin and blonde and had nearly twice the usual amount of neck, which came in very useful as she spent so much of her time craning over garden fences, spying on the neighbors. The Dursleys had a small son called Dudley and in their opinion there was no finer boy anywhere.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 1, 2015)

kennyc said:


> I disagree completely.



Me too. In fact, that book is still on the shelves at Barnes and Noble.


----------



## MineOwnKing (Nov 1, 2015)

Nostalgia for classic fiction is addictive and rewarding, The Heart of Darkness has one of the greatest openings of any novel. It was written in a time when the fan base would have been wealthy English gentry.

Ask a typical person on the street that was forced to read Heart of Darkness for high school English and they will probably relay how much they hated it.

That is one reason why writing must evolve. 

Modern day genre fiction has been altered to cater to its largest fan base, females.

95% of literary agents are women.

I don't want to cast any stones here so I'll let people use their imaginations as to how these facts have changed the industry standards.

Probably not very many guys are buying 'Bear needs a Bride."


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 1, 2015)

MineOwnKing said:


> Nostalgia for classic fiction is addictive and rewarding, The Heart of Darkness has one of the greatest openings of any novel. It was written in a time when the fan base would have been wealthy English gentry.
> 
> Ask a typical person on the street that was forced to read Heart of Darkness for high school English and they will probably relay how much they hated it.
> 
> ...



The only people Heart of Darkness is a classic to are literature majors/professors (same thing). Gormenghast, on the other hand, is a classic because readers keep recommending it to each other and passing it on from generation to generation. As much as I personally dislike the book, I must give it credit where credit is due. It fascinates readers. Though the opening is one of the worst I've ever read, personally. Obviously that isn't true for many people. Once again, readers are a highly varied group of _individuals_. 

I think what you need to do is evolve your understanding of the world of storytelling and book publishing past the outmoded ideas of the "industry". They're losing market share every day to the people who really know how to connect with readers: the indie authors.


----------



## MineOwnKing (Nov 1, 2015)

I don't need to do anything.

Miskatonic asked a question and I tried to help.

I am an indie author. I could care less about what agents want.


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 1, 2015)

I see. You're giving pretty strange advice then.


----------



## MineOwnKing (Nov 1, 2015)

Don't shoot the messenger.

What I want has nothing to do with the facts of successful marketing.

What was successful in the past no longer applies.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 1, 2015)

MineOwnKing said:


> What was successful in the past no longer applies.


A quick perusal of my digital library shows your assumption to be shaky at best. Consider the following fantasy openings, none of which start with action:    


> Some years ago there was in the city of York a society of magicians. They met upon the third Wednesday of every month and read each other long, dull papers upon the history of English magic.
> 
> Susanna Clarke - Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, 2004





> It was an odd-looking vine. Dusky variegated leaves hunkered against a stem that wound in a stranglehold around the smooth trunk of a balsam fir. Sap drooled down the wounded bark, and dry limbs slumped, making it look as if the tree were trying to voice a moan into the cool, damp morning air. Pods stuck out from the vine here and there along its length, almost seeming to look warily about for witnesses.
> 
> Terry Goodkind - Wizard's First Rule, 1994





> A History of the Six Duchies is of necessity a history of its ruling family, the Farseers. A complete telling would reach back beyond the founding of the First Duchy and, if such names were remembered, would tell us of Outislanders raiding from the sea, visiting as pirates a shore more temperate and gentler than the icy beaches of the Out Islands. But we do not know the names of these earliest forebears.
> 
> Robin Hobb - Assassin's Apprentice, 1995





> IT WAS NIGHT AGAIN. The Waystone Inn lay in silence, and it was a silence of three parts. The most obvious part was a hollow, echoing quiet, made by things that were lacking. If there had been a wind it would have sighed through the trees, set the inn's sign creaking on its hooks, and brushed the silence down the road like trailing autumn leaves. If there had been a crowd, even a handful of men inside the inn, they would have filled the silence with conversation and laughter, the clatter and clamor one expects from a drinking house during the dark hours of night. If there had been music...but no, of course there was no music. In fact there were none of these things, and so the silence remained.
> 
> Patrick Rothfuss - The Name of the Wind, 2007


----------



## MineOwnKing (Nov 1, 2015)

I wrote nothing about starting with action.

I said it should be interesting and contain a hook.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 1, 2015)

MineOwnKing said:


> I wrote nothing about starting with action.
> 
> I said it should be interesting and contain a hook.



Apologies then. It seemed your position was against descriptive beginnings like Peake's opening of Gormenghast...that it was outdated and therefore would not be successful with modern publishers. Perhaps I was wrong.

Still, there is not a "hook" in any of those openings, at least not in the sense that most contemporary advice touts as  necessary.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 1, 2015)

I would argue, though, that all those intros do have a hook… based on what I've been reading about hooks actually being 'questions'. 

With Strange and Norrell she sets it up so that the magicians are not doing what one would typically think they should be doing, so they read on to find out why. 

With Terry Goodkind's line, we wonder "why was it odd looking? What was so weird about it?" and keep reading to find out. (P.S. side note, can I say how happy I am to see someone quote this book? It was my first fantasy I ever bought myself in eighth grade, before I knew anything about Ayn Rand or any political agenda. I just loved the book for the book. The rest of the series, meh, but I still have a soft spot for this book).


----------



## MineOwnKing (Nov 1, 2015)

My position is irrelevant. 

I like Joseph Conrad along with many classic author's. 

There are always going to be examples that defy the status quo.

Anybody that has spent time querying agents like I have, knows what I say is fact and not theory.

Write a book that gets you in the door, or write a crowd pleaser that wins an award, then write the books you want to read.

'_It is useless to push a cart sideways.' _


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 1, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> I would argue, though, that all those intros do have a hook... based on what I've been reading about hooks actually being 'questions'.


A _Hook_ is any technique that grabs the reader's attention and keeps them reading. It may be exactly that, a question raised, but it can be anything that piques interest. In that regard, I agree with you. However, the examples don't hook with action or even a character as is commonly advised, which goes back to the original point. Your beginning simply needs to pique interest. There are a plethora of ways to achieve this effect.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 2, 2015)

There are people writing successful novels that start, and continue, with heavy description and dense use of words. That's just an empirical fact. You can go to the book store and see the books. You just have to be a damned good writer to pull it off. Conrad and others aren't still being read just because they are old. There were plenty of other writers who wrote popular fiction back in those days who have vanished into obscurity. Writers like Conrad and others are still read because they were brilliant authors. I'm reading _Emma_, by Jane Austen, which will be 200 years old next year. Great book.

