# "Before the story begins, let me tell you about the room the characters were in...



## InkwellMachine (Nov 19, 2013)

_Then let me tell you what the characters themselves looked like. And their dog. And let me say a few words on the coffee they were drinking. Then we can start."_

This is how I feel about the opening lines to practically every scene I've ever read from a fantasy or sci-fi story. Well okay, that's a pretty broad statement. I'm sure you get my meaning, though. The author will often open with a description of _the silent bar room, furnished with a mahogany counter and a black-brick fireplace, _when the bar room itself has almost nothing to contribute to the story.

These details are superfluous. They contribute nothing to the story's progression, and often have little or no underlying (poetic/symbolic) value. All this, and they're still strangely effective.

Why is this? Is it, perhaps, because we're not accustomed to suddenly being in the middle of an event? Is it because humans by their very nature are bound to notice things like the argyle pattern on someone's tie seconds before a nuclear bomb detonates?

I do not know, but I struggle to incorporate these... "scene openers" into my stories. They feel like a waste of time. It feels as if I should just be writing what I mean to write. Then again, that would be awfully direct of me.

Opinions? Thoughts? Do you prefer to open with descriptors, or do you just jump into the middle of the scene?


----------



## Outiboros (Nov 19, 2013)

No, it's because science fiction and fantasy writers envision their story as a movie in their head, and want to pass on that experience to the reader. 

Maybe.

I really dislike to start with long descriptions such as these. Often I don't even give an in-depth description of the characters at all, main or not. Though I do often give longer descriptions of inanimate objects or scenes, either to create an atmosphere, give relevant information or get a joke out of it.


----------



## Andyfuji (Nov 19, 2013)

Could be wrong, but I think it lies in fantasy writers trying to create a world, not just a story.  To a point, it's trying to shove into your face the message that "_this place is different than things are now_" or flip-side, "_this place is not so different than now._"  Overboard, admittedly, but immersion is what makes sci-fi and fantasy work, and what makes it relateable; regardless of whether or not the reader lives in the world the story takes place in or not, because you just described every little thing about it to them.  Making fantasy seem a little less silly, and sci-fi a little less far-fetched.

What Outiboros said carries a lot of weight, though.  I've read countless writings that sound like they're so desperately trying to be films, going even so far as to incorporate camera movements into the narration.


----------



## Sam (Nov 19, 2013)

I don't write sci-fi or fantasy, but I don't hang about in the first chapter. It's your 'hook, line, and sinker' chapter. Nothing bores me more than reading an opening line that sets the scene and little else. You _can _set the scene whilst also dropping your reader into the thick of things. If you'll excuse the shameless self-promotion, my latest novel begins as so: 

_Jonathan Baker separated the curtains of his living room one more time. Fifty yards outside his house sat the same dark-coloured van that had been casing the neighbourhood for the last three nights. The side door slid open and half a dozen armed men exited the vehicle, gathering by the security panel next to his front gate. He let the curtains fall back into place and hurried to the kitchen to check the rear door. 

_Granted, that's the opener for a thriller, but I've set the scene even in the midst of a bunch of armed men surrounding a house. My main goal is to first and foremost hook the reader, and then _keep _him/her hooked. World-introducing or -building first chapters don't do that, in my opinion. Save that for seven or eight chapters down the line, when you've got the reader out of the book-store and too far away to consider going back for another book.


----------



## popsprocket (Nov 19, 2013)

There's a fantasy adage that goes "start as far from the end as possible". Obviously that's counter to the regular bit of advice about starting as close to the end as possible. One of the ways a story gets the feel of an epic scale is through a mountain of detail. So, beginning with a long scene setting and reasonably low tension is something that people still try to do. Personally I don't think it's valid anymore, not even in epic fantasy, because, as above, there are ways to set a scene and begin with the action without sending the reader off to bed.


