# Goofy (?!) Starts



## EmmaSohan (Feb 3, 2019)

I am guessing there is a lot of pressure on writers (or agents or publishers) to have as interesting a first line as possible.

Sometimes that leads to an obviously goofy start.


> Like all big mistakes, mine started with a goat. (13 Gifts, Maas)



We knew that. But I have been trying to analyze starts, and I was surprised. First, they sometimes just dangle, unconnected to whatever comes next.



> She nearly killed an innocent man.
> Creighton "Charley" Bondurant drove carefully because his life depended on it. Latigo Canyon was mile after mile of neck-wrenching, hairpin twists. Charley had no use for government meddlers but the 15 mph signs posted along the road were smart.
> He lived...
> (Gone, Kellerman)



To me, that's the defining feature of these kinds of starts, which I don't know what to call except goofy starts.

At the sentence level, events are usually mentioned in the order they occur. It's hard to find exceptions, you are welcome to look. Except they are commaon for those kinds of first line. And it can push the following sentences out of chronological order.


> Mandy was gone. She went quietly, her body still, and Dane was at her beside to let her go. The ICU physician said it was inevitable... Her heart went into premature ventricular contractions... (Illusion, Peretti)



(more to come)


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 3, 2019)

There's a lot of spoilers in these types of starts:



> By the time the boy in Ward 4 attacked me, I'd already nicknamed him The Lost One in my head. He'd been admitted a week ago...(Leave No Trace, Mejia)


While she's working with him and supposedly making progress, he suddenly attacks her. You wouldn't write that scene and start out with informing the reader the attack would happen.

Today, my surprise was realizing how often they are simply wrong or inconsistent with the rest of the story.



> The stranger didn't shatter Adam's world all at once. (The Stranger, Coben)



The word "shatter" kind of means all at once. That's a small problem, but typical of these kinds of starts. It's like the author doesn't think about them. Blatant lies are rare, but this once continues:



> That was what Adam Price would tell himself later, but that was a lie. Adam somehow knew, right away, right from the very first sentence, that the life he had known as a content suburban married father of two was forever gone.


How often does an omniscient narrator admit to lying?



> Like all big mistakes, mine started with a goat.
> But if I'm being totally honest, I wouldn't be riding my bike to school at dusk, with nefarious deeds ahead, if that telegram hadn't arrived last month.



So her problems didn't start with a goat. According to her, when she is being totally honest. Maybe it's a coincidence I found both of those today, but the smaller problems seem characteristics of these.

Well! I don't know if this starts a discussion. I know I want to talk about starts. Starts that fit into the following story don't seem to have these problems. For all I know, writers have to write these kinds of starts, so I don't want to criticize authors.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 3, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> The word "shatter" kind of means all at once. That's a small problem, but typical of these kinds of starts. It's like the author doesn't think about them.



In this context shatter does not have to mean all at once. Shatter as in what happens to fragile objects, is an instantaneous thing - if the line was "The stranger didn't shatter the stained glass window all at once" I would agree but in terms of human psychology 'shatter' simply is another word for destroy.



> How often does an omniscient narrator admit to lying?



The omniscient narrator in the example you gave is referring to a character telling _themselves _a lie, which is totally acceptable and fairly common - it's what makes them omniscient I guess?



> There's a lot of spoilers in these types of starts



I disagree. When done correctly they aren't spoilers but _teasers_. Big difference. A spoiler weakens enjoyment, a teaser heightens it. A movie poster showing a spaceship destroying the White House isn't a spoiler, right? 

A first line like "I remember the day Dave and I found the body by the old oak tree" is only a spoiler if the only payoff from the piece is to know where the body was found and by whom. It tells you nothing about the how and why and what happened before (or after) the body was found. Which is usually what the actual story is about.

_*"By the time the boy in Ward 4 attacked me, I'd already nicknamed him The Lost One in my head. He'd been admitted a week ago..." *_is only a spoiler if the events before, after, or surrounding the attack provide no narrative pay-off in their own right. Which I assume they do? Haven't read that book.