The fact is, most modern commercial authors couldn't write like that if they had to do so to save their lives, and most of the works they are putting out won't be known, much less read, in a hundred years. The writers can put out stuff that sells but they're not capable of writing that lasts. The few authors who can put out works that will come to be classics decades hence can still get published. If someone like Peake or even Conrad were to pop up now, in 2015, I have little doubt they'd be able to find both an agent and a publisher.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 2, 2015)

I guess as with all "writing rules" the thing to take away from it is to stick with if you're uncertain, but that there are countless of great examples of the "rule" not being followed.


----------



## Russ (Nov 2, 2015)

Svrtnsse said:


> I guess as with all "writing rules" the thing to take away from it is to stick with if you're uncertain, but that there are countless of great examples of the "rule" not being followed.



I would offer a variation on this.

Writing rules don't exist to force you to change a part of your work that has a purpose and you feel strongly positive about.

Writing rules exist to give you guidance when  you are unsure of something or to help diagnose and fix problems you are having trouble getting a handle on.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 2, 2015)

"Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist."  
- Pablo Picasso  

Writers hear a lot about how there's always exceptions to every rule, & that if you want to be published or commercially successful you must ignore the exceptions and instead focus on A, B, & C. 

But maybe, just maybe, the exceptions...those that fly in face of the status quo & the expectations, are the models to emulate. Perhaps being different, developing a distinct voice and style in a sea of sameness, is the key to true success & longevity.


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 2, 2015)

Honestly, I think story "rules" are nothing but a negative influence on writers and should be done away with completely. They just shouldn't exist. They are stupid. 

Grammar rules: yes. 
story telling rules: are you serious?


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 2, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> Honestly, I think story "rules" are nothing but a negative influence on writers and should be done away with completely. They just shouldn't exist. They are stupid.
> 
> Grammar rules: yes.
> story telling rules: are you serious?



People just have to realize they aren't rules. They're points to consider when writing a particular type of fiction - namely, light, commercial fiction.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 2, 2015)

For me I don't see it at 'rules' so much as I see it as learning from the masters. I think in any craft (be it art, or construction, or glass blowing, or pottery) you need to learn from those who came before you and have mastered it. Of course you can pick and choose what you use and what you don't use, but if great authors have done certain things that I love when I read them, why not try to do those things myself? 

That is why I try to study exactly _what_ my favourite authors do. How do they start a story? What do they include in their opening lines? How do they describe setting? How do they develop characters? How do they show action and introspection? Then I can take those tools and apply them to my own writing instead of trying to re-invent the wheel.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 2, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> People just have to realize they aren't rules. They're points to consider when writing a particular type of fiction - namely, light, commercial fiction.


As a whole, perhaps.

However, I think each writer can have their own personal set of rules that factor heavily in the development of style & voice.

I believe that's what is meant by knowing the rules so you can break them like a pro. Understanding techniques doesn't mean you have to follow them blindly, but knowledge of how authors you admire, or emulate, created a certain effect in you as a reader is a positive.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 2, 2015)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> "Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist."
> - Pablo Picasso
> 
> Writers hear a lot about how there's always exceptions to every rule, & that if you want to be published or commercially successful you must ignore the exceptions and instead focus on A, B, & C.
> ...



T.Allen,

I love the quote.  I'm not so sure about your conclusion, though.

To me, the quote is saying: Learn the rules and use them as a foundation for your work.  Learn them so much that they become instinctual.  Like an athlete's muscle memory.  Once you understand them that well, you don't have to worry about them at all and can break them at will.

The goal, imo, is to be able to write intuitively.  The problem is that, as a beginner, our intuition is crap because we don't know what we're doing.  The rules, to me, are the first step to understanding what we're doing.


----------



## kennyc (Nov 2, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> People just have to realize they aren't rules. They're points to consider when writing a particular type of fiction - namely, light, commercial fiction.



Yes, as per the pirate code....it's really more like guidelines than rules per se.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 2, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> T.Allen,  I love the quote.  I'm not so sure about your conclusion, though.


There's no conclusion in my statement. 

I purposefully used the words _maybe_ & _perhaps_ because I do not know. It is only offered up as a point of consideration & something I presently wonder.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 2, 2015)

For some reason I can't thank your post Kennyc, but I'd like to give that a 'boo yeah'. 

(This coming from the woman who every Halloween watches all three Pirates movies…. Just finished At World's End last night).


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 2, 2015)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> There's no conclusion in my statement.
> 
> I purposefully used the words _maybe_ & _perhaps_ because I do not know. It is only offered up as a point of consideration & something I presently wonder.



Understood.  Perhaps I should have written, "I love the quote. I'm not so sure about your wonderings, though."


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 2, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> Understood.  Perhaps I should have written, "I love the quote. I'm not so sure about your wonderings, though."


The post prior to yours, which you might have missed, illustrates my current individual view, minus the wonderings.


----------



## kennyc (Nov 2, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> For some reason I can't thank your post Kennyc, but I'd like to give that a 'boo yeah'.
> 
> (This coming from the woman who every Halloween watches all three Pirates movies…. Just finished At World's End last night).



Yeah, I think the # of Thanks per day are limitied....I find myself in that position with your (and other's posts) often....just too free with my thanks perhaps. 

Thank you!


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 2, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> For me I don't see it at 'rules' so much as I see it as learning from the masters.



Then you have to think about who you consider "masters." The rules you see on fiction forums are very narrowly-focused to producing more or less generic commercial fiction. That doesn't mean they can't be used with other works, but commercial fiction is the focus. I think studying what your favorite authors do is a great idea - much better than having a set of rules in a vacuum. If your favorite author is James Patterson you are going to come up with a much different set of ideas about how to write than if your favorite author is Steven Erikson, which will again be different than if your favorite author is Angela Carter, etc. 

Write the kind of work you like to read, and find out how to do that most effectively. Simply applying a basket of rules is not going to further that goal, except in the case that your favorite kind of writing happens to be in the style of light, popular, commercial fiction. If you're trying to do something else, those techniques are still worth knowing because you might want to employ them from time to time, but if you consider them necessities to your writing then they're doing you more harm than good.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 2, 2015)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> As a whole, perhaps.
> 
> However, I think each writer can have their own personal set of rules that factor heavily in the development of style & voice.
> 
> I believe that's what is meant by knowing the rules so you can break them like a pro. Understanding techniques doesn't mean you have to follow them blindly, but knowledge of how authors you admire, or emulate, created a certain effect in you as a reader is a positive.



