# Casting the Bait: What lure should I use and how should I use it?



## Heliotrope (Jun 22, 2017)

We have all heard the term "hook" when it comes to writing fiction. 

Make sure you have a hook in the first sentence, paragraph, chapter, first five pages, first thirty pages, whatever. 

But sometimes, when we look at real world examples, we find the books we love have hooked us a whisper, and some of the books we have put down started with an enormous bang.

So what constitute a good "hook" and how does one use it? 

Where should the hook take place? 

If the hook comes at the end of a long line, how do we_ lure_ the reader to keep reading until they get there?

How does micro-tension fit into all of this? What about voice? Humor? Writing style?


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 22, 2017)

My own personal opinion is that the "hook" is the big, over arching question in the back of the reader's mind that will take the entire novel to solve. 

Don't present a hook, then solve it in the next chapter. To me, the "hook" is the promise to the reader that "this will be a good story." "This will be an interesting mystery." Don't answer the question until almost the very last page. 

An example of a "hook" for me would be: 

_What gigantic monster just devoured that park worker, and how will they stop it?_ - Jurassic park. 

_Will the inhabitants of Westeros be able to figure out who belongs on the Iron Throne before winter comes and the White Walkers destroy them all? _ - Game of Thrones 

_How will Moana return Tephiti's heart to her and restore life to her island?_ - Moana

_Will this strange and magical British Nanny be able to save this falling apart family?_ - Mary Poppins 

_Will this Orphan boy ever get revenge on the evil Wizard who killed his parents?_ - Harry Potter

These are all large, over arching questions which take THE ENTIRE FILM or novel to solve. To me, this is the "hook". 

Anything else, all the little bits of microtension or tense scenes or turns of phrase, are all lures. Small little sparkly things that keep leading us along. But really, we read because we want to know the answer to the large, over arching story question. 

This is what I think editors/agents mean when they say "The hook isn't big enough." I think they mean the story question isn't big enough. Not interesting enough. It doesn't matter. Not big enough stakes or emotional investment. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 22, 2017)

Oh, and Dem, my opinion on Name of the Wind was that it was a  pretty string of lures which did not meet my expectation on delivering on the hook. Therefore, I liked reading it, but hated the story and wouldn't read it again.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 22, 2017)

There are just different types of hooks. When people say hook, they often mean first line/paragraph, they might mean the last line, whatever keeps you reading for that moment. But as you suggest, there is another hook. In The Story Grid, Coyne (if I recall correctly) uses the term hook for the first act... this is probably more accurate for how think of the greater story hook. If no hook is set by the end of act 1, yer screwed! See my trying to read Rothfuss. This is where lures, or the screenwriting term I like, plates in the air come into play... these are the questions/microtensions that keep me reading.

EDIT: Here's another point that causes problems for me. In books on writing, such as Stein on Writing, he (they) often list great opening lines, and while I don't see a flaw with most of them, and some are good, my typical response to them is very neutral, and even "meh". So, the power of the first line is really about how the novel paid off that opening, not how good the opening actually is.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 22, 2017)

If pretty lure is his prose, I'll grudgingly concede, the guy can write better than many. I never felt the hook, so there's no way it could deliver. I might eventually read it, because I am curious. And I did buy it twice for the purpose of study... And I'd rather read War and Peace again, and it was not my fave.



Heliotrope said:


> Oh, and Dem, my opinion on Name of the Wind was that it was a  pretty string of lures which did not meet my expectation on delivering on the hook. Therefore, I liked reading it, but hated the story and wouldn't read it again.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 22, 2017)

Yeah, I felt like the "Hook" was (and It's been a while) something about some bad guy who murdered his parents in his "troupe" who was looking for something (I can't remember what.) 

So I read the entire book waiting for Kvothe to learn magic so he could avenge the bad guy.... but nothing happened. He went to magic school and fought a dragon and he did not deliver on the promise he made to me (the reader) at the beginning. It felt like an enormous waste of time and a huge let down. 

The "Hook" for me was the bad guy who orphaned him. It was never explained or mentioned again.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 22, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> The "Hook" for me was the bad guy who orphaned him. It was never explained or mentioned again.



This issue arises often with novels that are not stand-alone or self-contained stories. Kvothe continues to look for this person, from what I recall, and I suspect we'll see that wrapped up in book 3, probably at the very end, so that the three books together complete the arc.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 22, 2017)

Yeah, I made it to that point, and that's where the story (Finally! and I hate the word finally, but it fits here, heh heh) got interesting for a little while. He got beat up in the city and I was curoius. Then Rothfuss just goobered everything up. When a character (in 3rd) begins to recite his life (in 1st) and while in 1st recounts another person's 3rd person tale, and seeing as I wasn't hooked at all to tolerate this... I was gone baby gone... I think it was the second time he started telling a story of someone else telling a story. I couldn't take it anymore.

EDIT: My personal opinion is it should've been restructured and rewritten. I can't speak to the ending and promises, as Steerpike says, it's a book 1.



Heliotrope said:


> Yeah, I felt like the "Hook" was (and It's been a while) something about some bad guy who murdered his parents in his "troupe" who was looking for something (I can't remember what.)
> 
> So I read the entire book waiting for Kvothe to learn magic so he could avenge the bad guy.... but nothing happened. He went to magic school and fought a dragon and he did not deliver on the promise he made to me (the reader) at the beginning. It felt like an enormous waste of time and a huge let down.
> 
> The "Hook" for me was the bad guy who orphaned him. It was never explained or mentioned again.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 22, 2017)

Here's a big IF, since Helio's memory might be imperfect, but if it's "never mentioned again" and it is the final payoff for book 3, that in itself would be an issue. Callbacks and foreshadow should keep things moving in that direction.



Steerpike said:


> This issue arises often with novels that are not stand-alone or self-contained stories. Kvothe continues to look for this person, from what I recall, and I suspect we'll see that wrapped up in book 3, probably at the very end, so that the three books together complete the arc.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 22, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Here's a big IF, since Helio's memory might be imperfect, but if it's "never mentioned again" and it is the final payoff for book 3, that in itself would be an issue. Callbacks and foreshadow should keep things moving in that direction.



It does come up again. At the end of the first book, Kvothe is still looking for this guy, and I'd say kind of obsessed with him for obvious reasons. He goes off to investigate some other killings that he thinks are related, which I think turns out to be true. He's gathering clues related to it, and if I remember correctly it turns out the second killings were basically for the same reason his parents were killed.

It has been a while since I read it, but I think that's pretty accurate. I can't say what happens in the second book, as I haven't read it.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 22, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> My own personal opinion is that the "hook" is the big, over arching question in the back of the reader's mind that will take the entire novel to solve.
> 
> Don't present a hook, then solve it in the next chapter. To me, the "hook" is the promise to the reader that "this will be a good story." "This will be an interesting mystery." Don't answer the question until almost the very last page.



Now I'm wishing I'd saved one of my last comments in that other thread for this thread. 

I'd mentioned there that the log line is a good example of a hook. Maybe not as written, but rather in the types of things included. A character we'll care about, conflict, stakes, general premise.

In a way, this is like the question that so obsessed the viewers of _The Truman Show_:






Before that question can become important to us, we need some idea of character, conflict, stakes.

In the other thread, I'd used the example of opening a novel with some high-octane action. A swordfight to the death between two men, and we happen to be in the head of one of those men. If this character is new to us, we can't really care much about him unless a lot of character is built into that scene. The stakes? Someone we don't know might die; but then again, swordfights in fantasy novels always have that generic stake. The conflict? Heh, we might not have a clue as to why they are fighting. So it's not really a great hook. Perhaps it can be a lure if written well.*

Instead, maybe we need some time to introduce the character, the milieu, the scope/consequences of stakes, and so forth: a context for the hook. Put our POV character into a swordfight after these things, and that might be a far better hook, or part of the hook—as long as it's tied into that larger question of the whole story. Maybe it's that fight that brings all these elements together, into focus. (This would be a story-specific example though.)

We could also do a roll-out of those elements of the hook rather than generally introducing characters and milieu and having those things coming to a head in a single moment.  I like D.'s mention of having a whole act as a hook. It could be a whole prologue. Five pages. At some point, these elements may combine to give us the whole hook, but not in a single sentence heh.

None of this is to say that lures are, by comparison, unimportant. I rather think they are incredibly important.

Edit: Incidentally, Svrtnsse also mentioned "the promise" made to the reader, in the other thread. I can't help thinking that making that promise is important to building the hook.

*Edit#2: And perhaps the swordfight can be a great opening hook, if these important elements are baked into it, written into it. The example was just a top-of-the-head stereotypical "in media res" action scene that can often fail as a hook.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 22, 2017)

I think I'll just add this bit here, from that other thread.

I've been mulling the question in that thread: How soon should you present the hook?

For me, when considering that question in light of the hook vs lures distinction, I began to wonder what all that stuff _before_ the hook is; what's the purpose of the delay?

I think that maybe that stuff's essentially the context for the hook, the time necessary for introducing the important elements of the hook. And I wrote this:

How much time is needed to establish the context for the hook might vary. For a short story, you'll have much less time overall than you'd have for a novel, so introducing the character, the milieu, the conflict, the stakes will need to be accomplished early. If a novel has a fairly straightforward, simple plot, you might be able to introduce the hook without much contextual building first, especially if the characters are already familiar:_ When Gimli and Legolas decided to do an off-Broadway production of Cats, little did they know they'd be killing Tribbles._ Other types of stories might require more before the hook, or the elements that'll combine for the hook might be rolled out more slowly.​
So, taking a stab at this...format (short story, novel), complexity/simplicity of the plot/story/theme, maybe even personal style and target audience might play into the decision. (BTW, I'm not really sure that first line for Gimli & Legolas's adventure is a fully formed hook, heh. No real stakes mentioned. I might work that into the next sentence or two.)


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 22, 2017)

Yes, I think, more and more, that that "promise" _is_ the hook. 

Let's pretend I pick up a book at the library. It has a black cover with the image of an open bank vault. The vault is empty save for a burned piece of paper. 

The title of the book is "The Monogram Cipher".... Or something. 

I think "ohhhhhhh!" It's a mystery! 

Then I open the book and start reading. It is set in 1920. A duchess has lost her lands and is being charged for the murder of her husband and his lover, who she found together in her bed. She shot both of them. 

Or did she? 

One of the maids knows a secret. A secret that her family has held since the beginning of the estate five hundred years earlier. The key to the secret lays in the design of the families crest, which is monogrammed in various areas throughout the estate... 

Will the maid be able to discover the truth and help her mistress? Or will the entire estate be sold, with the secret still hidden inside? 

Ohhhhhhhhh! A hook! I'm in. I need to find out how this is all going to play out! 

Let's pretend, because it's me, there is a sexy groundskeeper or something so the writer has promised me a bit of romance as well. 

But then half way through we find out that the mansion has been over run by zombies, or aliens, and the groundkeeper gets killed right away, so no chance of romance, and NOT the story I was promised. 

M. Night Shayamalyan gets in trouble for this all the time. I personally really liked The Village, but a lot of people hated it. When I saw it in theaters people walked out because it was not what they had been promised. They had been promised a monster movie. A horror. They felt cheated. 

(*I had been dragged there by my horror loving husband, who was very disappointed. I hate horror so I was relieved, which is why I probably liked it so much lol). 

That is what happens when you don't deliver on your hook.

So I think Dem is right. Act 1 is the hook. The first 25% of the novel is setting up the hook. 

So in a novel that might be 25,000 words. 

In a short story of only 8 pages then it will be the first 2 pages.

Now, to start "in media res" with my above example, I might start the first chapter with the Duchess being interrogated for murder. Then I've set a _lure_. It's a nice, shiny, interesting beginning to get the readers involved and engaged and asking questions while I have time to set up the back story and the context and stab them through the throat with the actual _hook_ once they are invested in the character.