^I'm not criticizing your assessments to be pedantic or derail your point, only to illustrate that I don't think objectively 'goofy starts' are very common in most highly-regarded, published literature. They may be corny or not work for you, but that's a different thing of course.

Not saying it doesn't exist. I will admit I have seen plenty of it in amateur work and sometimes in published work by less-reputable writers. Stories where writers fall in love with a 'killer opener' that sounds poetic or what have you and commit to using it no matter how absurd or illogical or irrelevant it is (I always think of this one opener to a short story I wrote when I was about fifteen which began "_I was dead. I was so dead. I was the deadest I had ever been....then I wasn't_.") but most good editors should catch the really glaring stuff and it generally gets siphoned.. 

Nevertheless...I sure don't see much goofy in the examples you gave. I see mostly just your opinions/biases/interpretations.

Like this:



> Like all big mistakes, mine started with a goat. (13 Gifts, Maas)



You picked this as an example of an objectively 'goofy start'. But _why_ is it goofy? Just because it involves a goat? If it was "Like all big mistakes, mine started with my husband Thomas" that wouldn't register, would it? The entire premise of 13 Gifts rests on the idea of the protagonist being punished for stealing a goat, therefore the line is actually fine, isn't it? Sure maybe _you _think it is silly because you think the idea of stealing a goat is silly. But, equally, maybe you're just not the target audience?

TL;DR: We need to differentiate between assessing 'goofy' in the sense of 'wrong' and 'goofy' in the sense of 'this isn't for me and I subjectively think it's dumb'.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 4, 2019)

It's just a writer trying to 'hook' the reader. Anyone who has written for any length of time understands the idea of the hook. It has become more common in our age of 3 second attention spans to try and set that hook in the first sentence rather than letting the hook span a few sentences, or even a paragraph and more, but the idea is still the same; to create some question, or some paradox, in the reader's mind that they will keep reading to have answered. 

They are not 'goofy'. Sometimes they aren't done well, and sometimes they are out and out obscure, but the intent is the same in every case -- to keep the reader reading. If written poorly the opening may seem odd, or clumsy (what someone might call 'goofy') but an unskilled writer is apt to write many sentences that seem odd to readers, even some in chapter 8, 10, or 22.

Yes, your opening line should be intriguing, should offer a promise of interesting stuff to come. If that seems goofy, then I guess I'm in the same boat as the narrator in Andy Weir's, _The Martin_, whose very first line is:

"I'm pretty much fucked."


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 4, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> TL;DR: We need to differentiate between assessing 'goofy' in the sense of 'wrong' and 'goofy' in the sense of 'this isn't for me and I subjectively think it's dumb'.



I just meant goofy. I guess it has to be subjective. But can't you see something odd about



> I'm going to be hit by a car in four hours, but I don't know that yet. (We Regret to Inform You, Kaplan)



And, to compare, "I was totally fucked" sounds normal to me.

The following doesn't seem odd?



> In the beginning, there is a formula.
> Actually, there are several formulas.



I don't know if we can call these "bad", if the author is trying to write an exciting first sentence and that's what readers want. But can't I say there is something odd about them?


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 4, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> A movie poster showing a spaceship destroying the White House isn't a spoiler, right?



If there's a scene where someone is trying to destroy the White House, it loses a lot of suspense if I have seen the poster. If the start of the movie is a puzzle about whether the spacellings are good or evil, that poster is a spoiler.

So, yeah, it probably is a spoiler.

Crichton had a choice. He could say that the T Rex escaped and attacked the visitors at the start of the book. Or the start of the scene. Or it could just let it happen. I think that's a really standard choice. Telling the reader that it would happen, before it happens, is both a teaser and a spoiler.

And you probably write your scenes the same way -- how often do you tell your reader something is going to happen before it happens?


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 4, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> If the start of the movie is a puzzle about whether the spacellings are good or evil, that poster is a spoiler.



Unless the spacellings turn out to not be evil after all.

Then it's just a case of playing on people's expectations and preconceived notions, as well as misdirection.