Yes, I think this is true. But it is contrary to how rules are often expressed in a writing forum, or in critiques. The more knowledge you have, the better off you are, because you have more tools in your toolbox to create different types of stories. If all you know is the hammer of a set of common writing forum rules, then every story you want to write is going to look like a nail. 

Not all stories are nails


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 2, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> You are correct about the agents and publishers. But not about consumers. Yes, there are consumers who will only settle for modern cinematic style writing. But they are by no means all. Readers will buy anything that is interesting to them. And there are infinite ways to interest readers. The truth is that you can't turn book appeal into a formula. If you could then all published books would be hits, but they're not. Not by a long shot. Agents and publishers don't know what will sell anymore than the random man on the street does.
> 
> Personally (and by no means am I presenting myself as a representative of readers as a whole, rather an example of how varied readers are), I cannot stand the modern cinematic "start it with action!" approach. Nothing interests me so little as throwing me into the middle of some type of action when I don't yet know the characters or the setting and have no context for the thing. I just end up not caring and tossing another book aside. These days I can tell by the opening sentence if the writing is going to be boringly cinematic. Most recently written books apply. I've learned to seek refuge in classics instead.



I agree with most of this.

I'd rather the first few paragraphs or pages give me an idea of the quality of writing I'm going to experience throughout the book. Not necessarily from a purely literary sense, but if it just seems generic and amateurish (especially with description) then my interest is quickly evaporating.

However, even if it can't be made into a formula as far as an exact science, when publishers are looking at novels as a business investment, they will take into account what is selling and what isn't.

The shift in trends is what they can't predict with any real degree of certainty.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 2, 2015)

> The truth is that you can't turn book appeal into a formula.



I've stated this many times lately, but this isn't what I'm hearing.  I've read post after post from experienced self published authors who are saying:

"Look, if you want to sell books, read the best selling books in your category.  Figure out the commonalities.  Outline and graph the books.  Make sure that your books hit all those must haves.  That's what I did to sell a lot of copies."

I can't stress this enough: I get that, from a philosophical standpoint, writing what you want to write and following your muse and all that is really attractive.  From a pure "this is how I, as a successful self published author, did it (not Brian Foster personally; I'm a prawny little prawn. But authors who have had real success in the market)" perspective, you absolutely can figure out what a big pool of readers (agreed, not every reader) want and are reading.  That's because, imo, a lot of readers are like me. I like to read the same stories over and over.  Thus, I tend to buy books that are those stories retold.


----------



## FifthView (Nov 2, 2015)

I haven't read through this very long thread, but I wonder.  Has anyone yet questioned what constitutes a book's "beginning?"

I mean, sure, a paragraph, or two, or three of very descriptive telling might technically "open" the book, if we narrow our consideration to that level.  But I'd say that probably the first third or so of the first chapter would better constitute the "opening."  I mean that, unlike movies, people coming to a book expect the whole process to take longer to get through.  Of course, browsing for a new book might put a little more emphasis on the first few paragraphs, but I suspect that word of mouth, product description, reviews, and so forth probably play a much larger role than what constitutes the first few paragraphs.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 2, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> I've stated this many times lately, but this isn't what I'm hearing.  I've read post after post from experienced self published authors who are saying:
> 
> "Look, if you want to sell books, read the best selling books in your category.  Figure out the commonalities.  Outline and graph the books.  Make sure that your books hit all those must haves.  That's what I did to sell a lot of copies."



Yes. That's how you write generic commercial fiction. If a person wants to write that, that's great. If someone doesn't want to write that, that's great too. Pretending everyone wants to or should want to write that doesn't make sense. Nor does it make much sense to pretend that those are the only authors achieving success, when the empirical evidence of books on shelves signifies that it isn't. 

Also, the current biggest success story in self-publishing has to be The Martian, which deviates heavily from what would be considered "good advice" in writing forums and by the kinds of people you are talking about.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 2, 2015)

FifthView said:


> I haven't read through this very long thread, but I wonder.  Has anyone yet questioned what constitutes a book's "beginning?"
> 
> I mean, sure, a paragraph, or two, or three of very descriptive telling might technically "open" the book, if we narrow our consideration to that level.  But I'd say that probably the first third or so of the first chapter would better constitute the "opening."  I mean that, unlike movies, people coming to a book expect the whole process to take longer to get through.  Of course, browsing for a new book might put a little more emphasis on the first few paragraphs, but I suspect that word of mouth, product description, reviews, and so forth probably play a much larger role than what constitutes the first few paragraphs.



Just from the standpoint of reading what advice is given to new self published authors, it seems like the biggest factors in initial sales seem to be cover and pitch.

I'm really unclear as to the value of reviews.  I think it is important that you have reviews, because readers apparently need the "social proof" that other readers have tried your book.  Beyond that, I'm not sure what the reviews actually say carry all that much weight.

Personally, the sample is the single biggest factor in whether or not I buy a book.  If you engage me from the start and don't hit any of my pet peeves (good luck with that one  ), I'll definitely buy it.  I don't think, however, that I'm typical of the majority of readers just given all the advice I've read.  Maybe the average reader is easier to engage? Or doesn't take the time to open the sample?  I've noticed that purchasing on my phone makes downloading the sample a pain in the butt, and I think that the number of purchases through phones is increasing all the time.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 2, 2015)

> Yes. That's how you write generic commercial fiction. If a person wants to write that, that's great. If someone doesn't want to write that, that's great too. Pretending everyone wants to or should want to write that doesn't make sense. Nor does it make much sense to pretend that those are the only authors achieving success, when the empirical evidence of books on shelves signifies that it isn't.



Excuse me, Steerpike, but I did not "pretend" any of that.

I responded specifically to the comment that "The truth is that you can't turn book appeal into a formula."

From what I'm hearing, that statement is false, which is exactly what my post said. You choose to read more into the post than what I said.



> Also, the current biggest success story in self-publishing has to be The Martian, which deviates heavily from what would be considered "good advice" in writing forums and by the kinds of people you are talking about.