----------



## Aurora (Jun 22, 2017)

Hm. This is why I pants. I'm able to focus more on the tension of one character wants one thing, the other character wants another, and then there's the plot. The hook is so important because it fuels the story and everything stems from it: tension, char growth, mystery, irony, and so forth. It should be clear to the reader what the hook is from the beginning, first couple of pages. Everything else works together to keep the reader entangled. So the setting, characters, dialogue, decisions made, the in between. I cannot do this and outline. I can only do this when I have an idea for a book and go forward with it, but that's just my way. So long as you have a way that works for you it's all that counts.

It took me ages to understand the concept of a hook. Now I see it as what tropes are being used in what plot structure (master plots) and how the characters react to the plot. The tropes are the characters, created individually by a writer's fresh perspective and individuality.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 22, 2017)

Not only are there different types of hooks, but multiple hooks in any complex novel. I think this is why looking at the first act as the hook can be useful. Every plot and subplot needs a "lure/hook" to eventually form multiple promises/hooks, which will mostly fall into the First Act... making the 1st basically a great big hook.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 23, 2017)

This is great. It's getting me thinking on how to set up my wip from a hook/promise perspective.

My current WIP is a rather long series of shorter stories. They all involve the same characters and they're all parts of the same overarching story. 
What I'm thinking here is that in order to set up the reader's expectations right I need to make a promise in the first story and then deliver on that throughout the rest of the series. The promise is fairly simple (guy goes looking for his long lost love), but I think that in order to add some weight to the promise I need to get my readers better involved with my main character (the guy). 
To get my readers properly involved with the characters, I need them to read the first story, and for them to do that I need to hook them in some way. So I'll need two hooks (or two promises): one for the first story of the series, and one for the series as a whole.

For reference, here are the hooks/promises as I see them at the moment:
 - Story: Roy, a werewolf wrestling champion, is requested to lose his next big fight, but will his morals let him do that?
 - Series: Roy finds out that the love of his life (whom he thought years dead) is still alive, and he drops everything to travel across the world to see her.

These aren't super advanced or very inventive or original, but I feel they've got strength enough in their simplicity that I can hang up a lot of story on them.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 23, 2017)

I am not convinced that the story hook must be the entire first act. When you mentioned this earlier, I liked the idea because I thought it _could_ be the first act or require that much time to be presented. But if a short story's hook could be two pages, why not a novel's? Then again, a short story's first two pages might _be_ the first act of a short story, hah.

My current thinking is that the hook requires certain elements, and we only need as much time as necessary for establishing and presenting those elements. Different genres and different story archetypes may have different requirements.

I'm also not sure that thinking in terms of multiple hooks will be helpful, although it might be for some story types (not sure; just throwing the question out there.) I think we enter into a fuzzy realm when we consider simple presentation of the base elements of a hook vs the type of presentation that will make a reader care about those things. Character, conflict, stakes could be presented very quickly but in a way that doesn't make readers care very much about those things; so, how much time will we need to write those things in a manner that will engage? Adding to the fuzziness will be the use of recognizable tropes. Tropes by their nature are not only recognizable without much ado but also may quickly hit the right buttons to inspire interest/engagement for a reader.




Demesnedenoir said:


> Not only are there different types of hooks, but multiple hooks in any complex novel. I think this is why looking at the first act as the hook can be useful. Every plot and subplot needs a "lure/hook" to eventually form multiple promises/hooks, which will mostly fall into the First Act... making the 1st basically a great big hook.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 23, 2017)

Svrtnsse said:


> This is great. It's getting me thinking on how to set up my wip from a hook/promise perspective.



Yeah, this discussion is having the same effect on me re: my own WIP.

While I think discussing these things in the abstract is immensely fun—maybe I'm a writing nerd—practical application is really what I'm looking for, heh.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 23, 2017)

It may be useful to distinguish between types of hooks or lures when we're talking about an entire act of a book constituting a "hook." While I can see how an act can be structured that way, I'm not in favor of the first acting being "the" hook. 

Maybe it is just semantics, but I think of the words "hook" and "lure" as aspects of a book that entice me to try it and then convince me actually settle into reading it. If the author takes the entire first act to "hook" me, I'll be long gone. I'll give a novel a few pages at most. If something hasn't hooked me by then, it goes back on the shelf and I'll buy something else. 

Maybe we're just using the terminology differently.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 23, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Let's pretend, because it's me, there is a sexy groundskeeper or something so the writer has promised me a bit of romance as well.
> 
> But then half way through we find out that the mansion has been over run by zombies, or aliens, and the groundkeeper gets killed right away, so no chance of romance, and NOT the story I was promised.
> 
> ...



Introducing Shyamalan as a case history is interesting. I was actually listening to an old Writing Excuses podcast a day or two ago in which he was brought up exactly in this context, not delivering on promises. I think there may have been another element in that podcast. Shyamalan had this big mystery buildup and forced so much weight on what would happen in the third act, but the third act just kinda petered out and, on some level, was predictable. (I.e., the mystery wasn't some explosive reveal but just kinda one of those curling party horns, whatever they're called.)

Anyway....I do think we should distinguish the hook from the promise in one small way at least. Simply not delivering on a promise is not necessarily an indication that the hook-as-promise was bad. It might have been; perhaps there should have been a different promise/hook to begin with. But maybe it was a great hook and simply poor execution in the third act.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 23, 2017)

FifthView said:


> Introducing Shyamalan as a case history is interesting. I was actually listening to an old Writing Excuses podcast a day or two ago in which he was brought up exactly in this context, not delivering on promises. I think there may have been another element in that podcast. Shyamalan had this big mystery buildup and forced so much weight on what would happen in the third act, but the third act just kinda petered out and, on some level, was predictable. (I.e., the mystery wasn't some explosive reveal but just kinda one of those curling party horns, whatever they're called.)



The other thing Shyamalan suffers from is viewer expectation. I don't know if _The Sixth Sense_ was his first film, but it is the first one I can remember of his, and I think many people fall into that category. Every time he puts out a film, people not only expect a twist, they expect him to top, or at least match, _Sixth Sense_. I think this happens to authors as well, when they hit it out of the park with their first effort. You set your own bar in that way, and readers are going to be disappointed if you aren't perceived as meeting it in later works. Sometimes, the perception of failure to meet it can be due to something as simple as a change in style or approach to storytelling--doing something differently from what your readers loved initially. When you connect strongly with readers, they want to feel that again in your next book, and the next one after that. 

I think people want to feel the way they did in the_ Sixth Sense_ every time they watch a Shyamalan movie. Some of his later efforts seems to suffer from his trying to force the work to achieve that effect.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 23, 2017)

KM Weiland, a self publishing guru has a book out called "The Structuring Your Novel Workbook"... and I just happen to have the link to the PDF  

(link removed)

If you scroll through you will see her first chapter is entirely on what she calls "The Hook". She suggests that introducing this early question must be done in the first 1% of the novel by presenting the question almost in the first sentence, a bit like a "thesis statement". 

Have a read and let me know your thoughts....

And here is the link to the book accompaniment, where she goes deeper into depth... 

(link removed)


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 23, 2017)

lol "deeper into depth." 

I need another coffee.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 23, 2017)

@Heliotrope

I think those are good discussion points, and worth pursuing (I tend to agree with the approach). However, please don't link to infringing files of copyrighted work. Weiland is selling both of those books on Amazon, and, I suspect, elsewhere, and I doubt the linked copies are authorized. 

If you want to post a short excerpt for purposes of discussion, I think that's fine, but not the entire book. It is against forum rules, and we want to maintain a respect for the copyright of authors, since we're a community of authors.

If you believe those linked copies were authorized by the author, let me know and provide me with whatever information you have. I'll do some further investigation and can always restore them. From what I've looked at thus far, they don't appear to be authorized.

Thanks for your consideration--it is well appreciated!


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 23, 2017)

Juggling plates is a great analogy, but I also thought to add something to it. For those that don't know, the plates are story questions, and as a writer we're throwing them in the air, the audience is waiting for them to come down. The more there are, the more tension, so the theory goes. But this basic misses two things. First, the plates need to crash and shatter, not bounce like plastic... meaning they must matter to the reader and have dramatic potential. Breaking vs bouncing. Two, the plates must not defy gravity. They must come down. This is the writer making good on a simple promise: I will answer the questions I have you asking (or at least most of them). By continually raising and answering the small questions the writer builds trust that they will deliver the big answers later. 

I will use my WIP that's near finished in edit to show a weird plate that not everybody will even pay attention to. This is the sort of stuff I love as a reader and writer, kind of like Hodor.

Chapter 1, first scene opens with priests and monks gambling with dice in a cave. Most readers will just go with the flow, but folks like me think, what's the point of this scene? It's the first scene, a POV intro, and I create a feel for this character being a bit like Two-Face. He isn't just a gambler, he sometimes rolls dice to let fate decide which path he takes. So, if I were reading I'd think that question was answered, but in reality it's all about one roll of the dice where he almost wins the entire pot, but loses. Page 6, and the payoff is like on page 513. It's a plate that will crash that readers probably won't know is even in the air, and that sends more plates in the air continuuing into book 2. Some people might even miss it. It's this sort of thing that makes writing fun and thinking of things in terms of plates in the air gives a little imagery zing in plotting them for me. And when it makes the editor say, whoah, or nice, or holy heck, it's even better, heh heh.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 23, 2017)

Ah shoot! They used to be authorized and posted for free from her website, which is why I have the links, but they may have been removed? Anyway, thanks for the heads up Steerpike! I'll post excerpts instead


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 23, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Ah shoot! They used to be authorized and posted for free from her website, which is why I have the links, but they may have been removed? Anyway, thanks for the heads up Steerpike! I'll post excerpts instead



Thanks for letting me know, Heliotrope. I went to her website to see if they were still there, thinking I'd just change the link to those versions if so. Looks like she's selling them even there, so she must have decided not to release them for free anymore. Thanks for your understanding


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 23, 2017)

There're lots of explanations for M. Night and none fot hem are good, heh heh. He got carte blanch on his next several movies, unheard of, and he believed his own press, I suspect. Expectations were a problem, naturally, but so were the stories. And, well, those are hard stories to pull off.



Steerpike said:


> The other thing Shyamalan suffers from is viewer expectation. I don't know if _The Sixth Sense_ was his first film, but it is the first one I can remember of his, and I think many people fall into that category. Every time he puts out a film, people not only expect a twist, they expect him to top, or at least match, _Sixth Sense_. I think this happens to authors as well, when they hit it out of the park with their first effort. You set your own bar in that way, and readers are going to be disappointed if you aren't perceived as meeting it in later works. Sometimes, the perception of failure to meet it can be due to something as simple as a change in style or approach to storytelling--doing something differently from what your readers loved initially. When you connect strongly with readers, they want to feel that again in your next book, and the next one after that.
> 
> I think people want to feel the way they did in the_ Sixth Sense_ every time they watch a Shyamalan movie. Some of his later efforts seems to suffer from his trying to force the work to achieve that effect.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 23, 2017)

It is an it isn't, the story hook being discussed isn't really just one thing. But I guarantee that for me as a reader, I'm not hooked by pretty words, or a single event, I'm hooked by a series of events... questions that get answered and raise more questions that I'm interested in. What the hook is is a matter of perspective and naming convention.



FifthView said:


> I am not convinced that the story hook must be the entire first act. When you mentioned this earlier, I liked the idea because I thought it _could_ be the first act or require that much time to be presented. But if a short story's hook could be two pages, why not a novel's? Then again, a short story's first two pages might _be_ the first act of a short story, hah.
> 
> My current thinking is that the hook requires certain elements, and we only need as much time as necessary for establishing and presenting those elements. Different genres and different story archetypes may have different requirements.
> 
> I'm also not sure that thinking in terms of multiple hooks will be helpful, although it might be for some story types (not sure; just throwing the question out there.) I think we enter into a fuzzy realm when we consider simple presentation of the base elements of a hook vs the type of presentation that will make a reader care about those things. Character, conflict, stakes could be presented very quickly but in a way that doesn't make readers care very much about those things; so, how much time will we need to write those things in a manner that will engage? Adding to the fuzziness will be the use of recognizable tropes. Tropes by their nature are not only recognizable without much ado but also may quickly hit the right buttons to inspire interest/engagement for a reader.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 23, 2017)

Ok, so excerpt from The Structuring Your Novel Workbook... 