----------



## Tyrannohotep (Nov 19, 2013)

As someone who actually does specialize in speculative fiction, I can confirm that these descriptions have to do with setting the scene. Most fantasy and sci-fi stories take place in times and places far removed from the average modern reader's experience, so they necessitate more description than do stories with more familiar and mundane settings. Of course it can be overdone, especially if it's done in big congealed blocks that slow the story down. I find it more useful to lightly sprinkle the descriptions about so that they mix in better with the rest of the prose. It also helps to pick the most potent descriptors possible so that I can paint the clearest images with the least verbiage.

That said, not only can a total absence of description taste bland to me, but I worry that this trend towards descriptive minimalism has its roots in an insidious form of racism disguised as political correctness. This becomes most apparent when the topic shifts to physical character descriptors. I might envision my leading lady to be an obsidian-skinned African beauty, but the minimalists would have all references to her blackness edited out so that Hollywood can cast yet another blonde to play her character in the cinematic adaptation. Sure, a paucity of description can leave more to a reader's imagination, but then Hollywood doesn't have much in the way of imagination anymore.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Nov 19, 2013)

I do this a lot.

Usually, everything I mention is useful or interesting, and often the room itself will be a character that changes with respect to the dynamics of the scene. So it's totes fine, don't you worry none.

It's a habitual holdover from writing plays (that and constantly all-caps'ing everyone's NAMES). In the last play I did, every single objects and prop was introduced in the first 15 minutes and they were constantly being used as makeshift weapons. By the end, the set would have pretty much been torn down, and caked in blood. It was fun to write.


----------



## escorial (Nov 19, 2013)

The way a room a place can be described is one of the things I enjoy the most..when reading


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 19, 2013)

I get your drift, but I think it really depends.  In my current WIP, I open with the scenery because it reflects the characters.  I briefly describe the location (1 paragraph) to show contrast.

But I have read authors starting with nothing but scenery even when the scenery has zero impact on the characters.  It's not my cup of tea.  If the scenery doesn't play a part in the story specifically (if there's a riot going on, the scenery will absolutely play a role), I'd rather not write it until the reader has met the main character.


----------



## Jeko (Nov 19, 2013)

> In my current WIP, I open with the scenery because it reflects the characters.



The main issue, I think, is that it can fall into the realms of pathetic fallacy, which is a dated technique. Modern storytelling tends to avoid it in favour of an immediate focus on action and event.


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 19, 2013)

Cadence said:


> The main issue, I think, is that it can fall into the realms of pathetic fallacy, which is a dated technique. Modern storytelling tends to avoid it in favour of an immediate focus on action and event.


What can fall into the realm of pathetic fallacy?


----------



## Schrody (Nov 19, 2013)

I'm writing a Sci-Fi, and this is my opening (I just translated it) : "Hell. That's one way to call it. Space is wrapped with darkness. It's extremely hot, no living being could survive in such crude environment. Atmosphere is heavy, unsuitable, lethal.  Vibrations are spreading all over the planet, deafening noises, sounds of beginning." 

When I write other genres, I often start with main character, and what he/she is doing at the moment, e.g.: " Simon H... was meeting with Will F...."


----------



## Schrody (Nov 19, 2013)

Outiboros said:


> No, it's because science fiction and fantasy writers envision their story as a movie in their head, and want to pass on that experience to the reader.



I do this all the time, no matter what I'm writing.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Nov 19, 2013)

Outiboros said:


> No, it's because science fiction and fantasy writers envision their story as a movie in their head, and want to pass on that experience to the reader.
> 
> Maybe.



Almost certainly.  I was going to say the same before I saw your post.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 19, 2013)

I usually start with my main character (or the POV character of the scene) involved in some sort of activity or dialogue, then touch on the setting in the next paragraph.

My reasons are that I consider it easier to hook a reader through a character than through setting a scene.

That said, if your setting is unique or fascinating in some way, that can serve as a hook as well. If your trees are walking around, or if the castle is on fire, I'll be interested to read on.

If you're just going to tell me about the interior of a common tavern, I'm less likely to be hooked.

In the end I like to ask myself, "What's the most interesting way to start this story?" Usually, for me, that involves my character in the middle of something. But, on a few occasions, that will mean the setting. 