The biggest self publishers appear to be the ones, like Hugh Howey and Andy Weir, who build up an audience over a long time period before publishing.

Frankly, I don't know how to build that audience.  But, if one can figure that out and has the patience, I think it is a fantastic route to take.

The advice I'm following is specifically targeted to those self publishing who have not yet built up that audience.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 2, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> The advice I'm following is specifically targeted to those self publishing who have not yet built up that audience.



But the advice assumes you want to write formulaic fiction. Not everyone does. Advice to authors should take into account their goals, not seek to impose them. If a new writer wants to write by formula, then teach them how to do it. If they don't want to write by formula, then help them become more effective writers within the boundaries of their own approach. If they don't know, giving advice that pushes them toward formula writing isn't helpful.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 2, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> Then you have to think about who you consider "masters." The rules you see on fiction forums are very narrowly-focused to producing more or less generic commercial fiction. That doesn't mean they can't be used with other works, but commercial fiction is the focus. I think studying what your favorite authors do is a great idea - much better than having a set of rules in a vacuum. If your favorite author is James Patterson you are going to come up with a much different set of ideas about how to write than if your favorite author is Steven Erikson, which will again be different than if your favorite author is Angela Carter, etc.
> 
> Write the kind of work you like to read, and find out how to do that most effectively. Simply applying a basket of rules is not going to further that goal, except in the case that your favorite kind of writing happens to be in the style of light, popular, commercial fiction. If you're trying to do something else, those techniques are still worth knowing because you might want to employ them from time to time, but if you consider them necessities to your writing then they're doing you more harm than good.



I Agree 100%. Thanks for your response! I have noticed that on fiction forums there does seem to be a bit of a more narrow focus, like you mentioned. Especially on genre forums. But I think that maybe that comes from having a lot of different writers with a lot of different views of what the 'genre' _should_ look like. I think (or hope) from my previous posts over the past month you all can probably say "Heliotrope tends more towards the literary end of the Spectrum. She tends to prefer symbolism and metaphor and low fantastical elements over high fantasy and commercial action." That way, when I chime in on a piece in the showcase, you can think "OK, but Helio has a totally different set of interests, so I can take her thoughts with a grain of salt."  On the other end of the spectrum you have Foster, who is very focussed on providing his reader with a fast paced, high energy, commercial action story. If that is what you are writing, then you would probably listen to him over me. Then, we have Nimue, who writes very lovely poetic, free verse, stream of consciousness style pieces. If that is your thing you may ask her for input. 

So like you said, it all depends on our different set if ideas of how to write.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 2, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> But the advice assumes you want to write formulaic fiction. Not everyone does. Advice to authors should take into account their goals, not seek to impose them. If a new writer wants to write by formula, then teach them how to do it. If they don't want to write by formula, then help them become more effective writers within the boundaries of their own approach. If they don't know, giving advice that pushes them toward formula writing isn't helpful.



I'm not trying to push anyone to any particular place.  I'm trying to say, "The people who are making real money in self publishing appear to say that your best choice for achieving financial success is to write formulaic fiction."

If your primary motivation isn't to make money, then don't follow the advice.  If you don't want to self publish, then don't follow the advice.

Again, my only message here is, "You can make money self publishing.  The way to do it is to write by accepted formulas, make sure that your cover, pitch, and sample are good, and build up an email list."

I am not trying to say that that is the only way to make money.  There are a lot of ways to make money.  I'm simply saying that that path offers you your best shot at making money.

I'm not sure why you think that message is a bad one.

EDIT: Please note why I think my message is so important.  When I left this site about a year ago, I did so feeling that writing was kinda pointless because there was no way that any significant numbers of people would ever read my books.  And that, more than making money, is my biggest desire - to simply find readers who love what I'm writing.  I interpreted that message here as saying over and over, "Don't bother.  Publishing is a lost cause because your book will go into a slush pile.  Self Publishing? Ha. You'll sell to fifty people, mainly friends and family.

(A couple of posters, like Michael Sullivan, did offer encouragement, but I felt his voice was drowned in a sea of negativity.)

After finally finishing my book, I went looking for advice on how to market it even knowing how fruitless it would be.  Then Pauline pointed me to kboards, and now I know the truth.

It's not only possible to find readers; it's likely.  There are strategies for writing and there are strategies for marketing.

So if you want to get your book in front of readers, you can.  If you want to sell a bunch, you can.  Whatever your goal is outside of crazy success (which is possible at least), you can succeed.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 2, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> I'm not sure why you think that message is a bad one.



Your method of expression often presents it as an imperative. It's not the message, it's the delivery. I don't think anyone would disagree that writing to formula is an easier way to raise the likelihood of financial success. Much of our media is based around that idea. That's not what everyone is after with their writing, thankfully. We need to have room for a wide diversity.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 2, 2015)

@BWFoster, just so I'm not misunderstood, I think when it comes to writing the types of stories you are writing, your advice is good and your approach to marketing and self-publishing has been both interesting and useful to follow. So, I'm not saying there is anything bad with the advice you are providing, in context. Quite the opposite, in fact. But, at least in my reading of your posts, you often become narrowly-focused on the approach you've adopted and seem to suggest everyone should follow that route to the exclusion of others. The latter is, in my view, a mistake. The substantive advice itself, in the context of what you're trying to do, is quite good.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 2, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> @BWFoster, just so I'm not misunderstood, I think when it comes to writing the types of stories you are writing, your advice is good and your approach to marketing and self-publishing has been both interesting and useful to follow. So, I'm not saying there is anything bad with the advice you are providing, in context. Quite the opposite, in fact. But, at least in my reading of your posts, you often become narrowly-focused on the approach you've adopted and seem to suggest everyone should follow that route to the exclusion of others. The latter is, in my view, a mistake. The substantive advice itself, in the context of what you're trying to do, is quite good.



I guess, from my perspective, you're reading things into my writing that I'm not trying to put there.  How much of what your reading is what I'm writing and how much of it is a bias on your part to what you think I'm trying to say?

When someone says, "Hey, you can't turn writing into a formula."

I'm going to say, "Sorry, but that's wrong.  You absolutely can turn it into a formula, and doing so works financially for a lot of people."

Then you come along and say, "Why are you telling people they have to write formula?"

Do you understand my Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment?


----------



## kennyc (Nov 2, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> I guess, from my perspective, you're reading things into my writing that I'm not trying to put there.  How much of what your reading is what I'm writing and how much of it is a bias on your part to what you think I'm trying to say?
> 
> When someone says, "Hey, you can't turn writing into a formula."
> 
> ...