She agrees that the "hook" needs to be a very specific question: 

_You’ve created a hook only when you’ve convinced readers to ask the general question, “What’s going to happen?”because you’ve first convinced them to ask a very specific question._

Some of the examples she gives are: 

 • What scary reptilian monster killed the worker?
 (Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton)

 • How does a city hunt?
 (Mortal Engines by Philip Reeve)

• Who is the one child who will never grow up?
 (Peter Pan by J.M. Barrie)

She then goes on to give examples of ways these questions have been raised in first lines explicitly: 

• “Where now? Who now? When now?”
(The Unnamable by Samuel Beckett)

• “Now that I’ve found the way to fly, which direction should I go
into the night?”
(Matched by Ally Condie)

• “This is really Earth?”
(Angels at the Table by Debbie Macomber)

And also implicitly: 

• *“I am an invisible man.”*
(Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison)
Implicit Question: How is that possible—and why?

• *“Through the fence, between the curling flower spaces, I could
see them hitting.”*
(The Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner)
Implicit Question: Who is hitting what—and why?

• *“There was a boy called Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost
deserved it.”*
(The Voyage of the Dawn Treader by C.S. Lewis)
Implicit Question: How could anyone possibly deserve that name?


Notice how all the examples sort of set up the entire story question right from the very first line, almost like a "thesis sentence" in an essay? Obviously the story about the Invisible Man is going to be dealing about his invisible-ness. Obviously the story about Eustace Scrubb is going to be about how the boy changes from deserving his name to perhaps learning a lesson. 

Thoughts on this approach?


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 23, 2017)

Prime examples of what people call "great" opening lines that I consider "meh". Faulkner and Lewis are the two I like best. But, have to take up more chat on that later, heh heh. Running!



Heliotrope said:


> Ok, so excerpt from The Structuring Your Novel Workbook...
> 
> She agrees that the "hook" needs to be a very specific question:
> 
> ...


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 23, 2017)

I'm still a bit shaky on the concept/definition of _lures_ here (I'm also unfamiliar with mini tension). Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lure is a little bit like a hook in that it keeps a reader reading, but it's not a hook in its own right?

Perhaps it's something that adds depth or weight to the promise?
Little tidbits of information. Hints about the eventual resolution, or threats about further complications.

_Mini tension _then, is that tension caused by interesting situations that don't have any direct impact on the hook/promise?


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 23, 2017)

I'm still working out hooks and lures too  

But microtension, as I understand it, is as simple as how you shape your sentences. 

So, when describing a room I might say: 

_The rug was worn in a direct path to the dresser, where he obviously kept the only items he needed; a warm pair of coveralls and a pair of threadbare socks. Being a farmer there was not much use for finery, and so the rug beneath the wardrobe, where I know he stored his black silk suit, all wrapped in tissue and smelling of mothballs, appeared almost brand new. Today, however, I knew he had entered the wardrobe because the tell tail sign of toes and a heel lay imprinted on the vacuumed fibres. _

Meh. Bland. We don't get to anything interesting until the end. 

Microtension is a way of rearranging sentences so that you start with tension right away and keep it flowing through the paragraph. 

_There was something off about the carpet in his bedroom. Usually worn in a direct path to the dresser containing his work clothes, today a smattering of foot prints dotted the spaces off the beaten path, usually untouched except, unnecessarily, by the vacuum cleaner.  His large foot prints stopped directly beneath his wardrobe, which I knew only meant one thing. There was only one thing in that wardrobe he could have needed. Something that had been buried for a long time. I peaked inside the dusty space and saw it was true. The ancient black silk suit was gone. Only the tissue remained, the brown string torn and fraying. In that moment I knew that my mother must really be dead. _

So you set up the question in the reader's mind right away: 

"There was something different about the carpet in the bedroom." 

Almost like a tiny paragraph hook.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 23, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> But microtension, as I understand it, is as simple as how you shape your sentences.





Got it. This makes sense.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 23, 2017)

I feel that I'm hooked if I'm already invested in a character and that character's general context/milieu. In the latter, something of the conflict and stakes will be located or suggested.

The first chapter of the first Harry Potter book is a decent example. It's basically a prologue. First we have Harry's uncle, and we learn of the uncle's attitude toward the wizarding world. Then we have Dumbledore and McGonagall who are being forced (even if D is making the decision) to leave the babe with "muggles like that." (Paraphrase.) So this is basically establishing the conflict, these two worlds at odds and the boy straddling them. I don't think I can say the hook is fully established, because we don't know much about Harry as a person at this point, he's just a babe being placed on a doorstep who already is becoming known as The Boy Who Lived. That phrase is also setting up the central question and hints at a larger conflict. So maybe we need the next chapter to understand better the situation he's facing (stuck with those muggles) and his own character. Or do we need more chapters to become fully acquainted with the implications of "The Boy Who Lived"?

This is where the fuzziness happens for me. With the first chapter, a lot of what I'd need to become hooked is already presented, although more is going to be fleshed out in the next however many chapters. I don't think a hook needs to be explicit; it, itself, doesn't contain the answers to the questions it raises, heh.

But there are many other question-answers throughout a book. For the longest time, Harry thought Snape was behind the shenanigans happening in the novel. Who's behind it? Turns out it was Quirrell/Voldemort. But I don't think these are the story hooks. Cliffhangers aren't story hooks. Microtensions aren't story hooks. Lots of Q & A movements aren't story hooks. These are things that happen throughout a novel to build tension, force curiosity, etc.; but they are not the story hooks. Or maybe they are types of tiny hooks, the normal sorts of things that happen as a plot unfolds and characters run about trying to figure out what's happening and what they should do.  

Will Luke successfully hit the tiny target on the Death Star? Stay tuned.




Demesnedenoir said:


> It is an it isn't, the story hook being discussed isn't really just one thing. But I guarantee that for me as a reader, I'm not hooked by pretty words, or a single event, I'm hooked by a series of events... questions that get answered and raise more questions that I'm interested in. What the hook is is a matter of perspective and naming convention.


----------



## Creed (Jun 23, 2017)

Not here for super meaningful input, but on the subject of bait/hook/lures, here's a fantastic first paragraph from Lydia Davis' short story "The Center of the Story".


_“A woman has written yet another story that is not interesting, though it has a hurricane in it, and a hurricane usually promises to be interesting. But in this story the hurricane threatens the city without actually striking it. The story is flat and even, just as the earth seems flat and even when a hurricane is advancing over it, and if she were to show it to a friend, the friend would probably say that unlike a hurricane, this story has no center.”_


Pretty good hook, no? And meta.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 23, 2017)

For this conversation, it appears that lures are kind of the traditional hook, like the sentences above: They raise questions which hopefully the reader finds interesting. 

Microtensions are as the name applies, but here they could be called microlures, heh heh. These are little questions often answered in the same paragraph or at least soon after being raised.

I will define hook as this: the point at which the reader has committed to reading the book, what we could call, hooked! How original is that?

To me there are a series of lures (micro and macro) that keep me nibbling as a reader-fish, then at some point, I'm hooked. BUT hooked is not the end of the game, you still need to get me into boat or net... the end of the book. 

So, since there isn't a single hook moment (IMO) I will contend that the hook is hopefully set by the inciting incident, but it could be set as late as the hero accepting their quest to answer the great question of the novel... wherever the MC makes the ultimate decision that changes the course of their life/story, or for simplicity, Act 1. The compilation of ACT 1 must have me hooked, or I'm only reading it for study purposes. Hopefully it's set before then, but! so long as the lures keep me moving, you've got a shot.

No idea if this babble makes any sense, LOL.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 23, 2017)

There's a hook in Potter? I suppose I saw lures, but they were squishy worms not even alive anymore. No pizza... mm, pizza.

Sorry, couldn't resist taking a shot at Harry.



FifthView said:


> I feel that I'm hooked if I'm already invested in a character and that character's general context/milieu. In the latter, something of the conflict and stakes will be located or suggested.
> 
> The first chapter of the first Harry Potter book is a decent example. It's basically a prologue. First we have Harry's uncle, and we learn of the uncle's attitude toward the wizarding world. Then we have Dumbledore and McGonagall who are being forced (even if D is making the decision) to leave the babe with "muggles like that." (Paraphrase.) So this is basically establishing the conflict, these two worlds at odds and the boy straddling them. I don't think I can say the hook is fully established, because we don't know much about Harry as a person at this point, he's just a babe being placed on a doorstep who already is becoming known as The Boy Who Lived. That phrase is also setting up the central question and hints at a larger conflict. So maybe we need the next chapter to understand better the situation he's facing (stuck with those muggles) and his own character. Or do we need more chapters to become fully acquainted with the implications of "The Boy Who Lived"?
> 
> ...


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 23, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> I will define hook as this: the point at which the reader has committed to reading the book, what we could call, hooked! How original is that?



Or maybe the point at which the reader has committed to giving the book a chance? There isn't really a point at which I'm committed to reading a book in its entirety. If I'm 3/4 of a way into a book and it starts to suck (or just stops holding my interest), I'm going to move on. The book "hooks" me when I decide "OK, I'm going to buy this and give it a shot." If there's not something to do that in the first handful of pages, I'm not going to buy the book unless it is an author I know I already like a lot (in which case I'll just buy it without really even looking).


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 23, 2017)

Ok, so it appears we need multiple hooks, of multiple sizes, with multiple lures and a heavy dose of microtension to keep things going until the very end. 

So lets get practical here... 

What does that look like? 

Donald Maas suggests "tension on every page". And by that he means "reader tension". Make sure there is a hook on every page. He even suggests, when the manuscript is "done" to print it out, throw it in the air, collect all the pages out of order, and then read through it. Check to make sure there is tension on every page. If there isn't, find a way to add it in. 

So what does that mean? How do we put a hook on every page (if that is your goal?) 

Let's get into practical application.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 23, 2017)

@Heliotrope:

How is he using the phrase "reader tension?"

I wonder whether that advice applies more to one type of books than another. When I read Lee Child or Michael Connelly, I expect tension on every page, and that's what the authors deliver. If I'm reading Lord of the Rings, or a Steven Erikson novel, for example, I don't expect it and I'm not sure I want it. Maybe Maas is talking about something different from what I'm thinking about.

I feel that a lot of writing books are geared toward writing best-selling reads of the type you'd take to the beach with you. Fast-paced thrillers, for example. And I like those kinds of books. But while the advice might work in other types of novels as well, I don't think it is required in them in the same way it is in those thrillers. If you're reading the types of books I envision Maas talking about, you're going to expect to see tension on every page and feel let down if it's not there. But for other types of books it may be neither expected nor wanted.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 23, 2017)

Right, so that's why I said "If that is your goal". Otherwise, what are some other strategies?


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 23, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Right, so that's why I said "If that is your goal". Otherwise, what are some other strategies?



Yep  I'm wondering if that is something Maas thinks should be every writer's goal?

For me, I like every page to be interesting, of course. It doesn't have to be tension. It can be further plot or character development, or even just interesting writing. I think working with character development is one of the best ways to pull reader interest along, assuming you've created some kind of connection between the reader and the character. If the reader cares about the character and what is happening to her, then even what might appear to be relatively mundane scenes can be interesting if they're further fleshing out a character or addressing some form of conflict she has.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 23, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Let's get into practical application.



So for me, it's not about deconstructing every imaginable span in a book. Page to page, chapter to chapter, sentence to sentence, and how to draw a reader through all these spans. 

Those are valuable things to know, heh, but when I focus on trying to understand if there's a definable "story hook," then call it what you will, I'm only looking at what I need to do sometime before Act 2 and when I need to do it for any given story.

So back to distinguishing between "hook" and "promise."  

As far as I'm concerned, the hook's only purpose is to present a kind of Rubicon, heh. There's no turning back.