In screenplays, yes, you usually describe the setting first. This is for production reasons, so the director can envision the location that the scene will be taking place in.

In fiction, you always have to remember to hook your reader from the start. If the setting will do that, great. If your character in action will do that better, go with that. Start with what works the best, rather than any preconceived notions about the genre, I say. :encouragement:


----------



## tabasco5 (Nov 19, 2013)

It really depends on the specific story in question.  I always like a good backstory or setting, but I don't like it to be too dense.  There has to be a good balance.  But if the story is good enough, or the writing good enough, I can forgive most any long-winded description.


----------



## J Anfinson (Nov 19, 2013)

I like setting to be incorporated as the story progresses, so that it starts with action but gives enough detail to make me want to find out more.


----------



## Newman (Nov 19, 2013)

InkwellMachine said:


> _Then let me tell you what the characters themselves looked like. And their dog. And let me say a few words on the coffee they were drinking. Then we can start."_
> 
> This is how I feel about the opening lines to practically every scene I've ever read from a fantasy or sci-fi story. Well okay, that's a pretty broad statement. I'm sure you get my meaning, though. The author will often open with a description of _the silent bar room, furnished with a mahogany counter and a black-brick fireplace, _when the bar room itself has almost nothing to contribute to the story.
> 
> ...



If the story is told properly and the room is mentioned, then it'll be important. It won't be superfluous.

You can open with the room. But it has to have the quality of "a hook" about it. Which is to say, keep the audience interested and reading.


----------



## Jeko (Nov 20, 2013)

> What can fall into the realm of pathetic fallacy?



Using scenery to set the mood before introducing characters. It's why people say you shouldn't start with the weather.


----------



## Sam (Nov 20, 2013)

The one thing that bears keeping in mind here is that scenery is all too often used as metaphor for faux emotion. Beautiful sunsets, awe-inspiring snowy mountains, and lush grass being tossed on the wind; rain, darkened skies, and storms. Done correctly, it's called 'metonymy'. Done incorrectly, and it's a 'pathetic fallacy'. Poets are guilty of the latter. Authors are guilty of the former, especially at the beginning of novels. 

It's great to set the scene, but what does that do for the start of your novel? Why describe mountains that your character will never traverse; sunsets s/he will never speak of again; grass that has no bearing on anything? Overly descriptive and ultimately stagnant scenes do not lend themselves well to the opening of a novel. Like it or not, your job is to hook the reader. If you describe a room outfitted with torture devices, _that's _a hook. A man lying on a hospital bed with a syringe hidden under the sheets. Hook. A woman sneaking through overgrown grass with a gun in her hand. Hook. By all means have scenery; just have _something else _of import along with it.


----------



## Jeko (Nov 20, 2013)

> Done correctly, it's called 'metonymy'. Done incorrectly, and it's a 'pathetic fallacy'. Poets are guilty of the latter. Authors are guilty of the former, especially at the beginning of novels.



I'm pretty sure it's called pathetic fallacy whether done right or wrong; Jane Eyre uses it to great effect. The point I labour that, while it can be used to great effect, it is a dated technique and makes prose seem older and more antiquate if attention is drawn to it.

Metonymy is, if I'm correct, substitution with close association/reference to characteristics as opposed to name, and unrelated.

I completely agree, however, that no matter what kind of scene you set, you must present something important inside it. The number of stories that begin without characters frightens me.


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 20, 2013)

Cadence said:


> Using scenery to set the mood before introducing characters. It's why people say you shouldn't start with the weather.


So it is your opinion that pathetic fallacies are bad?


----------



## Jeko (Nov 21, 2013)

> So it is your opinion that pathetic fallacies are bad?