I'm not going to get too into this discussion (because it's verging on off-topic) but will just say (as I've expressed to you in other threads "Blurring" for example) that I'm in full agreement with Steerpike and get the same feel from your posts, so it's not just Steerpike.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 2, 2015)

kennyc said:


> I'm not going to get too into this discussion (because it's verging on off-topic) but will just say (as I've expressed to you in other threads "Blending" for example) that I'm in full agreement with Steerpike and get the same feel from your posts, so it's not just Steerpike.



Then I ask you the same question I asked Steerpike: how much of that is what I'm actually saying and how much of that is your bias toward what you think I'm saying?

Take the example above.

What was it about my response that even implied that writing formulas was the "only" way to do things?

Do I not clearly state in the original response that it's advocated as the best way to achieve financial success as an indie author?

If I'm reading you correctly, you don't disagree with that premise.  The only way I can figure that one can take that as advice is:

If one wishes to follow the easiest path to financial success as a self published author, write formulas.

Am I saying anything different?  Is that a bad thing to say?


----------



## kennyc (Nov 2, 2015)

Well, to kinda bring this back full circle, the O.P. was asking about opening a book with action. Certainly that is one way. Just as certainly there are many others as was discussed in the first couple of pages of this thread. In particular in Fantasy/Myth writing I would think there are any number of ways to open a book including describing landscape or castles etc. and many examples were given early on. None of this was about formula writing in particular or about making money or even about gaining audience, but were responses to the generic question about openings of books (we of course by nature of this site are discussing fantasy/myth and as in the header 'the art of fantasy storytelling'). 

As Kipling said,
"There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays,
"And every single one of them is right!"

I suspect the question has been answered to the satisfaction of the O.P.


----------



## FifthView (Nov 2, 2015)

To take it further back on the circle....I'm still wondering about two things.

a) Mightn't we be better off thinking of "action" as activity, or active characters, rather than merely the high-energy types of action?

b) Mightn't we reconsider what constitutes the "opening" of a book?

Particularly on "b," I'm wondering about those cases where the very first few paragraphs are descriptive telling.  Are/can those methods be used successfully for the entirety of the first chapter?   Or do most successful books introduce an active character, perhaps even show activity, before the end of Chapter One?

For instance, Robin Hobb's _Assassin's Apprentice_ was cited earlier in this thread:

A History of the Six Duchies is of necessity a history of its ruling family, the Farseers. A complete telling would reach back beyond the founding of the First Duchy and, if such names were remembered, would tell us of Outislanders raiding from the sea, visiting as pirates a shore more temperate and gentler than the icy beaches of the Out Islands. But we do not know the names of these earliest forebears. 

Robin Hobb - Assassin's Apprentice, 1995​
But 1) that's from the introductory material for that chapter (something she includes for all chapters), and 2) after two paragraphs for that intro, the actual chapter material starts with this:

My pen falters, then falls from my knuckly grip, leaving a worm's trail of ink across Fedwren's paper.​
—and actually, that introductory material was what he was writing!  So we have an active character.  But, that character goes on to "tell" much more.  I have also wondered (in the "Show, Don't Tell" thread) whether first-person accounts are a little different than 3rd-person accounts; at least, there's an immediacy that gives us a character _actively_ thinking, in Robin Hobb's first chapter.

So....how long before some sort of activity starts—typically?


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 2, 2015)

Fifthview, I agree. Especially about what constitutes 'the beginning'. 

So, I have read everything from "the first 250 words" to the first 20 pages! 

Someone referenced the Hobbit, and how that wouldn't fly anymore, but I sort of disagree. Back when Tolkien wrote it no one knew what a Hobbit was, so delving into the living conditions of the Hobbit and describing their lifestyle and their interests would have been very interesting to readers at the time (I think). Nowadays we know all about Hobbits and Dragons and Orcs so we don't have to spend forever explaining them. 

But, If I were introduce a new sort of species or technology it may be valuable (and interesting to the reader) for me to go into a few descriptive narrative paragraphs about how it all works. 

Another, older example I can think of is Huxley's Brave New World. The entire intro is pages and pages of explaining the facility where the babies are created and the entire process used to create people for specific niches in the world. Because it is so new to the reader it works to have it explained in this way. 

Are there other, perhaps more exciting ways to do it? Yes. Probably, but his way is intriguing and gets the job done quickly. 

Sometimes I wonder, and this is just me wondering, if we have tried to make novel writing too much into screen writing? We try to write our novels like they are movies, but they are not movies.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 2, 2015)

Actually, come to think of it, I just read another view that the 'hook' should be in the first 1% of the book. So in a 100 page book that would be the first page, but in a 500 page book it would be the first 5 pages…


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 2, 2015)

I didn't say it wouldn't fly anymore. I meant that for such a popular book it didn't have the most gripping introduction.


----------



## kennyc (Nov 2, 2015)

I know we're talking more than just opening lines, but here are a few of those for consideration from classic fantasy novels:

Great Opening Sentences from Classic Fantasy Novels


----------



## kennyc (Nov 2, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> ....
> 
> Sometimes I wonder, and this is just me wondering, if we have tried to make novel writing too much into screen writing? We try to write our novels like they are movies, but they are not movies.



I think there's definitely some of that going in various 'how to write' recommendations.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 2, 2015)

Oh, sorry Miskatonic, it was a few posts ago, I must have forgotten the context.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 2, 2015)

FifthView said:


> For instance, Robin Hobb's Assassin's Apprentice was cited earlier in this thread:
> 
> A History of the Six Duchies is of necessity a history of its ruling family, the Farseers. A complete telling would reach back beyond the founding of the First Duchy and, if such names were remembered, would tell us of Outislanders raiding from the sea, visiting as pirates a shore more temperate and gentler than the icy beaches of the Out Islands. But we do not know the names of these earliest forebears.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree. However, it should still be noted that almost 2 pages are fully exposition and the reader does not know a character is writing that exposition until this opening ends (other than the presence of italics, which could be thought or any number of things). 

That's why I chose to include it, because it offers another technique other than the obvious and often touted "active character" as an opener.