For me as writer, this means that once I've established X, Y, Z, then X, Y, Z are established and everything I do after that point will be defined by these, come whatever twists and turns might come.

For the reader, this point might become a promise–it probably will–but the success of the promise (to be fulfilled) is irrelevant to the success of the hook, if that makes sense. Basically, if the reader's read long enough to discover that the story fails because the promise wasn't fulfilled, then the hook was still a success!  Heh.

Take your example from earlier, but a little simplified. Let's say you've built up the idea that this is going to be a romance between Character A and Character B, but 2/3's the way through Act 2, suddenly you have zombies appearing and Character B is killed, and the story is now a horror novel or some kind of heroic fantasy where Character A turns into a zombie hunter. You've failed to deliver on the promise for the reader–but the hook worked!  Heh.

But as a writer, I need to know the practical application. I need to know how to establish that promise and when to establish it. I need to know how to tell the reader that this is going to be an X, Y, Z kind of story (and those variables may be specific character, general conflict, stakes, whatever; probably, something about the subgenre and story archetype might be revealed by these things also, heh.) I also need to know the best way to do this for any particular story I write, and I suspect that different story types and target audiences might require different approaches.

Now, there's no perfect hook. Despite a huge fanbase, not everyone's going to love _HP & the Sorcerer's Stone_ or _The Name of the Wind_. But I do think there's a point in a novel, a kind of Rubicon, where you can basically place all the cards on the table so any prospective reader will know what they're in for–or at least have a good idea. And it's okay for some reader not to be hooked. Doesn't mean there isn't a hook. But in order for any _one_ reader to become hooked, that reader needs to know what it's all going to be about, heh. Then let the reader choose whether to continue.

I think we've been discussing these things as if there _are_ perfect hooks, hah, universal shiny things that no one can possibly resist. Or else, as if we need to find ways to trick readers into biting, or to not realize that they've bitten the hook. I do think we need to make persuasive arguments for our story (and what is the lead up to the hook if not a persuasive argument, heh?) so knowing how to best present our story is also a good thing.


----------



## Incanus (Jun 23, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> @Heliotrope:
> 
> How is he using the phrase "reader tension?"
> 
> ...



I'm so glad someone brought up this idea.  I think this is an important point.

When it comes to best-selling thriller types, you probably can't do better than follow the Donald Maass ideas.  But, I've been noticing how a lot of it doesn't apply very well to the novel I'm working on, which falls squarely into the fantasy-adventure category.  It's very 'genre'.  For lack of a better demographic (or term to describe it), I'd say my book would appeal first and foremost to 'fantasy nerds'.

I've been re-reading (on and off) the Malazan books by Erickson, and if they displayed the 'tension on every page' thing, they would be entirely different books, and probably not the better for it.  Much of what I read is like this, which is why Donald Maass often doesn't ring true to me.

The idea of 'too much of a good thing' might apply to tension.  Do you want to create drama, or melodrama?  Tension is necessary, of course, but it has the possible pitfall of feeling artificial, if not handled well.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 23, 2017)

Maas refers to microtension, which is different than simple tension. His thoughts apply to literary, not just thriller or something.

EDIT: And yes it could be taken too far in a hamfisted sort of way. But what he says makes sense if it's applied rationally... at least as I recall, been a while.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 24, 2017)

I looked up, via Google, what Maas is talking about. It makes more sense in a certain way, but I'm still not sure I'd apply it to every novel. However, I'm not one to apply any piece of advice to every situation. Part of what is great about literature is the diversity.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 24, 2017)

I don't think there is a way to "literally" follow this sort of advice all the time, except in a very specific novel maybe. But microtension can be so subtle you don't know it's there. The bigger issue is when writers miss the opportunity for microtension... this can also relate to issues with cause-effect, or simply zero-conflict, or from talking heads, or on-the-nose dialogue, or from... lots of things. Every novel(ist) uses it, it's a given. 

If you look at The Hobbit, and the dwarves start coming for a visit, lots of writers (you see this a lot when people start setting up their books) might have the dwarves show up and we have a civil meeting where Bilbo says I'm your hobbit for the job! But nope, Bilbo doesn't know what the hell is going on. These dwarves are showing up, they're eating him out of house and home, he's worried about his plates and dishes, and everything else. Microtension is everywhere in there, but nothing really dangerous, mostly humerous. Great stuff! 

Here's a total classic: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times... microtension on the question, what makes it this way?

Microtension can be as simple as two people having a conversation and they agree 100% (also too common in young writers) compared to one doubting the other person's judgment. Or, it can be how a sentence is structred, making sure cause comes before effect or vice-versa if that works.



Steerpike said:


> I looked up, via Google, what Maas is talking about. It makes more sense in a certain way, but I'm still not sure I'd apply it to every novel. However, I'm not one to apply any piece of advice to every situation. Part of what is great about literature is the diversity.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 24, 2017)

Novels use microtension, yes. The advice is that it should be on every page, and I don't agree. Unless you define microtension so broadly that it encompasses everything a writer might do, in which case its usefulness as a concept diminishes substantially.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 24, 2017)

*When, in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes,*

_(Huh, what's going on here?)_

*I all alone beweep my outcast state,* 

_(Ok, he weeps when he's feeling disgraced and unfortunate in his life, but what's he saying?)_

*And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,
And look upon myself, and curse my fate, 
Wishing me like to one more rich in hope, 
Featur'd like him, like him with friends possess'd,
Desiring this man's art and that man's scope, 
With what I most enjoy contented least; 
Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising,*

_(Every line more of the same–but different. Getting a picture of that total state, but where's this going?)_

*Haply I think on thee,* _(AHA, when he's feeling like all ^that above, he thinks on her/him)_ *and then my state,* _(What? What happens when he thinks on her/him?)
_
*Like to the lark at break of day arising *

_(Well, it's like a lark arising at dawn...)_

*From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven's gate;*

_(Ah, all that sullen state mentioned in first 9 lines "rises," sings, praises heaven...)_

*For thy sweet love remember'd such wealth brings*

_(He's explaining what he's just said; but remembering such love does what...?)_

*That then I scorn to change my state with kings. *

_(He's basically chiding himself for every time he fell into a puddle of self-pity, while declaring that she/he has always been the antidote. Also: Her/his love is more valuable than everything else–to him.)
_
___________

Microtension.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 24, 2017)

Followup to the Shakespeare example....

I think that the root of microtension has something to do with the rollout of information. Information given doesn't give a final answer to what's happening but may add to the picture. What is the significance of this info? Where's it going? –questions a reader might have, although much of the time those aren't _consciously_ asked.

It's a difference between on-the-nose, straight forward delivery of narrative and a style that delays gratification for however long, heh.

Shakespeare's sonnet is something of an extreme example; I'll chalk that up to the nature of poetry. But the same principle applies in prose.

One might do the same extreme sort of manipulation of the prose for an entire story that Shakespeare does in the sonnet, but I think it'd be hard to pull off successfully, and a poor execution could easily annoy a reader.

The general idea is to keep a reader wanting to read forward, to find out where things are going. Even beyond the use of microtension is the rollout of other types of information. E.g., in the mystery novel, the drip-drip-drip of clues, the introduction of new characters who aren't seen _completely_ at first that leaves a reader wondering whether this new person might be the killer, and so forth. Another example: The cliffhanger. What's going to happen on the next page?

Even when something _does_ come to completion, the completed state might introduce new questions about what comes after. Let's say you've spent 2 or 3 chapters getting your characters to the magical artifact they were commanded to secure by the king. Last paragraphs of that span, MC grabs the artifact and tells everyone they need to get back, and everyone's relieved their mission is complete. Reader sighs, because the characters have fought through a lot of obstacles to get to this point. But...what's going to happen now that the artifact has been secured? How's it going to change things? (Presumably, you've already suggested that securing this artifact was a necessity; it has some purpose.) If the MC's hand starts to glow and he falls to the earth writhing in pain when he grabs the artifact, and the glow begins to move throughout his body, heh, you've introduced a whole new can of worms. I.e., questions concerning what will follow.

So....different things can be done to delay gratification, introduce cans of worms, whatever. Where you don't use one, maybe you should be using others. The "tension" of wanting to know where things are going may not need to be the sharp-edged variety Shakespeare used in that sonnet, or not extend for such a length.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 24, 2017)

Ok, so not sure this works, but I'm on a roll...

*Allure*

A clue, a hint, a lure:
A straight path or detour?

Once the readers itch,
Do you bait-and-switch
Or offer up the cure?

If the hook's anodyne,
The tension of the line
Makes moot the fishy's twitch,
The splashing of the brine.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 24, 2017)

Practical application time for me here. 

I want to hook my reader into the first story, and I want to use the first story to set up a promise for what the rest of the series is going to be about.

The hook is relatively easy: _Will Roy lose the match as he's been requested to, or will he win it?_ (kinda like in Pulp Fiction).
I'm confident I can set up the hook and establish that as the premise of the story within the first few paragraphs.

The promise is trickier: This story is about a man who drops everything to travel across the world to be with the woman he loves.

How to set that up?
I need to establish that Roy's still hung up on Toini (the woman) in a big way, even though he's thought her dead for nearly a decade (yes, he's got issues).

I think that through the story about the match I'll be able to show parts of Roy's personality that will support the promise. He's stubborn and bitter, but still clings to some kind of moral code where he tries to do what he thinks right. 
What I want the reader to understand is that in addition to being hung up on Toini, he's also fed up with his life as a fighter and he wants to retire and live out the rest of his life in peace and quiet. On top of that, he's got a dark secret relating to Toini.

I'm hoping I'll be able to show the above through Roy's interactions with the people around him: his coach and manager, as well as his opponent in the upcoming fight. I've got ideas for things I want to try, but they're still pretty vague - hunches and feelings rather than detailed solutions.

Through it all, setting up the promise will also have to encourage the reader to keep going on the story at hand (the fight).

I don't yet know what to do, but I know I haven't thought about story in this way in the past, and it's really interesting and helpful.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 24, 2017)

Most good writers will use microtension inherently and probably danged near every page and often multiple times per page. Maas didn't hit on the uber secret to all writing, it's been around for a long time, he's just trying to explain it in another way and gave it his own name. In modern writing, I'd be curious to see a page without microtension. I might have to poke into some books to see how long it takes to find a page without it. 

But it is not everything a writer can do, because one can certainly write without it. 



Steerpike said:


> Novels use microtension, yes. The advice is that it should be on every page, and I don't agree. Unless you define microtension so broadly that it encompasses everything a writer might do, in which case its usefulness as a concept diminishes substantially.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 25, 2017)

Hi everyone! I've been camping all weekend, but now I'm back  

Ok, I would argue that micro-tension on every page is actually MORE prevalent in literary fiction than genre fiction. I would argue that micro-tension is actually a tool of the literary writer because it is what he/she uses to keep the reader riveted to the most mundane scene. 

If I'm just limited to first lines (and I'll get to longer passages in a minute): 

_In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I've been turning over in my mind ever since._
- The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald 

*Remember, in the way we are discussion, _tension_ does not mean _conflict_. _Tension_ refers to "raising a question so the reader has to keep reading to find the answer." The above opening line is a perfect example. 

_Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendia was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice._
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude 

_Snowman wakes before dawn._
- Margaret Atwood, Oryx and Crake 

Pretty much 80% of my home library is literary fiction. That's what I prefer to read. Almost all of it has wonderful (I'd say better than genre) examples of micro-tension. Artful examples. Literary authors are masters at doling out microtension and making you not even realize it is there. 

I'll pull out a longer description. Now remember, this is _literary fiction_. It is harder to read than genre fiction, and to many may appear "boring"... however, look for the masterful examples of microtension: 

_It was inevitable: the scent of bitter almonds always reminded him of the fate of unrequited love. Dr. Juvenal Urbino noticed it as soon as he entered the still darkened home where he had hurried on an urgent call to attend a case that for him had lost all urgency many years before. The Antillean refugee Jeremiah de Saint Amour, disabled war veteran, photographer of children, and his most sympathetic opponent in chess, had escaped the torments of memory with the aromatic fumes of gold cyanide._

- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Love In The Time Of Cholera (Nobel Prize winner). 