G.D.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 5, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> If there's a scene where someone is trying to destroy the White House, it loses a lot of suspense if I have seen the poster. If the start of the movie is a puzzle about whether the spacellings are good or evil, that poster is a spoiler.
> 
> So, yeah, it probably is a spoiler.
> 
> Crichton had a choice. He could say that the T Rex escaped and attacked the visitors at the start of the book. Or the start of the scene. Or it could just let it happen. I think that's a really standard choice. Telling the reader that it would happen, before it happens, is both a teaser and a spoiler.



It's interesting you mention Jurassic Park because, under your definition, that book is rife with spoilers. 

If I remember right, he story begins with a series of strange animal attacks being reported, which are made clear to be escaped dinosaurs - not to mention the cover of the novel in most editions bears a T-Rex. Not to mention the title of the book is 'Jurassic Park', so we know it isn't about a koala bear sanctuary. This all, of course, comes a long way before the actual dinosaurs make their way into the narrative. 

My point is that giving a reader clear hints as to what is coming is often necessary to keep readers interested and avoid _deus ex machina. _It would be really weird, wouldn't it, if Crichton had totally avoided any allusion to dinosaurs until one actually appears? What makes Jurassic Park effective is not the revelation that the dinosaurs have escaped (we can guess this almost immediately, or from reading the blurb on the back) but how it happened, how it ends, and the survival stories of the humans stranded among them.



> And you probably write your scenes the same way -- how often do you tell your reader something is going to happen before it happens?



For the most part its a trade off between providing a hook now or a revelation later.

 In the workshop there is a story I wrote called '1939' (https://www.writingforums.com/threa...Supernatural-Revised-(3-700-words-mild-nudity) which is written in the voice of an old woman on a childhood incident. That narrative voice (first-person unreliable in retrospective) allows for it by prefacing the story with an opening monologue, followed by the flashback. 

I end the monologue with this line: _Sometimes it’s just too hard to accept you could be wrong in what you believe, *just like how back in 1939 it was hard for Frances and I to imagine we might not find each other* *if ever we was to find ourselves apart.* <---_This line is obviously a 'spoiler' (by your definition) in that it tells you flat out the memory ends with 'Frances' being abducted long before it happens. The reason I decide to use it as a hook now is because my story is not about whether Frances is abducted but how and who by. If I wanted her abduction to be unexpected, I would not have used that line. Do you see the difference now?


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 5, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> I don't know if we can call these "bad", if the author is trying to write an exciting first sentence and that's what readers want. But can't I say there is something odd about them?



You can say what you want, but odd is by definition a personal assessment based on your expectations. You began this thread talking about 'obviously goofy' starts and have yet to provide an example of one.

To me, 'House Of Leaves' by Mark Z. Danielewski is plain odd... but it was a worldwide bestseller when it came out and plenty of people swear it's the greatest book ever so...

If we're going to have an 'advanced writing discussion' about how different writers approach the start of their narrative and what works better and why, I would be interested. Otherwise I don't have much else to say. I tend to like it when writers catch my eye from the first line with something fresh and would generally rather read "I'm going to be hit by a car in four hours, but I don't know that yet" or, for that matter, "Call me Ishmael" than another "The man walked down the street carrying a black bag" variant.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Feb 5, 2019)

The excessive description I had for my workshopped story can be a bad start for a story if you don't get to the central conflict that you might have located in the dialogue. It can disrupt the flow and be almost as bad as exposition. That's often where the plot starts moving. I eventually trimmed or cut 3000 words from that story I had workshopped. I tried to focus on the dialogue. Excessive world building with description can be a bad way to start a story sometimes. No one thought that when I originally posted. It should also be trickled sparingly. But when I read it out loud again my patience wore out, as much as I liked it. I killed what I most prided in doing so. Which was a description of setting which was the ornate description and IMO wasn't bad prose. This is excessive world building with no conflict.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 5, 2019)

Instead of trying parse out what is and isn't "odd", we could talk about how and why we begin our own stories. Is having a 'hook' important to you? Is it more important to establish setting, or time? Do you generally begin your stories in a similar way? Does it matter if you are working on a short story as compared to a novel? Do you have any 'rules' you follow? Any you enjoy breaking?

