• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Is This Trend Over-Done? Even if it's Done Well?

I'm thinking this narrative trend is on the verge of becomming cliché: Starting a book, with the reader plunged into intense action (or, in my case, intrigue/mystery) with no earthly idea who the characters are, what's going on, etc... Then, later in the story and throughout, the narrative fills in the who's and why's as a prescribed "flashback" mechanism (dreams/nightmares, PTSD, info-dumping expositions between characters or internal monologues). This is also the on-trend narrative style for cinema, which gets the added benefit of special and visual effects.

I understand that this is a very abrupt, jarring 'hook' to grab an audience and get them engaged and asking questions about the characters from the get-go. I can name a lot of cinematic and written examples where this is done successfully but...
seriously... Is it being over done?

It's not enough of a cliché (yet) to be a turn-off for most audiences, but it's noticeable enough for me to ask for your thoughts and honest opinions.

... Also, as a side question: any thoughts on this method being utilized in, say, the second act?
For example, one chapter ends with two armies about to engage on the battlefield, then, the next chapter opens having skipped over all the details of the battle- and instead- the character wakes up in a hospital tent, wondering how they survived and what happened in battle? Trying to recall events after the fact for the audience?

Is the method of 're-telling' events still effective after you've gotten to know and are invested in the characters? Or, only effective as an introduction of the audience to 'strangers'?
 

Rkcapps

Sage
The risk of starting with action (I'm guilty of this myself because I like to get to know the characters through the action- not a fight scene but a flight scene - hence I like to write it) I've recently heard is that until we are sympathetic as readers towards a character, the reader can be "meh". That's not to say it's not possible. But keep that in mind as you write.

So, my $2 cents is it doesn't matter if the market is flooded if you write it well it won't matter. The market was (and still is) flooded with high school stuff when Harry Potter came along...
 

Russ

Istar
I am not sure what you are talking about is a trend, but rather a writing technique, but anyways...

I don't claim to speak for readers, but I spend a lot of time with editors from traditional publishers who are seeking and recommend precisely those kinds of openings to novels. Done skillfully you can have some reader investment in the character in peril developed very quickly. This type of opening is not a requirement to sell (obviously) but it is still considered desirable within the publishing industry.

On the second part of what you are talking about:

dreams/nightmares, PTSD, info-dumping expositions between characters or internal monologues

This type of weak technique for putting in backstory are not well respected at all, and I don't think would help the saleability of a piece of work.

On your more specific question I think you would need a pretty good reason to simply skip over a major battle that your protagonist is involved in to a recall/recovery scene. It drains the whole battle of tension as your protagonist is never in personal jeopardy and we never really get to understand his experience of the battle.

One of the rules of thumb for good genre fiction is to have the protagonist present for as many of the important events as possible, and only summarize the ones that he or she is not present for.
 
"I am not sure what you are talking about is a trend, but rather a writing technique, but anyways..."

To that extent, it's becomming more common for stories (both written and visual mediums) to start with intense action scenes, or peril, to characters. As the audience doesn't know who yet it the protaganist, anti-hero, villain etc., it's just characters engaged in conflict.

This also is a comment on 'contemporary' story telling technique wherein nothing is guranteed to progress in a chronologically-linear fashion. Maybe not as much in the sense of outright time-traveling to the future, but jumping from present events, to back-story /origins/ events in the past.

"I don't claim to speak for readers, but I spend a lot of time with editors from traditional publishers who are seeking and recommend precisely those kinds of openings to novels. Done skillfully you can have some reader investment in the character in peril developed very quickly. This type of opening is not a requirement to sell (obviously) but it is still considered desirable within the publishing industry.

On the second part of what you are talking about:

dreams/nightmares, PTSD, info-dumping expositions between characters or internal monologues

This type of weak technique for putting in backstory are not well respected at all, and I don't think would help the saleability of a piece of work."

Agreed. While these are generally frowned upon when over used or done poorly, these seem to be the prominent methods available to 'fill in the blanks'. Some how, the information needs to be conveyed to the audience, usually done over the length of the story subtlety to avoid the dreaded 'info-dumping' or other assorted 'flashback' methods. Conversely, I don't want a character to be used, however well written, as a mouthpiece for the readers to ask questions when they'd want to ask questions. (ex. The reader wants to know what just happened in the last chapter and demands an explanation, and a companion or random character just so happens to ask what the reader wants to ask.)

"On your more specific question I think you would need a pretty good reason to simply skip over a major battle that your protagonist is involved in to a recall/recovery scene. It drains the whole battle of tension as your protagonist is never in personal jeopardy and we never really get to understand his experience of the battle."