No; they're just used incorrectly a lot of the time by amateur writers - like adverbs. Many aren't aware of what they actually do to the prose.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Nov 21, 2013)

Hook the reader from the beginning.  That's all that counts.  Authors can start with characters and still not hook the reader.  They can start with scenery and hook the reader.  It is far more common and easier to hook the reader with characters, though.  Starting with scenery suggests that there might be a problem.  That's why authors are warned not to do it.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Nov 21, 2013)

Cadence said:


> I'm pretty sure it's called pathetic fallacy whether done right or wrong; Jane Eyre uses it to great effect. The point I labour that, while it can be used to great effect, it is a dated technique and makes prose seem older and more antiquate if attention is drawn to it.
> 
> Metonymy is, if I'm correct, substitution with close association/reference to characteristics as opposed to name, and unrelated.
> 
> I completely agree, however, that no matter what kind of scene you set, you must present something important inside it. The number of stories that begin without characters frightens me.



"It was raining on the day John's dad was buried."
"The sky was crying on the day John's dad was buried.""
John is a fictional character.  The author could assign any weather pattern to the day John's dad was buried.  He chose rain as an external symbol of John's feelings.  Only the second one is a petty fallacy, right?


----------



## Jeko (Nov 21, 2013)

> "It was raining on the day John's dad was buried."
> "The sky was crying on the day John's dad was buried.""
> John is a fictional character. The author could assign any weather pattern to the day John's dad was buried. He chose rain as an external symbol of John's feelings. Only the second one is a petty fallacy, right?



They may both be pathetic fallacy - depends on the purpose, the focus, and the context of the passage.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Nov 21, 2013)

Cadence said:


> They may both be pathetic fallacy - depends on the purpose, the focus, and the context of the passage.



Would you mind expounding on that a bit?


----------



## Andyfuji (Nov 22, 2013)

Cadence said:


> They may both be pathetic fallacy - depends on the purpose, the focus, and the context of the passage.



It's only pathetic fallacy if you are assigning human emotions to inhuman objects.  The second of Justin's sentences uses both metonymy and pathetic fallacy, referring to the clouds as "the sky" (metonymy) and saying that they are "crying" (pathetic fallacy.)  Humans do not "rain."  The emotion in the first sentence is only implied by the rain, not personified by it.


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 22, 2013)

Sam said:


> Done correctly, it's called 'metonymy'. Done incorrectly, and it's a 'pathetic fallacy'. Poets are guilty of the latter. Authors are guilty of the former, especially at the beginning of novels.



Yeah, you're wrong about that detail.

 Pathetic Fallacy is not a derisory term, the use of the word 'pathetic' is linked to its prior meaning (which is more or less obsolete) which simply meant evocative of emotion. 

Also I have no idea where you got 'metonymy' from because a metonymy, as in the use of 'metonyms' is simply a term for using one word to encompass others, for example calling police officers 'the law' or referring to violence as 'living by the gun'.

 It is linked to metaphors, but has no link to pathetic fallacy or the subject of this post.


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 22, 2013)

Cadence said:


> Using scenery to set the mood before introducing characters. It's why people say you shouldn't start with the weather.



I am curious. Who says you shouldn't start with the weather?

I think that's one of those bunk rules. First off, nature (including weather) CAN be a character. Of course, it's likely not a lead character, nor even a reoccurring character, but it is a character nonetheless. In literary terms, it is certainly more closely related to the function of a character than setting.

Sounds far fetched? Consider what separates a character from a setting to begin with. A character requires action: Weather is one of the most dynamic forces on earth. A character requires communication: Thunder is communication and so is wind. Weather is also, like a character, vulnerable. It is subject to cycles, gravitational pull, thermal currents, etc. Like any sentient character, its origin is a mystery. So yes, weather can (and perhaps should be) considered every bit a  character. And, if it amounts to an INTERESTING character, it therefore  deserves to be written about and can absolutely be used to begin a  story.

Now I know people would respond along the lines of 'but its not conscious', but neither are cars...didn't stop Disney making a movie about them. The trick is to MAKE it alive. The author is empowered to do this.


----------



## Jeko (Nov 22, 2013)

> Who says you shouldn't start with the weather?



I believe someone wrote an essay on it once, denouncing it as a dated term, but I can't remember who or what the essay was called; I'm going to do more research into it. It would help my Lit studies at the very least.



> Would you mind expounding on that a bit?



For a start, it depends what mood is being set up in the scene.



> The emotion in the first sentence is only implied by the rain, not personified by it.