I don't mean to hijack, or detour the thread, but it seems that the intent of the OP has been a bit distorted. To answer my own questions:

Hooks?     Setting the hook quickly is very important to me in my short stories, but I do it in different ways depending on the story. For instance, in one of my stories I wanted to try and capture a bit of the whimsy with which Ray Bradbury wrote so I opened the story like this: _It was banana o'clock on May thirty-seventh when Brian Bruce Titus Summerland's new and very best friend spoke for the first time_. 

Many times I start a story right in the middle of something happening, or with dialogue, so the reader is involved in what's going on from the start. A *lot* of my flash fiction starts with dialogue. Other times I'll start with a character physically doing something, like this:_ Bam, bam, bam. Bam-bam-bam. It felt good to pound the meat_.

But other times I don't start that way at all: _Rising up like a stone tumor from the scant soil of a clearing at the crest of a slumped and sagging mountain in West Virginia, the church consisted of limestone layers and granite blocks jumbled together, rearranged, torn apart, and rebuilt with no apparent plan or purpose; like a plaything, a whimsical construct from the haphazard mind of some gigantic toddler_. 

The tone and pace of the story determines how I choose to open. Other times the word count I'm working toward plays a part. But, however I choose to start, I'm looking for that hook. In my long-form work I often take more time and try to be more subtle about how I hook the reader. I've also been know to break some 'rules' about novel openings. In one of my books I opened with a dream sequence (supposedly a big no-no), in another I started with a prologue (another much-discussed topic). In one book I start with someone arriving, in another I start with someone leaving home (both of those are pretty common tropes).


----------



## Terry D (Feb 5, 2019)

Here's a rather lengthy list of opening from well regarded novels from many ages. I think our opinions of which ring odd and which do not might vary quite a bit among us.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Feb 5, 2019)

A good hook for me I read is disaster or facing defeat. That is the status quo.

Should the hook always reflect the main plot? Because plot reflects unity? What is each person's experience when writing a story? For some subplots for a short story are difficult to do.
We need one event, that creates the plot and not two subplots if a short story.
so who thinks this isn't true and why? I think I believe in concentrating on one one plot before concentrating on a subplot. It has proven difficult for me. I also started many subplots.

I haven't read the examples but will since it is uncomfortable with this reading device.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 5, 2019)

Terry D said:


> Here's a rather lengthy list of opening from well regarded novels from many ages. I think our opinions of which ring odd and which do not might vary quite a bit among us.



Actually, it seems like a list of 53 opening lines that are interesting by themselves. Yes, it would be interesting to learn what people think of them.

But we can't evaluate how well they fit into the rest of the story or even the rest of the paragraph. If you analyze:



> _Anything can happen,_ Will Dando thought, _in the next five seconds, in the next five years. Anything at all_. (Oracle Year)


That sounds good, right? But the point of the first chapter is that he _knows _the final outcome of the football game everyone is watching. So that start was not merely pointless, it actually confused me.

They were chosen because they were interesting BY THEMSELVES. That leaves us out of the process of judging their aptness. Whatever you want to make of Orwell's clocks striking 13, there's nothing in the following paragraph or several to indicate meaning. You could take that out of the book and nothing would change except the loss of a goofy first line. I guess it could contribute to mood, but it's almost more misleading.

There's not many spoilers in there. We cannot evaluate how well they fit into the time-line of whatever follows.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 5, 2019)

Terry D said:


> Instead of trying parse out what is and isn't "odd", we could talk about how and why we begin our own stories. Is having a 'hook' important to you? Is it more important to establish setting, or time? Do you generally begin your stories in a similar way? Does it matter if you are working on a short story as compared to a novel? Do you have any 'rules' you follow? Any you enjoy breaking?
> 
> I don't mean to hijack, or detour the thread,...)



Be my guest, I am eager to learn about starts. Do you identify a precipitating event? Do you start with it? I almost always do, but I'm growing an appreciation for the "life-as-normal" start leading up to the precipitating event. Or do you just ignore it?


