Kevin's Watch

Last month, Donaldson gave me a scare. He said that writers shouldn't try to achieve a "white hot heat" on page one, that they should trust their story to slowly develop. This was just the opposite of advice I learned from sources like Writer's Digest magazine, among other "authorities;" namely, that you should start your work at the point where something important is actually happening, a signficant event either in terms of plot or intensity. The example I'd been following was: "begin your story with the plane going down, not with the passenger taking his seat."

So, for a couple years now my novel has jumped right into the point of crisis for my protagonist. But now I've written a version that starts a little bit prior to that point. The difference is not great--perhaps 600 words. But my wife prefers the short version, while my son prefers the longer version. I'd like your opinion, as fantasy readers. [Please excuse all the periods; I couldn't figure out any other way to indent for paragraphs.]

[Edit: content deleted for being out of date... i.e. an older draft that sucks]

Well, both versions are certainly good, and a gradual or active opening would be down to personal preference among the readers. I guess the question in my mind would be whether the extra information is necessary.
The appearance of the riders is given more context in the second, I think; in the first it's not so clear. I had the impression at first that they were pursuing him, that he'd seen something involving them specifically, while in the longer version their appearance is more obviously coincidental.
On the other hand, the background--about the way he sees things, and his fathers prediction--doesn't seem quite as necessary as the rest at this point--such information could be handled at another place in the story. I think my personal preference is for a more active opening, like in the short one, but maybe starting it a paragraph or two earlier, so the circumstance where he first sees the riders is more explicit.

Murrin, thank you very much for the feedback. Yes, the appearance of the riders was supposed to be coincidental (but nothing is REALLY coincidental) and the main character is just attributing more significance to their appearance because he's "freaking out" from what he's just seen.

Thanks, that's exactly the kind of feedback I need.

Writer's Digest and the other "authorities" have taken a basic idea, the "Hook", and exaggerated it to an explosion. That will work in some stories but not all. The best opening is one that makes you want more. A good opening can just as easily be a mystery to solve or a character to understand as an event to witness. Look at some of the entries in the opening paragraphs thread.

And, you are not required to write the beginning first. You can write the rest of the story and then go back. There's no rule against it.

Malik, I'll read your two openings when I get a chance, but here's my advice. Well, it's actually not mine it's Christos Tsiolkas' (he's an Australian writer who late last year won 2 of Australia's most prestigious literary awards...and through a weird course of events I ended up meeting him in December and we spent the night getting drunk together! <grin>).

Anyway...I was lamenting to him that I seemed to get no where with my writing. I told him that I'd always start stories and then keep fine tuning the first couple of pages...but they never seemed right...and I'd get disillusioned and in the end I'd give up. I never got anything written. He laughed and said that if he'd done that he'd never get anything done. His sound advice was to just write it all out first. No matter how crap you thought it was get it all down on paper first and then go back. It makes sense (I've just never listened to what I intuitively knew was the right thing to do--at least right for me).

And Khaliban advice is sound: you don't have to write the beginning first. I know of quite a few writers who plan their stories and then write "bits (chapter 3, chapter 7, back to chapter 2 etc). I used to write like that (but I can't anymore). However, when I'm suffering from bad writer's block and can't seem to write through it, I tend to write the words "blah blah" with maybe a comment of what I'm thinking I might do, and then move on--intending to fill in the blanks later.

Seareach wrote: His sound advice was to just write it all out first. you don't have to write the beginning first.

Khaliban wrote:And, you are not required to write the beginning first. You can write the rest of the story and then go back. There's no rule against it.

Well, thanks guys, but the book is already "finished." All 150,000 words are already down. I'm just tweaking at this point. That's why Donaldson's advice bothered me so much--I thought I was done with my opening.

I've already submitted it to several literary agents (one who was particularly interested, but that went nowhere because he died after requesting the entire manusript!). I'm going to start on my next round of query letters soon, if I can stop myself from tweaking it over and over.

If the point is now moot, then I have a certain freedom now, no? I want to complicate things.

I have to ask, does "white hot heat" necessarilly mean climactic drama or intense action? I wish I could think of a literary example, but if you have ever seen the movie Falling Down, it attains white hot heat at the onset with just a guy stuck in deadlock. This may be harder to do, or a less obvious approach, but it can be done. (Okay, perhaps Cryptonomicon is a good example.)