----------



## FifthView (Nov 2, 2015)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I don't disagree. However, it should still be noted that almost 2 pages are fully exposition and the reader does not know a character is writing that exposition until this opening ends (other than the presence of italics, which could be thought or any number of things).
> 
> That's why I chose to include it, because it offers another technique other than the obvious and often touted "active character" as an opener.



I think we know that it is introductory material, similar to a prologue, because of the italics.  The reader knows it is not the "meat" that is coming.  When the chapter starts, it starts with action.

But this goes back to other things I wrote in that comment:  What is the "opening" for a novel?  I believe that readers are more likely to be drawn to a novel for reasons other than the construction of the first few paragraphs.  Coming to the novel, a reader is more likely to suspend judgment for a certain length of time–how long, I don't know–because it's a novel.  If the first few paragraphs are simply boring or are written in horrible prose, the reader may not want to continue reading it, however.

I understand that beginning a conversation by offering an absolute rule and asking about its validity might be a good way to instigate a convoluted conversation as respondents fall on either side of the issue–polemics, so fun!–and the imperative, "Begin with action!" will serve.  But I'm more interested in variations on that rule than I am in having it smashed to pieces in the way that absolute injunctions can so easily be smashed.


----------



## FifthView (Nov 2, 2015)

But come to think of it, I think the issue may be more related to _immediacy_.

Action might be a "shortcut" to immediacy, in the way that showing rather than telling might be a shortcut.

But a highly descriptive telling makes what is described seem immediate–I mean, I'm put "there."

And the sort of comical, gossipy narrative voice of, say, the first Harry Potter novel, makes what is being said seem immediate.  It is as if I am standing beside and listening to that gossipy narrator.

Similarly, a lot of first-person narration seems more immediate, because I'm being spoken to by a narrator who is "there" with me.  Or I am there with him.

And so I wonder if the "rule" to begin with action (or to introduce it rather soon) arose because of this need for a quick immediacy, in our contemporary milieu; perhaps, a misunderstanding of what is truly required.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 2, 2015)

Yes, Fifthview, I'm starting to come to this conclusion too. I think we have taken the idea of "start in the middle of the action" and sort of changed it from what it originally meant.


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 2, 2015)

Interestingly, this quote just showed up on tumblr:

"The more you know, the more unflinchingly you deny casual beliefs and Accepted Wisdom when it flies in the face of reality, the more carefully you observe the world and its people around you, the better chance you have of writing something meaningful and well-crafted." ~ Harlan Ellison

I think that really says it all.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 2, 2015)

Mythopoet is calling us all geniuses! 

Yay Mythopoet!


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 2, 2015)

Ellison has never been shy about sharing his opinion.


----------



## Chessie (Nov 2, 2015)

I'm late to this conversation but hopefully this tidbit can help. It comes from _Writing Deep Scenes_ by Martha Alderson (still making my way through this awesome book, I recommend it):



Spoiler: long post



_Scenes don’t so much begin as launch– often in the midst of an event or activity. That is to say, you need not start scenes with an explanation or exposition but simply with an entrance into the action. Then, by following a character’s goals and desires, you walk your reader through a setting– preferably in a way that shows the protagonist interacting with it, not just observing it– employing the character’s sensory perceptions, introducing his conflict and relationship with inner and outer antagonists and allies, and building the character to a high or low point. Never leave the reader too satisfied at the end of a scene; she must want to keep reading to find out what happens next. Each scene creates consequences that must be dealt with or built upon in the next scene. And thus, scene by scene, you tell a compelling story that has the dramatic power and emotional impact of a great piece of music. A scene is defined by the presence of more real-time momentum than interior monologue (contemplation) or expository explanation. Real-time momentum is a combination of action, dialogue, and character interaction with his surroundings and other characters. Scenes crackle with energy and rhythms that make readers feel as though they are right beside (or inside) the character as he experiences any number of situations and scenarios. In contrast, narrative summary– lecturing, explaining, or describing– puts readers to sleep after too long.

Alderson, Martha; Rosenfeld, Jordan (2015-09-04). Writing Deep Scenes: Plotting Your Story Through Action, Emotion, and Theme (Kindle Locations 430-440). F+W Media. Kindle Edition. _


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 2, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> Ellison has never been shy about sharing his opinion.



At least I have that in common with him. Now if only I could manage to write as prolifically.


----------



## Incanus (Nov 2, 2015)

Addressing the OP--I consider 'action' in this context as anything that might be occuring 'on stage'.  So not necessarily chases or fights or explosions.  A conversation would qualify.

My novel opens with an 'action' scene--action as in a fight.  I've been trying to figure out the best balance--do I start with introducting characters, then put them into the action, or do I start with the action, and then show who these characters are?

I tried to strike a balance between these two things when I wrote the first draft (actually, it probably emphasizes action as I'm still getting to know the characters better).  Hopefully I'll get it right in the revisions.  The situation is complicated enough that I could spend 15-20 pages setting it all up, introducing characters, explaing the situation and goals.  I think that's way too much though.  As it is, I fill in most of that stuff a little later on.


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 3, 2015)

My opening scene is a man standing at the bow of a merchant ship that's sailing through rough, icy waters on. He's been sent to a foreign land that up until this point has shunned outsiders. Now all of a sudden they are opening their borders to the outside world, and he is both a representative of the trading company as well as a de-facto ambassador. A lot of responsibility has been placed on his shoulders. 

So the focus would be a combination of discussing the conditions of which he's sailing, as well as the responsibility that's been laid before them. Perhaps drawing parallels between the two.


----------



## Incanus (Nov 3, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> My opening scene is a man standing at the bow of a merchant ship that's sailing through rough, icy waters on. He's been sent to a foreign land that up until this point has shunned outsiders. Now all of a sudden they are opening their borders to the outside world, and he is both a representative of the trading company as well as a de-facto ambassador. A lot of responsibility has been placed on his shoulders.
> 
> So the focus would be a combination of discussing the conditions of which he's sailing, as well as the responsibility that's been laid before them. Perhaps drawing parallels between the two.



I like the idea of drawing parellels between the elements you mention.  Always good.  However, despite the cool setting (ship in icy waters), the 'action' of this opening simply has the man 'standing'.  In other words, the _ship _is doing something interesing, but the _man _is not.  Maybe give him something to do--I don't know what exactly, but if you can make it further relate to him or the main story, all the better.


----------



## Russ (Nov 3, 2015)

"Action" can be a funny word.