It can still count as PF. Take the opening of Browning's 'Porphyria's Lover' for example:

_The rain set early in tonight, 
The sullen wind was soon awake, 
It tore the elm-tops down for spite, 
and did its worst to vex the lake
_
This contains both examples of direct personification and implied emotion. Both contribute to the overall use of PF.


----------



## Sam (Nov 22, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> Pathetic Fallacy is not a derisory term, the use of the word 'pathetic' is linked to its prior meaning (which is more or less obsolete) which simply meant evocative of emotion.



I never said it was a derisory term. Once again, you're putting words into others' mouths. 



> Also I have no idea where you got 'metonymy' from because a metonymy, as in the use of 'metonyms' is simply a term for using one word to encompass others, for example calling police officers 'the law' or referring to violence as 'living by the gun'.
> 
> It is linked to metaphors, but has no link to pathetic fallacy or the subject of this post.



You might want to have a word with my professor, then, because she's the one who told an entire class that the use of weather to convey emotion is called 'metonymy'.


----------



## Jeko (Nov 22, 2013)

> she's the one who told an entire class that the use of weather to convey emotion is called 'metonymy'.



"The word “metonymy”, Greek, _‘meta’ _– after; _‘onoma’ _– a name, means literally, “substitution of name”, and the figure consists in “substituting the thing named for the thing meant”; for example, grey hair may be used for old age, throne for monarchy. Some other examples are:
eg. _The pen _(author) _is mightier than the sword _(the soldier)."

From 'Figures of speech commonly used in literature'

"Metonymy: the act of referring to something using a word that describes one of its qualities or features."

From 'Cambridge dictionaries online'

I can see a vague connection that the professor may have drawn, but her definition is incorrect, or at least not widely recognized.

While you didn't say it was a derisory term, you did say that something is PF if done 'incorrectly'. I have read many writers who use PF correctly, sometimes to incredible effect.


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 22, 2013)

Sam said:


> I never said it was a derisory term. Once again, you're putting words into others' mouths.





> Done correctly, it's called 'metonymy'. Done incorrectly, and it's a 'pathetic fallacy'.



You said it was 'incorrect' to use pathetic fallacy. That may or may not be the same as saying it is a derisory term, but it is certainly saying it a negative.

 More importantly, it's a false statement. It is false because virtually every great writer, from Shakespeare to Dickens to Edgar Allan Poe has used it extensively and to great effect. I would name them, but actually it would probably be pretty hard to find a successful writer who hasn't used it at least sometimes. It is such a false statement, in fact, I would like to be charitable and suggest that maybe you didn't actually mean it, and that you probably just weren't sure what you were talking about (but I wouldn't want to 'put words in your mouth').





> You might want to have a word with my professor, then, because she's the one who told an entire class that the use of weather to convey emotion is called 'metonymy'.



Or perhaps you might, being that she's your professor and all... 

As an English major, I highly doubt any professor worth their salt would make such a basic error. I was wondering if perhaps she had actually said 'meteoronymy', which being that 'meteorology' is the study of weather and the suffix 'nym' is Greek for a noun. I did a quick google search and unfortunately that term doesn't seem to exist in the English language. Either way, that definition of 'metonymy' is incorrect. Sorry.


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 22, 2013)

Cadence said:


> *The main issue, I think, is that it can fall into the realms of pathetic fallacy, which is a dated technique*. Modern storytelling tends to avoid it in favour of an immediate focus on action and event.





Tettsuo said:


> So it is your opinion that pathetic fallacies are bad?





Cadence said:


> *No; they're just used incorrectly a lot of the time by amateur writers - like adverbs*. Many aren't aware of what they actually do to the prose.



You can't have it both ways in a discussion my friend.

Framing it as a dated technique and discussing it as if PFs are not good, gives the impression that using PF is bad writing.  As Luckscar has already pointed out, that's simply not true and reeks of opinion passed off as another "writing rule".  You even go back to the adverb rule that's, imo, nonsense.  PFs are often used, and used to great effect, by many great writers past and present.