----------



## Theglasshouse (Feb 5, 2019)

You could always start with a crisis, an event that promises a lot of trouble. The newspaper is a great source for an event. Now whether this qualifies as a precipitating event I dont know the definition to this.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 6, 2019)

[Hook: a thing designed to catch people's attention. "companies are looking for a sales hook"]

^The comparison with a sales hook is quite good because when we look at a variety of well-known TV commercials/promotional campaigns we see a lot of subtle and not-so-subtle differences that are roughly aligned with the differences between novel openers. Many start off with a blaring jingle and a lot of 'buy my product' flashing color. This, I guess, would be the literary equivalent, of beginning a book with: ""I'm pretty much fucked." Immediate and punchy and obvious. It's a 'I'm here and you better pay attention' approach which, assuming it's not obnoxious, cliche or totally out of line with the mood of the story that follows, is usually effective. Other types of openers are way more understated. I always remember a Guinness commercial from the 90's that was mostly silent, building up with slow drums and a pensive, almost frightening tone. I remember that commercial better than almost any.

 So a slow-burn _can definitely_ work Deep, contemplative can work. Funny/wacky/goofy can work. Sinister and freaky can work. I think there are as many different kinds of workable 'hooks' as there are people in the world. Because every human is in some way unique and every perspective has the potential to be transposed into a narrative voice and every narrative voice can become interesting provided it is authentic. The beginnings that don't work for me tend to be the ones that don't seem to have a distinct, original approach. Like if a commercial was just one person repeating 'buy this, buy this' over generic background music and the image of a toaster.

Maybe it would be easier to say what doesn't tend to work*? 

(1) Lengthy descriptions about banal details don't work. Talking a whole paragraph to wax lyrical about how gray/blue/white/black a sky/ocean/river/dress/eyeball is. Unless you can paint these images in flawlessly original ways and tie them into a sense of story, these are usually a solid sign of crap. I stop reading.

(2) Bad dialogue...I like starting stories with dialogue. It's actually something I often have to stop myself from using every time. It just seems like the most obvious and natural way to draw somebody into a story, to appeal to the human desire (need?) for listening-in, and I like writing it. That's fine, but clumsy, stiff, trying-to-hard-to-sound-tough or general weak/cringe-worthy dialogue at the beginning of _any_ story (other than parody) is a big red flag. I stop reading.

(3) 'Wisdom'. It's everywhere, probably we all do it, the self-absorbed 'trying so hard to be profound it hurts' profundities. First lines built on a 15 year old's idea of nihilism or pop-philosophy and isolated lines riddled with budget Sylvia Plath fart-water. This does not work for me, certainly not these days. So I stop reading.

(4) Jargon dumps: Inserting a ton of specific references to made up worlds/countries/cities/races/places/machines/religions/technologies/weapons and expecting, on some level, the reader to know what it is you are talking about and care about it without explaining/giving a clear indication as to what the damn thing is and why it matters. Steroiding openers full with an ton of information that is extremely specific to the world in which the story is set too quickly and assumes outright that I care about Z-12928 ZAPDUSTER SPACE POD or the KWORTH EMPIRIAL ARMY LEGION or whatever else...strikes me as arrogant. I shouldn't have to work that hard from the first line to figure out what you are talking about and I shouldn't need to keep notes to form some sort of glossary. So I stop reading.

*IMO


----------



## Terry D (Feb 6, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> Actually, it seems like a list of 53 opening lines that are interesting by themselves. Yes, it would be interesting to learn what people think of them.
> 
> But we can't evaluate how well they fit into the rest of the story or even the rest of the paragraph.



I think it is safe to assume that the openings fit well into the rest of the story since those 53 writers and books are considered some of the best in the business. As a contrast, take a look at these openings from novels that, let's just say, aren't particularly well done.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 6, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> They were chosen because they were interesting BY THEMSELVES. That leaves us out of the process of judging their aptness. Whatever you want to make of Orwell's clocks striking 13, there's nothing in the following paragraph or several to indicate meaning. You could take that out of the book and nothing would change except the loss of a goofy first line. I guess it could contribute to mood, but it's almost more misleading.



I have to circle back to this. As I mentioned above, those lines come from books generally considered to be excellent books, so the lines were not chosen "...because they were interesting BY THEMSELVES." They were chosen as examples of great openings to great books, so they are apt.