Ok, notice how many questions he raises in this first paragraph, and doesn't answer any of them? 

Four sentences and at least four questions raised. Each sentence acts as another hook, dragging you in deeper. Each sentence is it's own example of "microtension".... 

_It was inevitable: the scent of bitter almonds always reminded him of the fate of unrequited love._
  - Two questions raised in the first sentence alone. What was inevitable? And why do almonds remind him of unrequited love? 

_ Dr. Juvenal Urbino noticed it as soon as he entered the still darkened home where he had hurried on an urgent call to attend a case that for him had lost all urgency many years before._
- Why had this call lost urgency for him? Has he dealt with this same person before? What is wrong with this person? 

_The Antillean refugee Jeremiah de Saint Amour, disabled war veteran, photographer of children, and his most sympathetic opponent in chess, had escaped the torments of memory with the aromatic fumes of gold cyanide._

- so the guy killed himself with cyanide. Why? Because of unrequited love? What happened? 

You get the idea. 

Masterful use of microtension. And it carries on, tens or hundreds of examples _on every page._


----------



## Aurora (Jun 25, 2017)

No offense but if I had to constantly worry about micro-tension this, raise the stakes that, micro-tension instead of conflict and hooks on every page then I'd probably never write. Just thinking about it all gives me a headache. It makes me freeze. To each their own but I've yet to find Maas' advice helpful in any way. 

I can't speak for literary fiction because it's not what I read and I know next to nothing about it. I read lots of genre fiction and it's what I write. There's something to be said for learning your genre really well via reading and studying it. We all write fantasy scifi here but for different audiences, right? Some write epic fantasy, others write grimdark, and so forth. I think having a strong understanding of the expectations of those audiences is the smartest thing any writer of genre fiction can do. What tropes are used in these books? What conflicts are most prevalent? Epic fantasy is going to have a different set of rules than grimdark, for instance. I'm about to start book 1 of an epic fantasy series for Nano July and it's a different undertaking than my normal sword and sorcery books. They require absolutely unique approaches to character, plot, and setting.

Not to disregard any of the discussion here because I find it interesting, but all of this thrown it just takes the fun out of writing for me. Give me character, plot, and an idea of how it ends and I'll write the best story I can. I'll learn from it and write an even better story next time. 

Everything else just makes me freeze like a deer in headlights.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 25, 2017)

I'd say you use it and don't know it, LOL. How much is the question. If you literally never used it, it would be astounding. And it's not necessary to worry about it until the edit anyhow, or not at all, if you use it inherently. I sure don't write thinking to myself... microtension, microtension... In fact, I never think that way. But if I go over my writing, it's there, much like the modern 3-act structure, I don't plot it, but it's there. 

Don't worry about unless readers say something is flat, then the concept of microtension (or whatever other name could be used) might prove useful as an analytic approach.



Aurora said:


> No offense but if I had to constantly worry about micro-tension this, raise the stakes that, micro-tension instead of conflict and hooks on every page then I'd probably never write. Just thinking about it all gives me a headache. It makes me freeze. To each their own but I've yet to find Maas' advice helpful in any way.
> 
> I can't speak for literary fiction because it's not what I read and I know next to nothing about it. I read lots of genre fiction and it's what I write. There's something to be said for learning your genre really well via reading and studying it. We all write fantasy scifi here but for different audiences, right? Some write epic fantasy, others write grimdark, and so forth. I think having a strong understanding of the expectations of those audiences is the smartest thing any writer of genre fiction can do. What tropes are used in these books? What conflicts are most prevalent? Epic fantasy is going to have a different set of rules than grimdark, for instance. I'm about to start book 1 of an epic fantasy series for Nano July and it's a different undertaking than my normal sword and sorcery books. They require absolutely unique approaches to character, plot, and setting.
> 
> ...


----------



## Aurora (Jun 25, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> I'd say you use it and don't know it, LOL. How much is the question. If you literally never used it, it would be astounding. And it's not necessary to worry about it until the edit anyhow, or not at all, if you use it inherently. I sure don't write thinking to myself... microtension, microtension... In fact, I never think that way. But if I go over my writing, it's there, much like the modern 3-act structure, I don't plot it, but it's there.
> 
> Don't worry about unless readers say something is flat, then the concept of microtension (or whatever other name could be used) might prove useful as an analytic approach.


Mmmm...maybe. I focus more on tension between characters and try to end my chapters in cliffhangers. Not always though since some chapters need to be breathers. So, cliffhangers for the most part. My books also start slow and increase in conflict and speed as the story develops. They're well reviewed and received so guess it's working so far.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 25, 2017)

@ Aurora, 

The discussion is helpful for those interested in analyzing this sort of thing. It's helpful to us. It is interesting to us. It is something some of us _do_ think about while writing or editing. This is a forum for fantasy writers, true, but as writers we are entitled to discuss whatever topic we find interesting and valuable to us. 

This topic is not an attack on how you do things. If you don't find it palatable to take into consideration then don't.


----------



## Aurora (Jun 25, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> @ Aurora,
> 
> The discussion is helpful for those interested in analyzing this sort of thing. It's helpful to us. It is interesting to us. It is something some of us _do_ think about while writing or editing. This is a forum for fantasy writers, true, but as writers we are entitled to discuss whatever topic we find interesting and valuable to us.
> 
> This topic is not an attack on how you do things. If you don't find it palatable to take into consideration then don't.


Wow. I was not attacking. You're jumping to conclusions. I was simply voicing my opinion on the matter and discussing things/trying to be a part of the conversation. Since I'm not welcome to do that, then so be it. Attacking is what you're doing. Why be rude? Why not welcome ALL viewpoints?


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 25, 2017)

Tension between characters can be microtension. One example in Maass, in fact points it out using exactly this in dialogue. Microtension isn't one thing.



Aurora said:


> Mmmm...maybe. I focus more on tension between characters and try to end my chapters in cliffhangers. Not always though since some chapters need to be breathers. So, cliffhangers for the most part. My books also start slow and increase in conflict and speed as the story develops. They're well reviewed and received so guess it's working so far.


----------



## Black Dragon (Jun 25, 2017)

Please, folks, take a step back and cool off.  Please be kind to one another.  Thanks.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 25, 2017)

I never said you were attacking. I said this post is not an attack on your style. That is all. You started with "no offence".. and went into detail about how and why considering these topics is not helpful, and how you never consider them but you are still successful anyway. I'm saying great! But they are helpful to us. 

I'm not criticizing your opinion at all.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 26, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> I'd say you use it and don't know it, LOL. How much is the question. If you literally never used it, it would be astounding. And it's not necessary to worry about it until the edit anyhow, or not at all, if you use it inherently. I sure don't write thinking to myself... microtension, microtension... In fact, I never think that way. But if I go over my writing, it's there, much like the modern 3-act structure, I don't plot it, but it's there.



Yeah, it's a lot like using MRUs, the sort of thing you improve in edit and, if your roughs don't naturally make the most of it, something you can train yourself to do more naturally.

Come to think of it, MRUs probably have a correspondence to some types of microtension...insofar as the reader is constantly wondering about cause & effect.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 26, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Ok, I would argue that micro-tension on every page is actually MORE prevalent in literary fiction than genre fiction.



That's a bold claim, heh, and I wonder if the natural riposte is to point out that those who write literary fiction simply take their writing a little more seriously.

Oops, did I hit anyone's nerve, heh?

BUT the response to the riposte might have something to do with the way genre fiction can rely on an array of tropes and other genre expectations for dragging the reader along. Interesting to consider whether what are called "genre expectations" have this effect on the reader of already a) hinting at where things may be going while b) triggering in the mind a kind of Minority Report precog/visualization of future developments. Plus, as you've said, if the literary novels often use lots of microtension to improve the mundane scenes, speculative fiction might be able to include elements of the world building, the unusual, to trigger the gears in the mind. Heck, both of these considerations might have special significance vis-a-vis "raising questions" a la what is meant by the "speculation" of speculative fiction.

Edit: I forgot the first thing that was on my mind when I considered your comment. Pacing, or something like pacing. Perhaps those genre expectations already introduce pacing requirements that preclude use of lots of micotension; or, perhaps the kinds of plots that are used have some built-in tension, limiting the need for heavy use of microtension. Dunno.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 26, 2017)

Aurora said:


> Mmmm...maybe. I focus more on tension between characters and try to end my chapters in cliffhangers. Not always though since some chapters need to be breathers. So, cliffhangers for the most part. My books also start slow and increase in conflict and speed as the story develops. They're well reviewed and received so guess it's working so far.



Character tension is a great thing, the tension between two characters and the tension between the desires/goals/fears within one character.

But I'm not sure all of us think of character tension in the same way. For me it's a little like the way a non-chemist and a chemist look at combinations of various substances. For new combinations, we don't know exactly what will happen, lol, for instance will it explode, create a noxious fume, create some unexpected new material with lots of positive benefits or uses, etc. Putting two characters into conflict is a lot like this. What's going to happen? The reader is a bit like the non-chemist at first because the characters are new; but as we learn more about the characters, we can start visualizing ahead of time the kind of interaction they'll have to any given situation. This is a bit like the operation of microtension, and in fact this is one of the reasons microtension can be built into even the most mundane of dialogue scenes between two characters.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 26, 2017)

I was going to mention this earlier... MRU's can be related. Speaking of something I never really pay attention to. But basic cause and effect if goofed up mess with tension.



FifthView said:


> Yeah, it's a lot like using MRUs, the sort of thing you improve in edit and, if your roughs don't naturally make the most of it, something you can train yourself to do more naturally.
> 
> Come to think of it, MRUs probably have a correspondence to some types of microtension...insofar as the reader is constantly wondering about cause & effect.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 26, 2017)

Are we essentially saying that anything that keeps a scene or a page or a paragraph interesting on a smaller scale (i.e. a scale commensurate with what would be characterized as a microtension) is a microtension?


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 26, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Are we essentially saying that anything that keeps a scene or a page or a paragraph interesting on a smaller scale (I.e a scale commensurate with what would be characterized as a microtension) is a microtension.




I think so.... but then there must be varying degrees (sizes ?) of microtension lol. 

Mru's are interesting. I've read some writers who suggest mru's must come one after the other in quick succession through the whole book, which I think is geared more toward, as Steerpike suggested earlier, action/thriller stuff. 

But I'm wondering how big an MRU sequence can be? As big as a paragraph? As big as a scene (in which case wouldn't it be a scene-sequel sequence?) 

So is an mru lik a micro-scene-sequel?


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 26, 2017)

Sounds like the rabbit hole calling. The MRU is one of those things which makes a good point, but also, if taken in its strictest sense, I don't believe in. But that conversation can go lots of places with plenty of interpretations too. 

I would say for this convo, screwing up an MRU can ruin microtension.



Heliotrope said:


> I think so.... but then there must be varying degrees (sizes ?) of microtension lol.
> 
> Mru's are interesting. I've read some writers who suggest mru's must come one after the other in quick succession through the whole book, which I think is geared more toward, as Steerpike suggested earlier, action/thriller stuff.
> 
> ...


----------



## FifthView (Jun 26, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Mru's are interesting. I've read some writers who suggest mru's must come one after the other in quick succession through the whole book, which I think is geared more toward, as Steerpike suggested earlier, action/thriller stuff.



Aw, no, I don't think that characterizes MRUs well. At root, it's about showing the cause/motivation/outside stimulus before you show its effect. 

The M is an objective reality: _The shadow surged toward Wendy._

After you show this, you have the character react: 

_Wendy froze, hoping it couldn't sense her exact location. A flick of her wrist might be all she needed to cast a protective spell, but she was afraid any movement would attract the dark, snakelike thing. Her eyes sought the cellar's entrance as she silently called for Casper and Richie to appear._

After the reaction/action sequence, you begin again with another M:

_They did not appear._

And another reaction:

_Wendy's heart raced faster. Where were those boys? She had left them only minutes ago; they couldn't be far._

And another M:

_The snake slithered closer and began to circle her feet, only inches away....._

And so on and on.