Anyway, I've always suspected that SRD's comment had more to do with the reader's involvement level, if you will. That you shouldn't try to, or expect, a reader to get seriously and deeply involved with a character on the first page. You have to earn that, and that can only happen as you draw the reader further and further into the story.

So, in that way, I agree.

From another angle, I've seen stories that began in the middle of a protagonist's major dilemma. And stories that had a slow build from rather ordinary circumstances. Neither of these is correct, they are both tools in a writer's toolbox. Each sets a certain tone, and each tone may be useful or not useful to certain stories. (Similarly, some stories demand a considerable denouement, and some require to be dropped like a hot potato.)

So, in that way, I think you are correct, Malik.

IMO, not EVERY story needs to "catch" you at the beginning. I'm not sure, but I think that that is 21st century marketing thinking, where the concern is NUMBERS, and that means catching up as many people with a low attention span as possible.

But my feeling is that that is NOT about quality. It is about quantity. (It doesn't preclude quality, either - it is orthogonal.) And that Donaldson also addressed in the GI, didn't he?

In the Gradual Interview was wrote:Writers (in fact, artists of all kinds) who lose the distinction between work and ego--who strive for success rather than for excellence--are doomed. (Of course, I don’t mean *financially* doomed. But money is a pretty damn empty measure of excellence.

This point, and the point about white hot heat, are inextricably linked in my opinion. Because a desire to burn hot on the first page COULD be linked to a desire to capture as much "drive by" attention as possible, to "pay off" immediately. Whereas, a work of excellence will establish a penumbra of reputation, which attracts readers of the type that will allow a story to develop slowly because they are assured via reputation of a payoff.

Wayfriend, I agree with you. I'm not really trying to argue against Donaldson, or analyze his statement in any detail. Really, I'm just habitually insecure about my book, and just about anything sends me into self-conscious reexamination of the thing.

So, which version did you like better? Did you think either was interesting or made you want to read more?

I can take negative, constructive comments. Let me have it. I think you, of all the members here, are probably the most insightful reader within this community. I'd really like to know what you think. But don't let my compliment "butter you up." Please be honest.

Critiquing is hard work. It's nice when you can find someone to do it for you for free, I suppose. It's like finding a girlfriend who'll do your laundry.

Let's just say that I disagree that either version is a good example of what we discussed, and that it would take a long time discussing lots of other issues to even get to where I could explain that. And that's too much work. Call that a cop out if you want.

But what about the question of success vs excellence: which one are you striving for with your beginning?

I've already submitted it to several literary agents (one who was particularly interested, but that went nowhere because he died after requesting the entire manusript!).

well, as you have said, nothing is ever coincidental


I like the long version. I agree with WF, it doesnt always have to be a holy cow event. Its a case by case. and anyways, SRD, no matter how much I respect him and admire his work, is not the end all be all of advice for writers.

Stick with your gut. you know what you are doing.

The opening is the readers introduction to the story, the characters, the theme and the events. A good opening will have resonance and will establish an understanding in the reader's mind. Big, flashy and loud can work but are difficult to maintain. When you think about the story, what is the first thing that comes to mind? Write something that prepares the reader for that moment or that idea. Write to the person reading the story for the second time. So that, the second-time reader will see the opening and think, "Oh, that's what he meant."

I tend to prefer the longer, but largely because of my weakness for detail and background. *shrug*

--A

Wayfriend wrote:But what about the question of success vs excellence: which one are you striving for with your beginning?

Well, both of course!

Here's what I'm striving for: a character on the brink of an existential crisis that has been building for years. Events have finally precipitated his crisis to the point where he must decide whether to face the issues confronting him, or to fall back into the "sleepy indifference" which most people use to coast through their lives. (Of course, he choses the former, or there would be no story.)

He's an anti-apprentice. Rather than the cliche story of a wizard's apprentice learning the ways of magic, he will strive for the opposite: to suppress a latent ability for magic--an inner battle which threatens his sanity and his life. Wizardry (in my book) is the same as nihilism, a corruption of reality, meaning, and order. Wizardry is illusion, chaos, and inauthenticity. But suppressing his "talent" leads to another kind of inauthenticity . . . and he fears that deep down, magic reflects reality more accurately than he's willing to admit, that everything really is meaningless, life really is nothing more than a power struggle or a pursuit of empty pleasure.