Also, Orwell's classic opening to _1984_ is classic because it so swiftly and succinctly immerses the reader into the world of the book. In that one sentence Orwell tells his readers that this world is very different from that to which they are accustomed. In the first two paragraphs (not too much to be considered 'the opening') Orwell shows us a dirty world ("vile wind" "Swirling grit"), a broken world where the lift seldom works and the electricity is rationed, a world where there is something called "Hate Week", and, of course he introduces us to the ubiquitous presence of Big Brother. To me a clock striking thirteen fits perfectly into that world.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 6, 2019)

Terry D said:


> I think it is safe to assume that the openings fit well into the rest of the story since those 53 writers and books are considered some of the best in the business..



#2:





> The war in Zagreb began over a pack of cigarettes.



This locates the reader in space and time. That's good, right?



> There had been tensions beforehand, rumors of disturbances in other towns whispered above my head, but no explosions, nothing outright.



This is an event from _before _the first sentence. That's not rare, but it's not common either. Is the reader supposed to stay in the time where the war had begun, or move to the new time? Note that the reverse in time was marked in two ways; it's a lot easier grammatically to present events happening in order.



> Caught between the mountains, Zagreb sweltered in the summer, and most people abandoned the city for the coast during the hottest months. For as long as I could remember my family had vacationed with my godparents in a fishing village down south.



Except for "remember", which I cannot place in time, this is before the second sentence. So the author is moving backwards in time!



> But the Serbs had blocked the roads to the sea, at least that’s what everyone was saying, so for the first time in my life we spent the summer inland.



This is after the previous sentence (moving forward in time, finally); I couldn't guess whether it is before the pack of cigarettes or at the same time.

Do any of your paragraphs hop around time like this? It seems very unusual, except of course that out-of-time-sequence first sentence, which apparently pushes the following lines out of order.

Plus, I'm pretty sure that's going to be a spoiler for an upcoming scene involving a pack of cigarettes. Really, the emotional impact can be reduced by the reader knowing the result of a scene.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 6, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> Whatever you want to make of Orwell's clocks striking 13, there's nothing in the following paragraph or several to indicate meaning. You could take that out of the book and nothing would change except the loss of a goofy first line. I guess it could contribute to mood, but it's almost more misleading.



I don't think it's misleading and don't understand why you do. To me it is just an attention-grabbing phrase. One that quickly makes sense once we come to know the world in which the book is set.

The point of 1984 is the creation of a reality containing insidious control and conformitiy. Part of that is simplification of language, or 'newspeak', and eradication of traditional terminology and colorful figures of speech. That theme is ever-present through the story. Entire chapters written on it.

Many languages (in real life) have done this on a smaller scale - such as switching to metric measurements and introducing twenty-four hour time: 'Oh Three Hundred" instead of 'Three 'O' Clock. It is this kind of sterile, bureaucratically motivated world that Orwell is satirizing with 'The clocks struck thirteen'. It's not just random, Lewis Carroll mumbo-jumbo.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 6, 2019)

> Originally Posted by EmmaSohan
> The word "shatter" kind of means all at once. That's a small problem, but typical of these kinds of starts. It's like the author doesn't think about them.
> 
> In this context shatter does not have to mean all at once. Shatter as in what happens to fragile objects, is an instantaneous thing - if the line was "The stranger didn't shatter the stained glass window all at once" I would agree but in terms of human psychology 'shatter' simply is another word for destroy.



Sorry Lucky scars, I am going to agree with Emma on this one, shattered means shattered, no matter what you apply it to; if their life fell apart slowly you wouldn't call it shattered, or I wouldn't, it would be something like 'In pieces'. Shattered means a particular event destroyed it, 'He was shattered when she left him...'


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 6, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I don't think it's misleading and don't understand why you do. To me it is just an attention-grabbing phrase. One that quickly makes sense once we come to know the world in which the book is set.
> 
> The point of 1984 is the creation of a reality containing insidious control and conformitiy. Part of that is simplification of language, or 'newspeak', and eradication of traditional terminology and colorful figures of speech. That theme is ever-present through the story. Entire chapters written on it.
> 
> Many languages (in real life) have done this on a smaller scale - such as switching to metric measurements and introducing twenty-four hour time: 'Oh Three Hundred" instead of 'Three 'O' Clock. It is this kind of sterile, bureaucratically motivated world that Orwell is satirizing with 'The clocks struck thirteen'. It's not just random, Lewis Carroll mumbo-jumbo.