That is, heh, a kind of action scene with lots of tension.

But I suppose the objective M might be some other thing, something not threatening to a character:

_The dawn brought lark song,_

And a reaction that isn't part of an action scene:

_and Wendy let herself drift on the edge of wakefulness, listening to it. Such a pretty song, she thought, and entirely unlike that snaky shadow from yesterday._

All of this might seem ho-hum normal stuff, which it is. We tend to write like this anyway. One way to mess up the MRU is to include the reaction before the motivation:

_Wendy froze, hoping she'd escape. A snakelike shadow had suddenly appeared and surged toward her._

Gah, that's horrible, obviously bad. But is this also bad:

_Wendy let herself drift on the edge of wakefulness, listening to a lark's song that had appeared with the dawn._

I don't think so. Not_ as _bad, but I think maybe not as good as mentioning the dawn and lark's song first. Of course, what follows that sentence may be a further reaction:

_Wendy let herself drift on the edge of wakefulness, listening to a lark's song that had appeared with the dawn. Such a pretty song, she thought, and entirely unlike that snaky shadow from yesterday._

Although, again, I like the original order better:

_The dawn brought lark song, and Wendy let herself drift on the edge of wakefulness, listening to it. Such a pretty song, she thought, and entirely unlike that snaky shadow from yesterday._

I'd mentioned MRUs in connection with microtension, because...they seem to have something of a similar effect. If you are reading along and you come to the beginning of a new scene that starts "The dawn brought lark song," then, well what's the significance? Heh. I think as readers, we tend to automatically imagine that anything a writer puts in the book is important. Why's he telling us there's lark song?  Well, we have to read on to find out.

What's interesting is that one of your examples of microtension seems to do something similarly:

_In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I've been turning over in my mind ever since._
 - The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald 

That giving of advice was an objective event. Some of the reaction has been included; the narrator has been turning it over ever since. But the exact advice hasn't yet been provided to the reader, and we don't know why the narrator has turned it over in his mind. We'll have to read on...to find the exact nature of that advice and its exact effect. What follows is a rumination...A lot of the advice on MRUs seems to concern activity in the present and may not apply to such internal, abstract rumination, heh.




> So is an mru lik a micro-scene-sequel?



Similar, I think. I've thought of them this way before.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 26, 2017)

Hmmmmmm, so now I'm thinking, I agree with you on this, especially the "goal/motivation" aspect of MRU's or scene sequal. Goals or motivation act as a sort of hook (or lure?) that keep the reader reading. They pose a question. Why does he want to kill that guy? Investigate the house? Go swimming at the lake? Bet on this hand? Whatever the goal/motivation may be. The more Mru's you have, the more hooks/questions to have built into the very fibre of the narrative... 

This is getting interesting for me now....

I posted before I read FV's post! Oh my gosh FV, you went where I was going to go next! I was going to ask how it fits into something like describing setting, and you nailed it for me! I think you are right, the reader will read through descriptions of setting because in many cases we expect it to be important, and the "reaction" that comes after the description is valuable. 

"So how do we set up a setting paragraph in a way that is compelling" was going to be my next question, but you described it so perfectly with the lark... it has to matter in some way. Like a wolf jumping from the bushes, or a villager singing a familair song... stuff we would pay attention to as human beings?


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 26, 2017)

And yes, out of order it does sound awful!


----------



## FifthView (Jun 27, 2017)

@Svrtnsse:

I'm somewhat in the same boat with my current project.

I don't know if you were looking for brainstorming ideas, so I'll not mention the several things that popped into my head, heh.

One thing I've noticed about my original setup ideas for my story, and something I've vaguely understood about my habitual writing process:  I tend to be very coy at the beginning. For whatever reason, I hold some things back, have plans for many interesting things that will key a reader into the depths of the theme and plot but always seem to picture those more powerful reveals as happening "down the line." Once I realized I was doing the same thing for this project, I began to reconsider and ask myself how I could hit those key elements early.

I've sometimes noticed this on items in the Showcase, also. Too much held back, a vagueness or coyness in the first chapter. (Usually, only one chapter or part of it is posted there.) In one case, I actually pointed out this issue, albeit in a roundabout way. The writing was good, but darn was it coy; nothing there to really grab onto, but only indications that something interesting was happening.

During this thread, I've begun to wonder whether the way we approach writing the hook & promise is different than the way we use many of these lures. 

Being coy when using lures makes sense. You don't want to deliver the answer so much as provoke a curiosity.

But now I'm thinking that the hook and promise are almost opposite to this, at least in the way we approach writing them. I'd mentioned in a previous comment that "laying it all out on the table" is something we do with the hook and promise; that way, the reader can decide whether what's coming is something he wants to experience. _Till death do us part_ is a more solid promise than _I'm sure I'll be around_, heh. To stretch the metaphor further, the hook needs to be solid and not some unsubstantial thing.

Anyway, this is my current thinking. Obviously, the climax and end to the story shouldn't happen at the beginning, heh, so not all cards are on the table, face up.



Svrtnsse said:


> Practical application time for me here.
> 
> I want to hook my reader into the first story, and I want to use the first story to set up a promise for what the rest of the series is going to be about.
> 
> ...


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 27, 2017)

^^^ This is interesting to me. Right now I'm reading "Dog Stories" by James Herriot. I inherited the Herriot books from my aged grandfather, who loved them, probably having to do with growing up in rural England at the time the stories were written. 

By all accounts the stories should be boring. English Veterinarian in the 30's-50's retelling the stories of the animals he helped over the years. And yet I'm riveted. I just finished reading Neil Gaiman's "Neverwhere" and at no point of that novel was I as riveted as I am to these short stories. 

Why? 

Last night I started one, and then it was time to put my boy to bed. I couldn't wait to get back to it. Just from the first paragraph I was "hooked" and needed to know what was going to happen. 

On further investigation, I think there are many things about the stories that have me hooked. One is the promise that it will be funny. Most of his stories start funny and stay funny. Next is the promise that I get a glimpse of old England, something I'm finding I really love. But lastly, FifthView is right, Herriot doesn't beat around the bush. He presents a mystery, but he is in no way "coy" or "aloof"... 

*Abandoned*

_ You often see dogs running along a road but there was something about this one which made me slow down and take a second look. 

It was a small brown animal and it was approaching on the other side; and it wasn't just ambling by the grass verge but galloping all out on its short legs, head extended forward as though in desperate pursuit of something unseen beyond the long empty curve of tarmac ahead. As the dog passed I had a brief glimpse of two staring eyes and a lolling tongue, then he was gone._

Instant hook. A sort of mystery, but not a vague mystery. It's real and tangible and I have to know what Herriot is going to do with this poor little animal so desperately running away something? To something? Who knows. 

I find the same thing in the Showcase, that many writers think that being coy or aloof suddenly makes them deep and mysterious, but it has the opposite effect. It is like an invisible hook, barely shimmering in the waves, and you sort of dart around it, sniffing for the worm, but it is impossible to find so you swim away.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 27, 2017)

I was thinking of funny the other day, Funny has its own built in microtension, much like a joke. No matter how boring the beginning, you expect funny so pay attention. And of course it has a major downside, if it's not funny... boom. No reader trust. And not funny is pretty much death. It's like watching the first few minutes of Super Bad (I think the movie was titled well) for me. It took me thirty seconds to distrust the comedy here, and the clicker changed the channel. Ghostbusters reboot? Oh my, if you can't make a trailer funny...

But anyhow, coy. Coy is great if the reader doesn't know you're being coy. It's a bit like withholding information... if you withhold information the POV doesn't know, it can build tension, if you withhold info the POV knows (or should know) you start walking the fine line of trust.

In the short "The Last Man to Die" which I posted the beginning of in the Showcase, I make a promise to the reader with the title. Guess what? The character is the last man to die! Plus it raises questions right off the bat.

When it gets right down to it, for an unknown author, proving that you fulfill promises might be one of the most important things you can establish with your writing. That and proving you can write, heh heh.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 27, 2017)

Do you all ever wonder whether over-emphasis on things like MRUs, microtension, and the like, is more likely to produce stilted, artificial stories? Often, when I see beginning authors adhering too much to a "method" the end product looks a lot like generic fiction novel _n_. Maybe professional writers use the same approach and it simply isn't noticeable.

But my suspicion (borne in part from reading books by writers about their writing process) is that the authors who do the best are writing from a much more organic process than what we're talking about here. I think that may sometimes be reflected in the storyteller/writer demarcation, where writers who are criticized for not being so great from a technical standpoint are nevertheless quite good at telling a story and engaging readers, and so they find a good-sized audience. I don't picture those writers planning out microtensions for the page, or worrying over MRUs, or anything like that. I think they just write--maybe off an outline or more or less detail depending on the person, maybe without an outline, but they're engaged at some level in an organic process of telling a story.

I also think it is important that a writer have a distinctive voice and style. Those are two important factors in determining whether I'm going to go back and buy new books from an author I've read. If everyone adopts the same general ideas regarding microtensions, MRUs, how you have to write your sentences, how your novel has to be structured, etc., then why should I buy your book over any of the other 200 on the shelf at the store or 200,000 on Amazon?


----------



## FifthView (Jun 27, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> On further investigation, I think there are many things about the stories that have me hooked. One is the promise that it will be funny. Most of his stories start funny and stay funny. Next is the promise that I get a glimpse of old England, something I'm finding I really love. But lastly, FifthView is right, Herriot doesn't beat around the bush. He presents a mystery, but he is in no way "coy" or "aloof"...



Yeah, there are lots of things that promise. The voice and style promise a continuation of the voice and style. This can work in the negative sense also. If the first page is poorly written, that's a promise that the rest will be bad too, hah.

When writing, I think I have a tendency to want subtlety in my early chapters, and perhaps this is a fear of being too on-the-nose or hammering a reader over the head. I'd said in another comment in this thread that the hook and promise are like a Rubicon:  once X, Y, Z is put in place—elements of the hook/promise—there's no turning back. So...I may have a fear of commitment too. 

But this recent turn in this conversation has reminded me of that scene from the movie _Gattaca_. If you aren't familiar with the movie, it's about a society in which most successful people have been genetically "improved," genetically tweaked in the test tube. The main character, Vincent, is a "love child," meaning that his parents conceived him the old fashioned way, with no genetic tweaking. His younger brother however was genetically "improved." Long story short, Vincent is able to succeed where no one thought him capable, and near the end of the movie the two brothers are swimming across this large body of water—something they did as children, but before, Vincent was always the weaker brother. This time's different, and his brother Anton is mystified:

*Anton:* Vincent! How are you doing this Vincent? How have you done any of this? We have to go back. 

*Vincent:* It's too late for that. We're closer to the other side. 

*Anton:* What other side? You wanna drown us both? 

*Vincent:* You wanna know how I did it? This is how I did it Anton. I never saved anything for the swim back.

...Heh, it's about commitment, not holding any reserves.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 27, 2017)

No, I don't wonder. None of this will create generic. 



Steerpike said:


> Do you all ever wonder whether over-emphasis on things like MRUs, microtension, and the like, is more likely to produce stilted, artificial stories? Often, when I see beginning authors adhering too much to a "method" the end product looks a lot like generic fiction novel _n_. Maybe professional writers use the same approach and it simply isn't noticeable.
> 
> But my suspicion (borne in part from reading books by writers about their writing process) is that the authors who do the best are writing from a much more organic process than what we're talking about here. I think that may sometimes be reflected in the storyteller/writer demarcation, where writers who are criticized for not being so great from a technical standpoint are nevertheless quite good at telling a story and engaging readers, and so they find a good-sized audience. I don't picture those writers planning out microtensions for the page, or worrying over MRUs, or anything like that. I think they just write--maybe off an outline or more or less detail depending on the person, maybe without an outline, but they're engaged at some level in an organic process of telling a story.
> 
> I also think it is important that a writer have a distinctive voice and style. Those are two important factors in determining whether I'm going to go back and buy new books from an author I've read. If everyone adopts the same general ideas regarding microtensions, MRUs, how you have to write your sentences, how your novel has to be structured, etc., then why should I buy your book over any of the other 200 on the shelf at the store or 200,000 on Amazon?