If it works, use it, no?  If it doesn't work, don't use it.  It's not like a reader is going to say "oh, can't read this book anymore, it used a PF in the second chapter".  What matters is - Does the art get across the idea, emotion, thought or direction the writer wants his artwork to convey effectively?  Anything that distract from that goal, should be removed.  But, if it aids in that goal, keep it.  *Even if the art isn't how other artist would write the piece.*

We have too many books out now that reads just like every other book out there.  Homogenizing the art of writing is a far bigger problem than someone bending or outright breaking a so-called rule.  Every new book I've picked up on my Kindle could be written by the same writer.  It's tiresome.  The books that have been the most entertaining to me have been older books.

We writers need to hone our _voice_ as well as our _craft_.  Bring something new... innovate!  Write as only you could.  Let's here what each of our hearts have to say, in the way our hearts want to say it.  That doesn't mean one should outright ignore the proper use of the medium.  But use it as a skeleton where the unique you is built from.  You could never tell humans apart if you looked at their bones.  The same should go for writing.

But then, I only have one book. /shrug


----------



## Jeko (Nov 22, 2013)

> If it works, use it, no? If it doesn't work, don't use it. It's not like a reader is going to say "oh, can't read this book anymore, it used a PF in the second chapter". What matters is - Does the art get across the idea, emotion, thought or direction the writer wants his artwork to convey effectively? Anything that distract from that goal, should be removed. But, if it aids in that goal, keep it. Even if the art isn't how other artist would write the piece.
> 
> We have too many books out now that reads just like every other book out there. Homogenizing the art of writing is a far bigger problem than someone bending or outright breaking a so-called rule. Every new book I've picked up on my Kindle could be written by the same writer. It's tiresome. The books that have been the most entertaining to me have been older books.
> 
> We writers need to hone our voice as well as our craft. Bring something new... innovate! Write as only you could. Let's here what each of our hearts have to say, in the way our hearts want to say it. That doesn't mean one should outright ignore the proper use of the medium. But use it as a skeleton where the unique you is built from. You could never tell humans apart if you looked at their bones. The same should go for writing.



That's really what I'm saying. 

Though some literary critics condemn the technique, the person who coined the phrase was attacking not its use but its overuse. Overt use of it can add a more poetic angle to prose, one that makes it often feel antiquated - such examples fill the creative boards of WF on a regular basis. Modern writers either avoid it or cover it up, so it supports the work rather than draw attention to itself. You could say our use of it has changed; so, the technique isn't itself dated, perhaps, but the common use of it in amateur writing is. There are different extents of PF; you can give the weather human emotions, or use it as reflection or introduction of mood or a change in mood. Some are more attention-drawing than others. And, as Wilde put it, the aim of art is to hide the artist and show the art itself.

It's an interesting topic. I guess it comes down to the immortal gray-area of style, and once you get to a certain level of scrutiny you can only see it on a case-by-case basis.

A more important thing to add (and getting back to the main topic at hand) is that, regardless of merit, use of PF in the opening is usually your novel's one-way ticket to the trash if a literary agent reads it.


----------



## Busterfriend (Dec 19, 2013)

What is "Framing"


----------



## Staff Deployment (Dec 19, 2013)

Busterfriend said:


> What is "Framing"



Situational context for dramatic elements.

It's the background stuff. It helps set a particular emotion, or helps you understand what's going on. Genre is a form of framing, as well as the use of setting, and the choice of words.

This is a broad and simplified definition.


----------



## The narrator (Dec 19, 2013)

When I write I always give a description on what’s going on, sort of an overview into what the reader needs to know. I find that opening with describing the room or environment a little main stream really. I don’t think that it’s a bad thing to start with the scene because it can really set the mood and pull the reader in. but I like to jump right in, surround the reader in the story on the first page. I think the hardest part of this opening is not letting it get out of hand, I won’t the reader to swim in the story not drown in it. 
Here is my opening to a sci-fi I am working on:   
“By the year 2040, humanity has reached the end of its carbon fuel age. Only to enter an age of crises; an age of apocalypse. Society broke down to a chaotic pulp of anarchy. There was no law anymore, the world, a free for all. Humanity had never been so separated, so devoid of leadership.”