My WIP deals with a lot of themes, one being feuge state and amnesia. For the particular specific question I asked about skipping over a battle scene: The battle itself, The Final Battle, happened well before the main Character's lifetime. (The MC was not present.) The Final Battle is what finally brought a call to armistace bewteen warring factions of magic users. Cataclysmic magic was invoked. There was one lone survivor. No other witnesses or combatants left alive. Gray matter being what it is, the survivor endured severe head trauma, and cannot recollect the events of the battlefield, or 100% of his identity or abilities. His written testimony would read more or less as "I'm told my name is so and so. These people say I am part of their family. I was supposed to be a warrior. I can remember a horrible, interesting battle here, another there kinda sorta, preparing for the final battle", Blank. Everything past that point is conjecture and speculation on the part of investigators and scholars.

This Final Battle is basically lore/ unifying history between rival families. Everyone would know about the mysteries of events and the suffering of the Lone Survivor. Since no one faction could rightfully claim victory in the final battle -and, who would want to claim total responsibility for the annihilation of not just your enemies but your own ancestors- it's the event that changed collective history.

It's also a cautionary tale to powerful practioners, over exert yourself and you might lose your mind forever. The MC experiences this phenomenon temporarily after rescuing a friend: missing time, memory loss/feuge state.

"One of the rules of thumb for good genre fiction is to have the protagonist present for as many of the important events as possible, and only summarize the ones that he or she is not present for."
 

pmmg

Myth Weaver
I must not be reading and watching the same things you are, cause I don't see enough of this to call it a trend. I would just call it a device, and sometimes used well and sometimes not. So, I guess my answer to this, and really to just about anything that would become cliche' is no, I don't think over done is the real problem, over done and not enough coolness to make me over look it is.

I have a similar answer for the second question as well. I suppose statistically speaking, these things may or may not up trend and down trend with audiences, but every once in a while, something comes along that does and it just works. So the question is, is your story one of those? I don't know how anyone else could know without reading it. For me personally, I don't mind back story being leaking into the story through flashbacks or recovered memories, if I am already enjoying the story.
 
I am not sure what you are talking about is a trend, but rather a writing technique, but anyways...

I don't claim to speak for readers, but I spend a lot of time with editors from traditional publishers who are seeking and recommend precisely those kinds of openings to novels. Done skillfully you can have some reader investment in the character in peril developed very quickly. This type of opening is not a requirement to sell (obviously) but it is still considered desirable within the publishing industry.

On the second part of what you are talking about:

dreams/nightmares, PTSD, info-dumping expositions between characters or internal monologues

This type of weak technique for putting in backstory are not well respected at all, and I don't think would help the saleability of a piece of work.

On your more specific question I think you would need a pretty good reason to simply skip over a major battle that your protagonist is involved in to a recall/recovery scene. It drains the whole battle of tension as your protagonist is never in personal jeopardy and we never really get to understand his experience of the battle.

One of the rules of thumb for good genre fiction is to have the protagonist present for as many of the important events as possible, and only summarize the ones that he or she is not present for.

I'm not sure what you mean by a recall/recovery scene, but I think beginning a book with the character in a hospital, shell shocked, traumatized and injured, would pull me in better than starting with the battle itself. It would get me to sympathize with the character and ask questions about what the heck happened.

Even in the middle of a story, it might be merited to skip straight to the aftermath. The damage and trauma. I could see myself glossing over an actual fight and moving on to your main character losing it as their mangled comrade dies in their arms. Picking their way through the destruction and bodies, searching for someone they love.
 
I don't know what publishers want, but I've never felt that I was particularly more attracted to books because its beginning was in the middle of action. It's a tip I hear all the time, but when I look at the books I read, some times its there and sometimes its not. I'm sure it helps but there's no pattern big enough for me to notice, at least for me personally.

Beginning the story with good initial pacing is the real goal. Beginning in the middle of action is simply a popular and easy way to do it. Opening your story with a lot of description or backstory can, for example, make the pacing seem boring and makes people give up on the story before they turn the first or second page.

Also, I feel if you're worried it's beginning to feel too formulaic when writing, I think it's fair to point out that the action doesn't have to be some big fight sequence. A character doing something, anything, can be enough to jump start a story.
 

A. E. Lowan

Forum Mom
Leadership
I think, like all writing techniques, that it is entirely doable if handled with care. The risk one runs in starting off with intense action is that the reader has no buy-in, no connection with the characters involved. No reason to care. You have to make them care, very much, and very quickly, and that can be tricky. If this is the way the writing is pulling you, that the characters are pulling you, then go ahead and try it. The worst thing that happens is that it doesn't land and you rewrite the opening.
 