The plan I follow (derived from reading too many writing books, taking too many courses and talking about writing too much) is to start my book as close as possible to either "the initiating event" (the event that causes the plot) or as close as possible to the first turning point for the MC (the point where the MC gets committed to the main conflict).  If they are bot the same thing, all the better, but in many cases they are separated by time, sometimes centuries, sometimes minutes.


----------



## JCFarnham (Nov 4, 2015)

I do think that "begin with action!", as many have said before me, needs clarification. I also think that it's perfectly possible to introduce a character, in such a way as to make the reader feel for them, while that character engages in their high octane action.

There almost seems to be a division in common advice between "do action" and "create sympathy for character". Surely it's possible to do both concurrently, even if that action is an in media res fight scene (for examples sake)?

I'm not near my book shelf, so I can't come up with any examples right now, but my reading seems on the face of it to support my thoughts.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Nov 5, 2015)

Whoa, JC, where the hell have you been?  Welcome back!

Okay, back to the topic...

I think the worst thing a writer can do is open with something dull, and I think the worst of that is sort of similar to that Harry Potter opening (which admittedly, was probably meant to appeal to young readers, so it's not particularly an apt assessment on my part), but it's some version of:



> Bob hauled his six-foot frame out of his Corolla and stared into the night.  He'd seen something, lights in the sky, and was sure it was a UFO. His piercing blue orbs scanned the darkness--Ursa Minor, Orion. He glanced at the constellations present on the warm August night, and for a brief moment wondered again what he'd seen.



Like, OKAY, there's a question, but we've also got POV confusion, blatant tells, and focus on the wrong things.  This is a TERRIBLE opening, though it raises a question and technically might be considered "action".  And the worst part is that this kind of opening appears in books over and over again, and no matter how you slice it, it doesn't get any better just because a writer has a richer world, a more unique-looking character, or whatever.  In my opinion, it's less about how much action is going on, and more about the subtle conveyance of bigger-picture experiences conveyed in tone and word choice.  Someone mentioned immediacy (sorry, i'm not scrolling back to see who it was), and I think that's the nail on the head...um...hit?  anyways, IMMEDIACY is exactly the name of the game. I think it's fine if you don't show action, but then you need a character goal.  If you don't want to show the goal up front, then have a situation that's interesting, that gets readers asking questions. If you don't have a reader asking questions about a weird tower or whatever, then give them a great description of the underbelly of a decrepit city and let them wonder for a moment who lives there. I mean, none of it is wrong, but it has to be gripping, dammit!

So (and I know I'm rubbing folks the wrong way already, but meh, I have an opinion, and maybe it'll help someone else, so here it goes), consider instead of "action or description" (if you can simplify any opening into strictly one or the other), the quality of whatever you're trying to show.  

I think sometimes writers get caught up in the literal translation of certain advice snippets (someone mentioned "show and tell" earlier, and that's another perfect example), rather than reading between the lines more completely and getting a deeper understanding of the issue.

I don't think I've ever opened a story with anything resembling real action (akin to the Bond reference earlier), but I think some of my openings are really good.  Sometimes they begin with a question, but mostly, they show a little thing, a mini short story, and to me, that's the best way to open.  One small problem the character faces right from the beginning, and after that one experience is over, the larger story begins. I guess that's kinda hard to explain. This is the first paragraph of my new opening to a book I'm rewriting:



> Far away from Andruain’s mighty walled cities and hillside fortresses that keep the eerie monsters of the nighttime forest at bay, a raven perched above the city of Brazelton in the early hours of the morning. Her gaze fixed upon a singular curiosity–a gem so rare it pained her tiny heart to set eyes upon it. A creature that walked like a man, but whose aura glowed with a preternatural opalescence. Like a rushing river’s whorls of foam, the spirit of the newcomer blared in the darkness of the slum. His pace suggested he was in a hurry, and the raven, interest piqued, followed.


No action. Like, none.  And no action follows, either.  A guy is walking through the street, and he goes to his friend's house, and they have a conversation.  It sounds like a HUGE no-no. But to me, it works really well, because it isn't too big, or too small.  Like, sometimes I think writers bite off more than they can chew, and they try to rush right into a story that's going on in the present, when a couple paragraphs of context might have been a better choice.  On the converse, I think a lot more folks like to do a wide angle pan before they begin to close the distance to what the immediate situation actually even is (and for me, this is terribly boring).  And then there's writers who are filming, but the lens cap is on and they try to keep a reader in the dark, but it goes on too long (I might be stupidly guilty of that last one, especially, HA!). For me (and I can only talk about what I like to write and read), the opening needs to be pertinent descriptions, brief intros to important things, and most importantly, convey the book's tone. I know I've raved about The Lies of Locke Lamora like it's my first love and I'll never get over it no matter how many other books I read, but the opening paragraph is just SO GOOD, I can't praise it enough.  Yet, there are readers who disliked the entire opening and found it didn't appeal to them because it was in the past (compared to the rest of the story), and again, I'm just reminded that folks have different tastes...and let's be honest, some folks have no taste. 

Here it is:


> AT THE HEIGHT of the long wet summer of the Seventy-seventh Year of Sendovani, the Thiefmaker of Camorr paid a sudden and unannounced visit to the Eyeless Priest at the Temple of Perelandro, desperately hoping to sell him the Lamora boy.
> “Have I got a deal for you!” the Thiefmaker began, perhaps inauspiciously.


 I mean...I thought it was so good, I've read the opening chapter like a dozen times, just trying to understand why I felt it was so captivating, because captive was exactly what I was, from the beginning page until I finally put it down 200k words later.  I even had the computer on the counter while I was cooking dinner.  And I think the opening was the main reason I was riveted to my computer screen.  It just so fully pulled me in, I was helpless to resist its tug.

But if you try to sum it up, the main action is a page of a thief trying to sell a boy to a priest, and then it cuts to a long segment about how the children went to live with the thief, and then it cuts back to the negotiation, and then it goes back to Locke two years earlier and how he got to know the thief.  It's humorous, descriptive, and not filled with action.  

So, in short (right? After I wrote this long reply, I'm gonna give the condensed version now? HA!), I think action is relative, characters need context, as do immediate situations (if they are to be truly engaging to readers), and tone is overall the thing that either pulls me in or lets me know the write isn't half as committed to their story as I want to be right from the get-go (and I'll probably not enjoy the rest of the story). I think when writers display their talent like a strutting peacock all over the first chapter, I bite hook, line, and sinker, but when I get that wide angle pan feeling, I just sort of start skimming...and that's never what a writer wants.