No, but there is no great relevance is there?, I don't remember the time recording system ever being mentioned again in the book. Mentioning something for the only time in the first lines is not normal. Sure it establishes it is a different society, it also does it almost in the style of shouting and throwing its hat in the air, first line like. Yes you have a point, but so does she.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 6, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> Sorry Lucky scars, I am going to agree with Emma on this one, shattered means shattered, no matter what you apply it to; if their life fell apart slowly you wouldn't call it shattered, or I wouldn't, it would be something like 'In pieces'. Shattered means a particular event destroyed it, 'He was shattered when she left him...'



Whatever makes sense to you is obviously fine. I am merely going by the dictionary, which lists three definitions, only one of which seems to explicitly indicate that 'shattering' takes place quickly.

shatter verb shat·​ter | \ ˈsha-tər \ shattered; shattering; shatters (Entry 1 of 2) transitive verb 
1 : to cause to drop or be dispersed 
2a : to break at once into pieces b : to damage badly : RUIN 
*3 : to cause the disruption or annihilation of : DEMOLISH

*IMO 'Shatter', when we describe it as something that happens to people's mental state, describes more the severity and character of the destruction than the rapidity. So more Definition 3. That doesn't mean it can't refer to a single quick event, only that it doesn't have to.

_"I feel shattered," Tim complained, as he stumbled in the door from a long day at the factory_ <---If Tim's feeling 'shattered' has been the result of a LONG DAY at the factory, how can one say 'shattering' must take place in a single, quick event? It should not make sense to use this word as a description but people do.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 7, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> No, but there is no great relevance is there?, I don't remember the time recording system ever being mentioned again in the book. Mentioning something for the only time in the first lines is not normal. Sure it establishes it is a different society, it also does it almost in the style of shouting and throwing its hat in the air, first line like. Yes you have a point, but so does she.



I still don't see how anyone can consider Orwell's opening line anything but effective. It's 'odd' only in the fact that is is unexpected and a bit disorienting. It is _supposed_ to be, regardless of whether the time system is mentioned again or not. That line has one job, to make the reader read the next line. It does that marvelously. The OP's implication is that 'odd' openings (whatever her definition of odd is) are somehow poorly written. In fact, they are often some of the best writing, that's why they are remembered. Comparing the openings in the two articles I linked to in posts #12 and #18 could be a good short-course on effective openings. Why are some considered good and the others laughable?


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 7, 2019)

Terry D said:


> That line has one job, to make the reader read the next line.



You are saying my point more strongly than me?! Really? How about: Some writers think that the only job of the first sentence is to get the reader to read the next line. That's exactly what it seems like. I want to say that.



Terry D said:


> In fact, they are often some of the best writing, that's why they are remembered.



Yes! There are websites where you can read good first sentences! They stand alone as good!




Terry D said:


> The OP's implication is that 'odd' openings (whatever her definition of odd is) are somehow poorly written.



Implication? We seem to agree that I didn't say this.

To be more dispassionate, some writers try to make their first sentence as likely as possible to keep the reader reading. I don't see how that can be criticized; it might be a good decision. In doing that, they ignore the jobs that the rest of the sentences in the book are supposed to do. Probably unintentionally. Like being true, or not spoiling a scene, or being in chronological order.

That's what makes them odd, or unusual, or whatever you want to say.

Ignoring my implications, we seem to be saying the same thing. You and luckyscars seem to like very interesting first lines. I usually don't. But that's just reader preference, right? Readers like different things. I feel like I'm in the minority, if that helps.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 7, 2019)

Terry D said:


> I still don't see how anyone can consider Orwell's opening line anything but effective.



I assume clocks that "strike" cost more, and that world has so many that he can hear more than one at once (!), suggesting a somewhat affluent society. Getting them to all strike at once is amazing and speaks to efficiency. There's no way they could all strike perfectly at the same time (though it's a wonderful image and effective writing just for that, I suppose), so technically it would be a cacaphony of sound and impossible to count the number of strikes.