----------



## The narrator (Dec 19, 2013)

When I write I always give a description on what’s going on, sort of an overview into what the reader needs to know. I find that opening with describing the room or environment a little main stream really. I don’t think that it’s a bad thing to start with the scene because it can really set the mood and pull the reader in. but I like to jump right in, surround the reader in the story on the first page. I think the hardest part of this opening is not letting it get out of hand, I won’t the reader to swim in the story not drown in it. 
Here is my opening to a sci-fi I am working on:   
“By the year 2040, humanity has reached the end of its carbon fuel age. Only to enter an age of crises; an age of apocalypse. Society broke down to a chaotic pulp of anarchy. There was no law anymore, the world, a free for all. Humanity had never been so separated, so devoid of leadership.”


----------



## Busterfriend (Dec 19, 2013)

Oh I knew that, I was replying as if it where a Jeopardy question >> sorry.


----------



## Foxee (Dec 19, 2013)

InkwellMachine said:


> _Then let me tell you what the characters themselves looked like. And their dog. And let me say a few words on the coffee they were drinking. Then we can start."_
> 
> This is how I feel about the opening lines to practically every scene I've ever read from a fantasy or sci-fi story. Well okay, that's a pretty broad statement. I'm sure you get my meaning, though. The author will often open with a description of _the silent bar room, furnished with a mahogany counter and a black-brick fireplace, _when the bar room itself has almost nothing to contribute to the story.
> 
> These details are superfluous. They contribute nothing to the story's progression, and often have little or no underlying (poetic/symbolic) value.


There are effective, scene-setting details that make you feel like you are there. Then there are superfluous details. 


> All this, and they're still strangely effective.


That totally depends upon the reader's patience level. I used to be able to plow through that and now I don't want to. Get to the frickin' story, show me enough of what's around that I can believe I'm there, highlight it if it's significant. Don't spend 50 words describing the hand-carved mahogany bar if it's not important.


> Why is this? Is it, perhaps, because we're not accustomed to suddenly being in the middle of an event? Is it because humans by their very nature are bound to notice things like the argyle pattern on someone's tie seconds before a nuclear bomb detonates?


If someone DOES notice the argyle pattern on the tie seconds before the explosion that is a purposeful decision by the writer to show that there was a second where insignificant detail sprang into focus. It has more to do with this kind of statement and the pacing of the story than it has to do with whether it is always or never effective.


> I do not know,


So it's good that you opened a discussion about this.


> but I struggle to incorporate these... "scene openers" into my stories. They feel like a waste of time. It feels as if I should just be writing what I mean to write. Then again, that would be awfully direct of me.


I usually write the story and then come back, find the 'real' beginning anywhere from one hundred to three hundred or so words in (or even more), select, delete. Don't agonize. "Scene openers" of the more wordy kind are usually the brain getting into the story and subject matter. Nine times out of ten you've said the exact same things in a much more interesting way later in the story.

Fantasy and Sci-Fi writers most likely feel that since they're writing a world other than our everyday one, they need to go to great pains to show the whole thing right upfront. This works well if you're a reader that likes to generally read about this other world. 

I think it was Terry Brooks (a friend was reading one of his books and told me this) who wrote a whole, long passage describing a certain hallway and then said of the main character, "...he never looked that direction but instead..." and my friend wondered why the heck he'd just read a page describing what the main character never even saw and never turned out to be important.

Things that are good to think about when you're choosing what details to throw in are probably:
*Is this significant to the story?
Can my characters see this and if they can't is there a good reason to tip my hand that it's there? (sometimes there is)
Does adding this to the description slow things down too much, does it affect the pace of the story negatively?



			Opinions? Thoughts? Do you prefer to open with descriptors, or do you just jump into the middle of the sce
		
Click to expand...

*


> ne?


I prefer to get right into what's happening with the characters by using some of the scene-setting details that evoke responses from the human senses. So it's a blend, I suppose.


----------