That all being said, I've read plenty of stories I thought were awful.  Awful execution, every amateur mistake in the book, and just dull beyond dull...and some other folks love them. So, THERE ARE NO WRONG CHOICES. Action or contemplation, both can be very compelling and both have the ability to engage and captivate readers.  Just remember execution is the critical element in any book's opening.

P.S. I meant to post this last night, but found it this morning un-poted.  The conversation has probably moved on, but I thought I'd just hit post anyways.


----------



## kennyc (Nov 5, 2015)

A blog post I ran across on G+ about how NOT to start your novel. I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with any or all of it because as I've said before the main thing AFAIC is to invite the reader in to the waking dream, create interest, raise questions that get them to turn the page and continue reading, not through blatant shenanigans, but by sharing the dream with them.

https://writersanontaunton.wordpres...o-begin-your-novel-7-ways-to-kill-your-story/


----------



## Russ (Nov 5, 2015)

kennyc said:


> A blog post I ran across on G+ about how NOT to start your novel. I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with any or all of it because as I've said before the main thing AFAIC is to invite the reader in to the waking dream, create interest, raise questions that get them to turn the page and continue reading, not through blatant shenanigans, but by sharing the dream with them.
> 
> https://writersanontaunton.wordpres...o-begin-your-novel-7-ways-to-kill-your-story/



I had read that list before...but it is a good reminder.


----------



## FifthView (Nov 5, 2015)

Caged Maiden,

This was an _excellent_ example of a boring opening:



> Bob hauled his six-foot frame out of his Corolla and stared into the night. He'd seen something, lights in the sky, and was sure it was a UFO. His piercing blue orbs scanned the darkness--Ursa Minor, Orion. He glanced at the constellations present on the warm August night, and for a brief moment wondered again what he'd seen.



A good exercise for students would be to revise it to make it interesting without altering the essential facts (info) that it presents.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Nov 5, 2015)

Well, a challenge, then!  Do it!  I'll do it too.  Maybe we can open a new thread and see what we come up with. I love it.  I mean, that's exactly what I do when editing, I take my first draft (that looks exactly like the opening I made up) and change it to be engaging and focused on the right things. Thanks for understanding what I meant by calling it horrible, I worried folks would take offense at my example (because I read a ton of books with this exact opening), but I feel examples are so much more concrete than talking theory, which let's be honest, often gives a credible set of advice, but doesn't show a convincing sample of what bad and good are.  Now, I'm not saying my openings are the most engaging, because we all struggle with this from time to time, or forever...but when you can clearly take a sample paragraph and go "oops, there's a POV conflict, there's a weak tell of information rather than an experience, whoa, here's an unnecessary description that's neither engaging nor pertinent," it makes it so much easier to judge whether an opening paragraph opens the story to the reader or stands like a bouncer's stiff-arm, barring them entry.  I mean...doesn't a reader just want to come on in to the party?


----------



## FifthView (Nov 5, 2015)

@Caged Maiden:  I'm currently at my day job, and ought to be doing other things, but I'll think about that revision until I have a chance to focus.  My original comment arose because I had automatically started to revise it in my head when I read your post!  But I'm beset by distractions while sitting at my desk, mostly of the sort "I really need to get back to work!"


----------



## danr62 (Nov 5, 2015)

Caged, I like your opening. It definitely got my interest going. I'm wondering what's up with the weird gem, or the weird raven that sees auras, or that weird man thing with the weird aura, and where is it going? And why is the raven following?

On the other hand, I don't like the Locke Lamora opening all that much. It's not terrible, but it has too many names and terms that I don't have the context to understand.


----------



## JCFarnham (Nov 5, 2015)

Yeah, that Locke Lamora opening... I've got no idea whether I'm supposed to be impressed by the random names/"world building", or find humour in the ridiculous lengths it's been taken to.

Maybe I'm not on the right wave length to get it? Considering the writer I can pretty much understand why that's the opening. So, meh.

It does raise an interesting question though for me. Clearly, dependant on taste, an opening can go too far with the questions and mystery and end up confusing its message. To take another example, in the Locke Lamora excerpt, would it have be better to figure out an more action packed way for the thiefmaker to sell the boy than front loading the paragraph with detail that means literally nothing to us as of yet?

The real question is how far is too far? When does the detail start harming your "immediate" intro? Ymmv, right? But I definitely think that's something we should muse on when putting fingers to keyboard. Interesting prose is great, but for me something else has to also be communicated. It's like in multi-starred restaurants. "Looks great, but could do with more meat."


----------



## Caged Maiden (Nov 6, 2015)

I have to say that when I opened TLoLL, I was very confused by the world and the months (or how time passed, really, because I'm still not sure how that works), and the places (because every bridge and hill are named), but I like the way the author just assumes you know it all and it makes sense, rather than spending time on it.  Admittedly, reading it for the second or third time is a whole lot easier than the first, because i can now focus on some of those details, when the first time, I was more concerned with understanding the plot.  But now I know what happens, so I can sort of enjoy the skill a little more.  I WAS totally captivated the first read, though.

Thanks for liking my opening, Dan. I didn't post it expecting anyone to like it, I just wanted to say I never open with action, and that's a perfect example of how little action I usually begin with. I'm flattered.


----------



## JCFarnham (Nov 6, 2015)

It all depends on what you're going for as an author, what the reader prefers... Personally I'm not sure I have the time to spend on letting something to grow on me. 

Figuring that out went a long way towards figuring out what kind of openings I should be writing, action or not.

I will say this, I always appreciate when a writer assumes you know whats going on. I love to experience stories as though I were a fly on the wall, especially on tv and in film, but books also. But for me it still has to make sense.


----------



## kennyc (Nov 6, 2015)

"In our family, there was no clear line between religion and fly fishing."
 - Norman Maclean A River Runs through It


----------



## Helen (Nov 10, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> When people advise to make the opening of a book exciting with action, are they talking about literally having an action scene going on, like a car chase for instance; or are they talking about someone doing something in general rather than just a general opening narrative giving the reader some type of introduction to what's going on?
> 
> Like someone could be leaving the house and getting into their car, then driving off to wherever they need to go.
> 
> When I think of action I think of car chases, shootouts, etc.



Watch SPECTRE and a bunch of Bond movies. They seem to do this pretty well.


----------

