Picking apart the butterfly to see what makes it fly

[ksmith]

Discussions of writing in sartorias's blog, scene-building and plot and beginnings.



One of the comments led me to Carol Emshwiller's webpage and her essay about ignoring what she called writing cliches, such as starting a scene with action,or showing rather than telling. An interesting piece, although being more of an action SF writer (and how did that happen, I want to know?) I confess that I see problems with not starting with some sort of action. Not necessarily explosions--we can wait, oh, 10 or 20 pages to get to those *g*--but some sort of tension or hint to the reader that stuff is bubbling just below the surface and will punch through as soon as it finds a fault to exploit.

I haven't read Carol's work, and for all I know she may do that and not call it action. I think 'tension' may be the better word here, because adrenaline and bloodshed are not necessarily involved. Just something to clue in the reader that all is not well. It may be descriptions of surroundings or events through the POV's eyes that strike the reader as odd, or rushed, or not quite right. Actions decribed as perfectly normal by the POV that the reader knows aren't run-of-the-mill. The sense that something's off--if I didn't insert that in the first few paragraphs, I'd feel compelled to rewrite those paragraphs. I think many genre writers would. The key is conflict, of any sort, not necessarily action-as-motion. If a chapter or section or story doesn't clue in the reader fairly quickly that something isn't quite right, there's a good chance that reader is going to set the work aside. Yes, you can overdo it. You can also underdo it, a too-faint ripple that no one notices but the writer. But I think you have to do something, and the tone of the work helps indicate the degree to which it needs to be done.

That leads into another thing we discussed, namely the inability of some writers to explain the writing process. Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! I try, but more often than not I fall back on the "You'll know it when it happens" which leaves folks who haven't the experience frustrated. For those of us who write by whisker-feel, it's a skill that grew with time, which we can't quite define. Other writers can spell matters right out, and I envy them sometimes. I am often left shaking my head after such an explanation and murmuring "That's what I do," because when I do it, I'm not thinking about the mechanics or running down a To Do list. I'm just doing it. Luckily, there are writers who can define those things--they wrote the How To books that got me started, and have helped others as well. I just keep wandering down hallways in the dark, sniffing the air and pausing when I hear a sound.

Another thing I blame that discussion for is triggering what may be the first line for a novel that's slowly taking shape. Don't want to give it away now--formation is too fresh and it may dry up and blow away at any moment. But it's there, and I like it so far, so it is Good.

Comments

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

Although my first book, the editor didn't want to start the novel with a supporting POV (so much for Tony Hillerman...) so my nice heart-racing scene became a lower key tension instead, a card game where the player finds a flaw in the computer's game and exploits it.

I've been told that a reader needs three chapters to bond with a protag or main POV, and to begin a novel with a one-off or a minor POV is therefore discouraged. The one time I tried to do it, I was dissuaded. Since it was my first novel, I took the advice. Now I wonder whether I would because I felt it was a good piece.

It appears as though Jani 5 will start with a secondary POV. Given all the set-up/reintro mishmash that I need to do with the first few Jani chapters, I need to toss in some menace upfront to inject that ticking bomb feeling into the section.

[alfreda89.livejournal.com]

I've been told that a reader needs three chapters to bond with a protag or main POV, and to begin a novel with a one-off or a minor POV is therefore discouraged.

Where did you get this info? You're studying this more than I am--I fear to meddle with what I do well....

Seems the mystery I wrote breaks the rules--maybe why I haven't sold it yet.

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

I've been told that a reader needs three chapters to bond with a protag or main POV, and to begin a novel with a one-off or a minor POV is therefore discouraged.

Where did you get this info? You're studying this more than I am--I fear to meddle with what I do well....

Told to me years ago by a writer we both know. Wouldn't you know but the first book of hers that I read was one in which she broke that rule with an opening that I felt was one of her most effective ever. The death of a one-off character who doesn't realize she's toast until the end of the scene. A Hillerman. It rocked, imho.

Seems the mystery I wrote breaks the rules--maybe why I haven't sold it yet.

I've thought about this rule. I'm still not 100% sure I buy it, or even 50%. I mean, the libraries are filled with books that have that sort of opening and are great books.

Another example of this opening is contained in SIMPLE & SIMPLE by le Carre--not a great book, because the rest of the story did not live up to the beginning. Another one-off character, who knows he's going to die and experiences flashbacks of his life and the events that led him into his current mess. Riveting, imho--this sort of opening works for me. But I'm more inclined to let the writer take me where they will then sit down with a given book and a checklist that says "I want this and this and this, and if these things aren't there, it isn't a good book."

It's possible that the 3-chapter rule was made to cover series main characters. You need to show new readers who is the star of the show and set them up to accept it. Maybe it's considered more necessary in SF/F?

However, I think that even in the case of series, the one-off opening works well for mystery because you're doing something that isn't always done, namely allowing the reader into the head of the victim prior to the crime that drives the book. One complaint about some mysteries is that the body shows up on page one, and the reader is then expected to care about a cardboard death. PD James puts paid to that by delaying her deaths until several chapters in, after the reader has gotten to know anll the principles, Ian Rankin's books sometimes start with deaths, but shows the effects on the friends and family which is another way to pull in reader sympathy.

I think the one-off opening is tailor-made for mystery, personally. And that for every rule, there's a book that breaks it brilliantly and a score or more that break it well enough.

[alfreda89.livejournal.com]

I think the one-off opening is tailor-made for mystery, personally. And that for every rule, there's a book that breaks it brilliantly and a score or more that break it well enough.

I think you're right--but can we convince the editors?