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 27, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Do you all ever wonder whether over-emphasis on things like MRUs, microtension, and the like, is more likely to produce stilted, artificial stories? Often, when I see beginning authors adhering too much to a "method" the end product looks a lot like generic fiction novel _n_. Maybe professional writers use the same approach and it simply isn't noticeable.
> 
> But my suspicion (borne in part from reading books by writers about their writing process) is that the authors who do the best are writing from a much more organic process than what we're talking about here. I think that may sometimes be reflected in the storyteller/writer demarcation, where writers who are criticized for not being so great from a technical standpoint are nevertheless quite good at telling a story and engaging readers, and so they find a good-sized audience. I don't picture those writers planning out microtensions for the page, or worrying over MRUs, or anything like that. I think they just write--maybe off an outline or more or less detail depending on the person, maybe without an outline, but they're engaged at some level in an organic process of telling a story.
> 
> I also think it is important that a writer have a distinctive voice and style. Those are two important factors in determining whether I'm going to go back and buy new books from an author I've read. If everyone adopts the same general ideas regarding microtensions, MRUs, how you have to write your sentences, how your novel has to be structured, etc., then why should I buy your book over any of the other 200 on the shelf at the store or 200,000 on Amazon?



It's possible. Anything is possible, and I think this is what Aurora was getting at in her posts which annoyed me. Sorry for my defensive posts. But I have two analogies. 

One is music. My son is learning the violin. He is learning to read music as well as play by ear. He has to start by learning the technical skills of playing the violin. How to hold it. How to hold the bow. How to use the bow. How to stay on the road and out of the ditch, etc. How to play the notes so it sounds like music. 

We recently went to the recital and there were forty kids, all who had been taught with the same method by the same instructor. Some kids played the instrument like little robots. Exact whole, quarter and half notes using the exact bow strokes and exact fingering. Perfect little stacattos. It sounded like a computer was playing the instruments. Other kids had used the techniques they had been taught, and could use it to create music. They could adapt it so it still flowed naturally, in an appealing, human, non-robotic sort of way. But they all started out by learning the same basics. 

Analogy two. I love to cook, and I can cook many things, but when I want to learn how to do something out of my skill level I go to a professional. It is from the professional that I learn that keeping some of the "pasta water" when I drain the pasta, and add it to the sauce will create a nice thick sticky sauce that adheres nicely to the noodles. Or that you actually want to add the herbs last when cooking, because the last thing you add is the first thing you will taste. That is all stuff I may have eventually discovered on my own, but it may take years (if ever). 

I'm at the point in my writing development that I need to learn, discuss, and evaluate techniques in order to improve. I can't just keep sitting down and writing the same way over and over and over in hopes I get better. Yes, perhaps some of my stuff may come out "worse" while I practice new skills and techniques, but after I've practiced them enough times and made them my own then things will start to come naturally again.

So no. I don't think that any of this stuff will make writing "generic". I think it will greatly improve my ability to tell a story at a professional level.

We hear it over and over again all the time "Great story _idea_, but ideas are a dime a dozen. I'll wait until I see the execution." 

Execution is all the stuff we are talking about here. How to take that idea and write it so it 'wows' an audience.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 27, 2017)

FifthView said:


> Yeah, there are lots of things that promise. The voice and style promise a continuation of the voice and style. This can work in the negative sense also. If the first page is poorly written, that's a promise that the rest will be bad too, hah.
> 
> When writing, I think I have a tendency to want subtlety in my early chapters, and perhaps this is a fear of being too on-the-nose or hammering a reader over the head. I'd said in another comment in this thread that the hook and promise are like a Rubicon:  once X, Y, Z is put in place—elements of the hook/promise—there's no turning back. So...I may have a fear of commitment too.
> 
> ...



For as long as I've been on this forum you have spoken of your lack of commitment lol. 

Yes, I see this a lot... "I don't want to beat the reader over the head." In my experience I find the opposite to be true. A lot of writers have it so clear in their own mind they think they are being pathetically obvious on the page and it is only barely enough for the reader. I've read stuff in crit groups I LOVED and said it was perfect and the writer has come back saying "Oh really? I thought I was being too heavy handed/crazy/too much." 

The only time it is too heavy handed is when it is "on the nose" and I think that is different than what we are talking about here.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 27, 2017)

Yeah, even when you state things bluntly, somtimes you need to repeat it, LOL. There's a key line in my WIP that manages to blow by people, and when adding another scene later in the book, I had the character restate this line as a callback to make sure I'm smacking the reader hard enough. People read with distractions, on planes, with children hitting them in the head, hungry dogs staring at them, and sometimes set books down for weeks at a time (guilty of all these, myself) so what's obvious to the writer living the story process is not quite the same for the reader. This makes beta readers and editors crucial.



Heliotrope said:


> For as long as I've been on this forum you have spoken of your lack of commitment lol.
> 
> Yes, I see this a lot... "I don't want to beat the reader over the head." In my experience I find the opposite to be true. A lot of writers have it so clear in their own mind they think they are being pathetically obvious on the page and it is only barely enough for the reader. I've read stuff in crit groups I LOVED and said it was perfect and the writer has come back saying "Oh really? I thought I was being too heavy handed/crazy/too much."
> 
> The only time it is too heavy handed is when it is "on the nose" and I think that is different than what we are talking about here.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 27, 2017)

@Helio:

Ah, now I'm feeling like Frodo: _I know what I must do, it's just that... I'm afraid to do it._ 

This is not so much about writing in general, but grabbing elements I know to exist in the story I've visualized and yanking them toward the beginning, not worrying about what will be left to write for the rest of the story lol. My recent interest in hooks/lures springs from this need to change the way I approach things. In my WIP,  rather than let those important elements of the hook develop as drip-drip-drip over the course of the first act, I need go head-on, begin immediately in Chapter One. Don't save up, don't hold so much in reserve, and hit them out of the park.

Anyway, this new way of thinking is forcing me to reconsider how the story should open.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 27, 2017)

Oh man FV! This was a big problem of mine too! Have you ever heard of Erik Bork? He's a screen writer who wrote Band Of Brothers among other stuff. He has a great website with tons of writing tips, but when I read your post I immediatly thought of this one, which has always stuck in my head because it really helped me (and still does so much!) 

_We all have ideas for scenes and moments in a story that on their own, seem interesting, and may even be Compelling, Unique, Real and Entertaining - but if they don't connect to and advance the basic problem of the story, they will likely siphon off the emotional connection and investment the reader is feeling.  And this is the last thing we want to do!  That investment is everything to us - we want people to always be engaged, and always wanting to know "then what?" _
_ 
To keep that investment, every scene ideally should change the status quo on the central driving question that forms the spine of the story.  It can be hard to stick to this, and

* often the reason is that we truly have a shortage of "story" - we don't have enough developing conflicts and "status quo changes" to continuously advance the problem all the way to the end.  This is very common.  We tend to be shocked at just how much "story" we really need, and how quickly pages can eat it up, and demand more.  I'm often coaching people to front-load elements of their story so they happen more quickly than they originally envisioned - which results in them needing even more! * 

But this is not as hard a problem to solve as it might seem.  When you don't know what could happen next, the answer (if you have a robust basic concept and structure) always comes from asking what each of the different characters' attitudes, points of view, and desires are.  As you check in with them, and think through what they believably would do next, you invariably come up with ideas for more scenes, more conflict, and more "story" to keep it moving forward.  This is one of the main things I help writers do._

This was like fireworks to me lol. I hope it might be helpful for you too


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 27, 2017)

Dem, there is a sort of microtension in humor isn't there? I had always noticed it, but wondered how it fit as a technique of microtension... now I'm thinking... is it because as the reader we start to sort of wait for the punchline? The punchline is the "answer to the question"... We know the punchline is coming so we keep reading to get the laugh? I just though of this because (Being Canadian) I watched Russell Peter's stand up the other night and I just realized that watching good stand up you are on the edge of your seat the whole time, just like watching an action movie, but instead of an explosion you are waiting for the punchline. You can wait five whole minutes of the comedian telling some mundane story because you know it's going to end in a funny way... Holy crap I've never thought of this before! It all makes sense to me now!

So if I look at James Herriot's funny stories: 

*Cedric*

_The voice at the other end of the phone was oddly hesitant. 

"Mr. Herriot... I should be grateful if you would come and see my dog." It was a woman, obviously upper class. 

"Certainly. What's the trouble?" 

"Well... he.... er... he seems to suffer from... a certain amount of flatus." 

"I beg your pardon?" 

There was a long pause. "He has..... excessive flatus." 

"In what way exactly?" 

"Well... I supposed you'd describe it as.... windiness." The voice had begun to tremble. _

So he sets the "hook" up in such a way that we know the punchline at the end is going to be funny. This poor rich woman who can't even talk about farting is going to be humiliated by her gassy dog. And I read on because I want to see her get humiliated. 

Dang.


----------



## Incanus (Jun 27, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Do you all ever wonder whether over-emphasis on things like MRUs, microtension, and the like, is more likely to produce stilted, artificial stories?



I know I do.  One need only watch about 5 minutes of daytime television to see this in practice.  I have little doubt the same can be found on bookshelves.  As a slow reader I try to stick to quality books as much as possible, but it can be instructive to read other stuff from time to time as well.

I tend to write organically to begin with, and then start looking to the 'rules' to deal with problem areas.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 27, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Do you all ever wonder whether over-emphasis on things like MRUs, microtension, and the like, is more likely to produce stilted, artificial stories? Often, when I see beginning authors adhering too much to a "method" the end product looks a lot like generic fiction novel _n_. Maybe professional writers use the same approach and it simply isn't noticeable.



All the time.

...and yet I find it interesting.

Something I keep coming back to and that I repeat now and then (in various forms) is that the "rules" for writing is a substitute for understanding (intuitively?) how readers relate to prose and story.

I've not encountered micro-tension until just recently. Now that I know about it, I may consider it when writing for a while, and then it'll get sorted in with all other more or less related knowledge once I get used to it

I'm not sure it's going to have any major impact on my actual writing style though. I believe this is something I already understand intuitively, and that if I want to spend time and effort into tweaking my story I have more to gain on doing it elsewhere.

In other cases, new concepts have a big impact on my writing - like the _promise_ that's been mentioned in this thread a few times. It's not something I've considered in the past, but I've probably heard about it in different ways or under different names.
I feel like getting my head around promise helped me level up as a writer and I'm now eagerly putting the new skill to use when outlining my story.

Will my writing become boring and stilted? In this case, I don't think so, but it could happen.

What I think is really important is how you approach this kind of discussion. Will I approach it as an argument where I see people arguing different ways of best writing a story, or will I approach it as a way to learn something?


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 27, 2017)

This isn't a lack of writer talent (if speaking of creative daytime tv), it's fulfilling audience expectation. The most talented screenwriters in the world are in tv. I didn't used to believe that when I was chasing H'Wood, but I came to accept it. The bulk of real bad screenwriting has other sources. 

Using analysis to repair the organic writing is typically a good way to go. And after you repair, at some point, your organic no longer needs repaired. 

Saying that studying MRU, microtension, structure will turn writing generic is a bit like claiming teaching grammar will make writing generic.



Incanus said:


> I know I do.  One need only watch about 5 minutes of daytime television to see this in practice.  I have little doubt the same can be found on bookshelves.  As a slow reader I try to stick to quality books as much as possible, but it can be instructive to read other stuff from time to time as well.
> 
> I tend to write organically to begin with, and then start looking to the 'rules' to deal with problem areas.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 27, 2017)

FifthView said:


> @Svrtnsse:
> 
> I'm somewhat in the same boat with my current project.
> 
> I don't know if you were looking for brainstorming ideas, so I'll not mention the several things that popped into my head, heh.