Chessie2

Staff
Article Team
I agree with the other posters here who advised against having action right away before allowing your readers to know your characters.

Now, we hear all the time how we're supposed to start with a bang but that bang can be anything intriguing. What it comes down to is the specific audience you're writing to. How do those books start? It can be done in a variety of ways but what you basically want to do is bring a slow introduction to the reader of who this main character is and what problems they currently face/will face.

On the first page I try to have:
-a characteristic of the character
-where they are that moment in life
-a problem that needs resolving
-relation of the character to the story setting

If you need specific examples let me know. Sometimes I don't make a lot of sense...
 
I can understand your viewing of this technique as a trend. It's pushed in many writing forums. Is use of the technique overdone? Maybe. It makes for a great intro when done well, but leaves me feeling blasé when done poorly. I'm put off by story openings that employ this technique for its own sake. Yes, we all know we need to open with a hook. But show me the wriggling worm on the hook if you want to catch me and keep me reading.
 
I can understand your viewing of this technique as a trend. It's pushed in many writing forums. Is use of the technique overdone? Maybe. It makes for a great intro when done well, but leaves me feeling blasé when done poorly. I'm put off by story openings that employ this technique for its own sake. Yes, we all know we need to open with a hook. But show me the wriggling worm on the hook if you want to catch me and keep me reading.

Like anything else that's done well, you won't really recognize a good technique while reading- if it is really engaging you probably won't stop to analyze it to death.

I guess I'm going to have to let beta readers voice their opinions to help me decide. I was hoping that if the technique/formula/hook was way too-trendy to use, it would help inform my 'editing' decision.

I like both openings to my WIP equally well at this point, and I won't lose any information or context by switching around "chronologically-linear introduction of MC to reader, complete with character context" vs. "opening in a past tense, cryptic 'action' scene between characters with reader not sure what is going on exactly".

Version one builds up to a pivotal scene through a few chapters... version two would basically be starting the book with the pivotal scene of the first few chapters as both the flash-back mechanism and the 'wriggly hook' method.

It's about a 40/60 split from those posting to this thread... 40% that recognize, and generally approved (with some caveats) the specific pros and cons utilizing the 'wth is going on' opening technique; and flash-back story telling. Some noting that it is on trend vs. 60% those that have not observed it at all, or do not think either is overused as a trend.
 
This is also the on-trend narrative style for cinema, which gets the added benefit of special and visual effects.

Yep. The spectacle can engage a viewer just fine, and a work of prose simply isn't going to be able to compete—most of the time. Great writers can probably pack a lot of visuals, context, worldbuilding, personality, into an opening action sequence, but even then I think they are struggling uphill to compete with cinema in this regard. A picture paints a thousand words, eh? And the opening sequence of a movie is many frames, heh. I remember the opening to the first Guardians of the Galaxy film: Peter Quill was made very interesting off the bat, simply through body language, movements/dance, and a few quips near the end. A writer can do this sort of thing also, but I don't think the prose is going to be quite as effective as the cinematic treatment.

Then there's the time factor. The average Hollywood blockbuster nowadays is slightly over two hours long. Viewers can know with some certainty that all the character building and related info is going to come along rather quickly. (Been trying to find an average opening sequence length for action openings. Dunno. Around 3 or 4 minutes at most, I think.) Viewers can enjoy the quick spectacle until the more in-depth character building begins.

Another consequence of the compact nature of movies is that viewers can still have in mind what happened 30 minutes, an hour, two hours before. That wasn't so long ago. It's all of a piece. The experience of a novel is different. In a movie, the flashback sequence interrupts the flow of the main story, but only briefly; what came before and the expectation of what comes after is still "present" for the viewer. In a book, this is rarely the case. In a book, the flashback sequence is all that's "present," as the before fades into the distant past—if it hadn't already. I think this has something to do with the way our short term memory works, heh, and the difference between visual/audio information and the information that prose delivers. At least, this is how I experience these things.

I'm not saying that none of this can be done effectively in prose, but only that these considerations should be made when structuring how the story unfolds for the reader.
 

Chessie2

Staff
Article Team
Writing and cinema are two entirely different animals. The two shouldn't, can't be, compared. Writing has the power to evoke deep emotions within the reader and allow them to use their imagination in ways cinema quite can't.
 
Writing and cinema are two entirely different animals. The two shouldn't, can't be, compared. Writing has the power to evoke deep emotions within the reader and allow them to use their imagination in ways cinema quite can't.

I have to disagree on one point. I think they should be compared; but much of that comparison can be contrast. I think either can illuminate the other, as a kind of foil if nothing else. Also, my experience is that a lot of new writers come from an experience of watching lots of cinema and television, and sometimes their efforts to write prose are informed by their cinema-going experiences with negative consequences.