It's a quest for meaning in an apparently meaningless world. He ends up being something of a Nietzschian ubermensch.

Well, I've revised it again. This one is even longer, and starts at a different point. It then moves on to the above scene, though that part is longer too. I'd be grateful to anyone who feels like reading through it and offering criticism. It's about 3000 words.

[Edit: content deleted for being out of date... i.e. an older draft that sucks]

I haven't read either version, though I will, but wanted to say this. I, too, have heard the "advice" from Writer's Digest and other contemporary "experts". Something like Hit The Ground Running - and they're usually talking about action.

Personally, I disagree entirely with that school of thought. What I think needs to happen is this: the writer needs to engage the reader. Nobody has to die, bombs don't need to detonate, spaceships don't need to crash, worlds don't need to collide.

Just engage the reader, and all it takes is to couple a good idea with good writing. (That doesn't explain The Bridges of Madison County, but not much can.)

I say that as if it's so simple!! Of course it isn't, and good writing can only be achieved by painful hours editing and re-editing, but that's just my two cents on openings.

Malik-
Not sure if you're still interested in feedback on these. I know you posted them a while ago. I wanted to echo what some of the others had mentioned as well. For me to be interested in a piece, there has to be a "hook" fairly early on. It doesn't always have to be action, in fact frequently it's not for me, but it's a particular phrase or passage which really creates an interesting tone or mood.

The first version felt like it started too abrubtly to me. The intense feelings the protagonist was clearly having didn't really resonate with me because it started in the middle of his crisis, rather than the beginning.

The second version, I really liked. This one for me definetly had a hook. It was the line about how everyday objects would "sharpen with unfamiliarity". Very nice. One thing to point out about this version though; we're told that our guy is 23 years old, then this passage

.For thirteen years I’ve avoided the nighttime sky, telling myself that the world couldn’t really come apart as he foretold. I’ve spent my evenings indoors, in the tavern, with a strong drink and a resolve to forget.

makes it sound like he's been drinking in the tavern since he was ten years old. At least, that's how it came across to me.


The third version though, was by far my favorite. The types of lines that are "hooks" to me were all through the first portion of the chapter. "knots of mutual distraction", "the prospect of dulled pain", "a shrine of habitual turst", "a confusion of balance and beer" ..... I could go on, but these are all excellent. The whole tone of the opening sets up the tension between the normal, mundane world, and our protaganists' pereception so well. And then that tension informs the scene on the hilltop. Even though much of this last section is the same from the first two versions it carries much more weight now. This read through actually got my heart pumping! And now that we have the background there's a much more effective contrast between our hero's concern's and the rider's more mundane concerns of finding shelter.

So I'd pick the third version. But that's just my opinion, for whatever it's worth. BTW, if you couldn't tell, I really liked it. Any chance we'll be able to see the whole thing (in a published form, maybe)?

Mortice, thank you very much. I think the version I posted here is even different from the one I posted in the Writer's Circle . . . which is different again from the current one (which I just finished today). I think you're right, each version gets better the more room I give it to breath. However, I think that whoever said (in the Writer's Circle) that there's too much exposition was right. So my latest version gets to some dialogue and character interaction much earlier, while retaining many of those phrases or "hooks" you liked in the latest version here. So I get Malik out of his head sooner, and get some characterization going sooner.

I promise the rest of the book is much better! I think that by chapter three, at least, it's something you've never seen before. The interaction between his unique ability to see and hear deeper levels of reality--combined with a style of magic which deals mainly with illusion--creates some really fascinating scenes as he gets swept up with a group of men who are fleeing wizards. The effect of this particular kind of magic on a person of his uniquely enhanced perception presents some crazy opportunities to explore character and reality simultaneously. I'm still frustrated at times with the opening (though I'm excited about today's version), but once I get the story moving, it really does take off.

. . . makes it sound like he's been drinking in the tavern since he was ten years old. At least, that's how it came across to me.

Yeah, that line has been completely deleted. But you're right. He's been trying to find ways to avert his heightened perception ever since his father killed himself . . . for exactly the same reasons. So he started drinking fairly early. But that's not really uncommon in times when people didn't understand things like water purification. Children drank beer as their primary beverage as little as 150-200 years ago in America and Europe.