No worries, I wasn't particularly looking for brainstorming advice. It's not unwelcome of course, but it's a bit off topic. I mainly posted it as a way of making a practical example of what I'm doing and how it relates to the discussion. It helps me think things through in a different way when I have to explain it to someone else, and I enjoy that.

I'm pretty settled on the outline for the first story now and I've moved on to the next one. 
I added a section for Promise to my story outline, and in that I formulate the promise as well as list a few things that will be included in the story. I'm not at my laptop at the moment but I'll try and recreate the relevant section from the outline here:

*Roy's Escape - Promise*
_This is a story about a man who's escaping from some bad guys.
There will be a capture, a breaking free, a chase, and a very narrow escape to uncertain momentary safety._

Something like that. 
One of the things my protagonist does early on is he throws away his phone as a symbolic (and pretty stupid) gesture of cutting his ties with his present life. It'll show his intention not to let anyone get hold of him, and then he'll leave. I'm thinking that'll herald how people will definitely want to get in touch with him.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 27, 2017)

I think "organic" is a squishy word.

No babe is born with a facility for language and communication. And yet, a baby is an organic being, and learning is an organic process. If something is artificial–i.e., human-made–it is still a result of organic processes.

I do think we can each of us reach a point of understanding communication, including the rules of communication, where we can use communication without having to think about it much. Yes, I still have to pause and think, "_i_ before _e_ except..." sometimes, but much of the time I can breeze through writing.

But I don't think that writing extended narrative prose is quite as ingrained by the age of _____ as being able to tell simple stories. Children tell stories. My family and coworkers tell stories. This doesn't mean I think they can write novels. Heck, I'm still working on learning how to do this well myself.


----------



## Aurora (Jun 27, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> This isn't a lack of writer talent (if speaking of creative daytime tv), it's fulfilling audience expectation. The most talented screenwriters in the world are in tv. I didn't used to believe that when I was chasing H'Wood, but I came to accept it. The bulk of real bad screenwriting has other sources.
> 
> Using analysis to repair the organic writing is typically a good way to go. And after you repair, at some point, your organic no longer needs repaired.
> 
> Saying that studying MRU, microtension, structure will turn writing generic is a bit like claiming teaching grammar will make writing generic.


See, I agree with your viewpoints. It's crucial to understand story structure if the desire/goal is to be a professional writer. This can, of course, be accomplished in various ways (deepening understanding of story structure). What I have found helpful in the past is to read craft books, do the exercises, pick out those points in fiction that I'm reading and see how other authors do it, and keep learning. I've never heard of MRU or microtension as technical terms before this conversation (of which I was so rudely sent packing but that's another matter). 

I wasn't trying to ruin anyone's day or argue about what's best or not, only wanted to be part of the conversation. Do I think of tension and rising conflict when I write? Absolutely! I read a lot of my competition's books and learn from those authors. I have relationships with those same authors to continue learning and reaching my audience, to expand my understanding of business and craft. Aiming to understand all one can about craft can only be a boon in the long and short runs.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 27, 2017)

Status quo changes are done well in the Story Grid, not called that per se. The Story Grid is an excellent analytical tool. Basically saying that every scene/chapter should have a change in the story arc... internal or external. I did it just for fun, and found many of my chapters change two arcs, hitting on both internal and external elements. 

Also picked up from screenwriting, it's similar to what Bork was saying, but in a different way. People often write subplots without a full structure (and it isn't necessary to have a full structure, mind you). This can also go for thematic elements. Yes, you want "organic" elements to come out, but it's amazing how often those are the same as when you fill the gaps in subplot and thematic structures. 

When writing Sundering the Gods I wasn't worrying at all about structure, and then I reverse engineered what I did to see a gigantic version of what I did in screenwriting. Now, I'm playing around with a slightly customized concept of the Story Grid to see if it'll assist in keeping a half million word epic "tight". heh heh.



Heliotrope said:


> Oh man FV! This was a big problem of mine too! Have you ever heard of Erik Bork? He's a screen writer who wrote Band Of Brothers among other stuff. He has a great website with tons of writing tips, but when I read your post I immediatly thought of this one, which has always stuck in my head because it really helped me (and still does so much!)
> 
> _We all have ideas for scenes and moments in a story that on their own, seem interesting, and may even be Compelling, Unique, Real and Entertaining - but if they don't connect to and advance the basic problem of the story, they will likely siphon off the emotional connection and investment the reader is feeling.  And this is the last thing we want to do!  That investment is everything to us - we want people to always be engaged, and always wanting to know "then what?" _
> _
> ...


----------



## Incanus (Jun 27, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Saying that studying MRU, microtension, structure will turn writing generic is a bit like claiming teaching grammar will make writing generic.



Totally agree.  But did anyone actually say this?  For the most part I steer clear of absolutes, especially when talking about something as open-ended as writing, or other art forms.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 27, 2017)

@ Svrtnsse:

This is the part of your previous comment that, er, hooked me heh:



> The hook is relatively easy: Will Roy lose the match as he's been requested to, or will he win it? (kinda like in Pulp Fiction).
> I'm confident I can set up the hook and establish that as the premise of the story within the first few paragraphs.
> 
> The promise is trickier: This story is about a man who drops everything to travel across the world to be with the woman he loves.
> ...



The questions that instantly entered my mind, re: the practical application, is _How soon will he realize/suspect that his wife's still alive?_ and _How will he learn this or begin to suspect this?_

Those things seem essential, and I thought they probably should happen very soon in your tale. And my mind began going over possible scenarios. My mind also began to consider scenarios/situations which would place him in a position of not just running off instantly–more than simply that he's a noble man, the sort to keep a promise to fight. But I don't know everything about your story, so who knows?

For me, the idea of yanking some things forward in my own story, building the hook and promise early, has made me reconsider how my story develops in the beginning. I've not settled on any changes in my approach yet, but the curious thing is that I think the general events I'd already planned for the first few chapters are still fine. How I go about writing them might change. For instance, I'd originally planned to hold off on introducing the primary antagonistic force and another main character (MC's love interest) but now I'm thinking of folding all these elements into the first and second chapter. Same general things happen in the MC's life, but some of the players have changed. 

Anyway, interesting stuff....


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 27, 2017)

I'm not a huge MRU person, but like most things, it'll be useful to some people. It's foundation is solid, but... eh.

Microtension is a useful concept. More so for some people than others. 

Like the modern three act structure, it's all useful, but to one degree or another, all writers use them, whether we know it or not. But in the end, it never hurts to know more theory. The more you know, the more your subconscious uses it, and the less editing you need, LOL. At least that's my theory. 



Aurora said:


> See, I agree with your viewpoints. It's crucial to understand story structure if the desire/goal is to be a professional writer. This can, of course, be accomplished in various ways (deepening understanding of story structure). What I have found helpful in the past is to read craft books, do the exercises, pick out those points in fiction that I'm reading and see how other authors do it, and keep learning. I've never heard of MRU or microtension as technical terms before this conversation (of which I was so rudely sent packing but that's another matter).
> 
> I wasn't trying to ruin anyone's day or argue about what's best or not, only wanted to be part of the conversation. Do I think of tension and rising conflict when I write? Absolutely! I read a lot of my competition's books and learn from those authors. I have relationships with those same authors to continue learning and reaching my audience, to expand my understanding of business and craft. Aiming to understand all one can about craft can only be a boon in the long and short runs.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 27, 2017)

Steerpike wondered about it, LOL.



Incanus said:


> Totally agree.  But did anyone actually say this?  For the most part I steer clear of absolutes, especially when talking about something as open-ended as writing, or other art forms.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 27, 2017)

FifthView said:


> The questions that instantly entered my mind, re: the practical application, is _How soon will he realize/suspect that his wife's still alive?_ and _How will he learn this or begin to suspect this?_
> 
> Those things seem essential, and I thought they probably should happen very soon in your tale. And my mind began going over possible scenarios. My mind also began to consider scenarios/situations which would place him in a position of not just running off instantly—more than simply that he's a noble man, the sort to keep a promise to fight. But I don't know everything about your story, so who knows?



You're right. The news that Toini is alive is what sets the entire rest of the series into motion (inciting incident). The series is planned to be nineteen parts (all pretty short) where the first part is the fight mentioned previously. What happens is that just as that story is about to end Roy gets a message on his phone saying Toini's back and that she wants to see him. The story then ends with that as a cliffhanger.

From the story that's just been told we learn that Roy is in a position he's not happy with and that he'd quite like to get out of it. We also know that there's next to nothing keeping him there. Suddenly, like a whale from the sky, his long-lost teenage love is found to be alive on the other side of the world.

In other words:
Roy...
...doesn't like where he is.
...has no reason to stay.
...has nothing to lose.
...learns that the love of his life is still alive.

I'm thinking that the logic here is sound, but the practical details are up in the air.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 27, 2017)

If brainstorming is what we are doing I would consider giving him lots to lose, instead of nothing to lose. Just for the sake of brainstorming and because we are discussing hooks and lures. High stakes are always good. What if he was supposed to win a fight, he was destined to be huge, make a ton of money etc. Of course he is unhappy and has a nagging feeling he doesn't even care about winning, but he has nothing else in his life right now, and everyone is relying on him to fill their bank accounts and he has a cute little bird with a nice butt who comes around now and again. Maybe he owes some guys some money, or has an illegal fighting ring going on on the side and some guys are after him who think he cheated them out of a fair fight. 

He is just about to go into a big fight when he hears... Toini is alive! 

Well shit. Now what is he going to do? Walk away from from everyone who depends on him in order to find her? Burning all his bridges when he leaves? Or forget Toini and follow the sure thing he already has? 

Those sorts of high stakes conflicts make good hooks.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 28, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> [...]
> He is just about to go into a big fight when he hears... Toini is alive!
> 
> Well shit. Now what is he going to do? Walk away from from everyone who depends on him in order to find her? Burning all his bridges when he leaves? Or forget Toini and follow the sure thing he already has?
> ...



This is part of the plan.

Or, well, not exactly like that, but close enough. 

I want to use this first story to set up the character and the promise for the entire series of stories, but I also want to make the story interesting in its own right. To do that, I'll be using hooks (plot devices) like the ones you mention. There will be people depending on Roy to do the right thing, and there will be dire consequences for him and others if he doesn't.

The way I'm thinking is that I have to keep the reader interested enough to read the entire short story, or they won't even notice the promise of the longer and deeper story that follows on to it.

That probably wasn't very clear from my previous post, as that was mainly focused on setting up the promise for the entire series.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 28, 2017)

Sounds great!


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 28, 2017)

Heliotrope, Svrtnsse, Incanus, FithView:

Thank you for engaging the question. I have some thoughts on what you've said, but they start to diverge further from the topic set forth in Heliotrope's original post, so I am going to post them in a separate thread. I look forward to further discussion there, if you feel so inclined.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 28, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Heliotrope, Svrtnsse, Incanus, FithView:
> 
> Thank you for engaging the question. I have some thoughts on what you've said, but they start to diverge further from the topic set forth in Heliotrope's original post, so I am going to post them in a separate thread. I look forward to further discussion there, if you feel so inclined.



Sounds fun!


----------



## Heidi Hanley (Jul 1, 2017)

I'm a big fan of series and usually expect to have resolution of the biq issue or question in book three. Occasionally, as in the Outlander series, the books go on forever, thankfully for some of us and there is no real resolution. In other books, such as C.J. Archer's Glass and Steele series, I just finished book three and was furious that there was no romantic resolution. This is a wonderful series that I assumed would end at number three but discovered there is a fourth coming. Of course I pre-ordered it, but I admit to feeling cheated by the double cliff hanger at the end without the resolution I expected. This as an issue I'm facing in my own Kingdom of Uisneach series (Book One: The Prophecy hopefully releasing in the fall). I planned on three in the series and the hook will be resolved in book three, but I have an entire lifetime of these characters in my head, so will likely need to create a whole other series to bring that to fruition. The trick with when to resolve the hook, it seems, is to keep readers hooked without frustrating or disappointing them.


----------