On the issue of evocation and letting readers use their imaginations: yes. Absolutely yes. ;) In my previous comment, I wasn't suggesting that movies are inherently superior to prose in every respect, heh. But I don't think that stressing the strengths of cinema automatically knocks prose into the gutter. An interesting use of this consideration of prose's strength: How can we use that strength when designing opening action scenes? Basically, let's assume that novels can open with successful—nay, great!—action scenes. How would they be different than the cinematic approach to opening action sequences?
 
Chessie2 and Fifthview... I'm a visual person, and a multi-media artist IRL. I adore cinema for the imagery, the moods, all of the ambient sensory information. Sometimes, I will rewatch a movie, just to study the sets and scenary. The actors portraying characters and telling the story are interesting, too. On the up and up, cinema can be just as moving and emotionally stimulating as reading... however for me, the key difference is the pacing and intimacy of the reader's experience. It's all taking place in the mind, the conjuring of imagination. That is also unique for each reader. And yes, the pacing and the act of reading is not a passive experience, like a movie-watcher. You are mentally engaged, using totally different processes in the brain to experience the written word from visual/audio media. There's no telling how long it will take to read something... a movie does everything it wants to do over a few hours... A book? Depends on the reader. And, the intimacy of a book. It's something you make time for, like any other important relationship; if you're not connecting with it, up on a shelf it goes, to scarcely be thought of again. A movie is in and out of your life quickly. Either you connect with it, or not, but it does not require the commitment of pausing your life to engage for several hours, weeks, etc like a book.

Obviously, movies and books are two very different kinds of storytelling media for two different experiences. I don't feel one pales compared to another. They're just different.

I think in visuals and imagery when I write. So, in some ways cinema has influenced my writing. But, perhaps because I'm already a visual tactile person, it inspires my imagination and I can translate into written word for others to experience in their own minds. (Hopefully.)

Trying to transcribe something that is better done than said, is the tricky part. I can imagine reading or writing screenplays, trying to mentally picture the physical action to be portrayed, and getting lost in translation. For example, my characters carry swords. I'm not looking forward to writing out sword fights and duels. I can kind of picture it in my head, just like a film, and supplement my own visuals with film study of choreographed combat scenes. And write what I see down on paper. Trying to work the other way around without visual (film) references? Probably not going to write or read well. I can describe what I see, but some things I cannot invent without additional input.

And besides, it is easier to process some information visually, especially special effects and CGI. Heck, a lot of the comic books (the genre darling of the past decade) had the benefit of 'still frames' to visually describe complex actions/SFX and inform the reader. And basically humans have been acting out plays based on written word since antiquity.

If written word is not inspiring and engaging, I probably would be just as disappointed seeing it act out on stage or on the big screen.

I think the two mediums, written and visual storytelling, are interwoven and complimentary. They succeed or fail based on a lot of the same criteria. Visual has a more finite, explicit way to inform the viewer in a passive experience. Reading invokes your imagination to parameters the writer prescribes, but there's a lot of room for imagination and interpretation.
 

Lexi_Banner

New Member
I find flashbacks and dreams can work if they are given with a LIGHT hand. I much prefer to have characters think about their past as they carry on in their world. I utilize a dream scene to show how the character is not coping with her past, but the dream sequence is less than 200 words. Just enough to give a taste of what's happening before she wakes up and we see that she's only slept two hours, and learn that this is close to being her norm. I also utilize one later in the story when she's let her guard down, and it leads to a dramatic scene where the other main character finally starts to understand why she is the way she is.

You can definitely use whatever elements you like, even if the market is "flooded". You just have to do it well!
 

Peat

Sage
For example, one chapter ends with two armies about to engage on the battlefield, then, the next chapter opens having skipped over all the details of the battle- and instead- the character wakes up in a hospital tent, wondering how they survived and what happened in battle? Trying to recall events after the fact for the audience?

If you don't use that idea, I'm stealing it.
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
Night Gardener and Peat, Patrick O'Brian uses this often. He takes you into the battle, but will often break the chapter just as victory is being achieved. He doesn't take time with following the battle through to its conclusion. It was disorienting at first, but I came to see the reasoning. I haven't found a place to imitate that yet, but should the occasion arise, I know where to turn for a model.
 

Peat

Sage
I think Martin sets up then skips a few battles too.

I think, particularly in epic fantasy, knowing when to show the battle and when not to is an important art form.

To answer the other question in the OP - I am down for flashbacks. However, I often struggle with action heavy openings where I know very little about the character and learn very little about the character. If an author combines this with spending more time showing their flashy magic system rather than their characters, they've probably lost me as a reader there and then.
 
Top