Am I over thinking this? Um, that would be my point.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 7, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> To be more dispassionate, some writers try to make their first sentence as likely as possible to keep the reader reading.



Yes. They are called published writers.



> I don't see how that can be criticized; it might be a good decision.



And yet you've criticised it by calling them 'odd'.



> In doing that, they ignore the jobs that the rest of the sentences in the book are supposed to do. Probably unintentionally. Like being true, or not spoiling a scene, or being in chronological order.
> 
> That's what makes them odd, or unusual, or whatever you want to say.



No. No. No. They ignore nothing. If the sentences following the first one are bad the reader will still put the book down. The idea of spoilers in the openings of books (good books, The books we are talking about in this thread) is ludicrous. Many readers, I'd be willing to say the vast majority, don't mind thinking a bit, or being challenged at the start of a new book. We aren't -- most of us anyway -- writing for entry-level readers. Things don't have to be absolutely sequential in time, or in events. That doesn't make the writing unusual, or odd. It makes it engaging and interesting. In fact, I would be willing to bet that most published books today start with an opening that is more complex than a simple series of mundane events. The days of, 'She awoke at 6:00 AM. showered and brushed her teeth before sitting down to a breakfast of avocado toast and cup of civit-coffee with soy milk.' are long gone.



> Ignoring my implications, we seem to be saying the same thing. You and luckyscars seem to like very interesting first lines. I usually don't. But that's just reader preference, right? Readers like different things. I feel like I'm in the minority, if that helps.



I think you hit the nail on the head, but I'd caution you not to think that most readers don't want 'interesting'. We are in a time of instant gratification where most readers aren't willing to wait for your story to get rolling, they are probably too far behind on streaming back episodes of Orange is the New Black, or American Gods.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 7, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> I assume clocks that "strike" cost more, and that world has so many that he can hear more than one at once (!), suggesting a somewhat affluent society. Getting them to all strike at once is amazing and speaks to efficiency. There's no way they could all strike perfectly at the same time (though it's a wonderful image and effective writing just for that, I suppose), so technically it would be a cacaphony of sound and impossible to count the number of strikes.
> 
> Am I over thinking this? Um, that would be my point.



Haven't read the book? Nowhere does Orwell say the protagonist heard any of the clocks. The omniscient narrator says the clocks were striking thirteen. This is only confusing if you are seeking to find confusion.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 8, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> No, but there is no great relevance is there?, I don't remember the time recording system ever being mentioned again in the book. Mentioning something for the only time in the first lines is not normal. Sure it establishes it is a different society, it also does it almost in the style of shouting and throwing its hat in the air, first line like. Yes you have a point, but so does she.



I don't get your point, Olly. 

People mention all kinds of things in novel openings that don't necessarily recur again directly - weather for example - but they are still relevant because they introduce a theme. Which the clocks striking thirteen does for the reasons I mentioned in my last post. 

More than happy to agree that specific image may not work for some, but then we are squarely in the theater of 'not my cup of tea' aren't we?

I am not one for elaborate metaphors myself, but I still see a link between the concept of a 'clock telling a time that is technically correct yet still seems wrong' and the novel's messaging. So I disagree its irrelevant.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 8, 2019)

Terry D said:


> ...they are probably too far behind on streaming back episodes of Orange is the New Black, or American Gods.



And this is why I don't like trusting to the imagination, experience, or knowledge of anybody that picks up something I've written; I don't believe that I can trust that they have what it takes to understand or comprehend what it is I'm trying to say, or the thought I'm trying to pass along. 

Or even the attention span.

...and believe me, I DON'T like having to take their hand and lead them to it at a dead run.

But what else can ya do?


G.D.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 8, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> And this is why I don't like trusting to the imagination, experience, or knowledge of anybody that picks up something I've written; I don't believe that I can trust that they have what it takes to understand or comprehend what it is I'm trying to say, or the thought I'm trying to pass along.
> 
> Or even the attention span.
> 
> ...



Trouble is, GD, readers are individuals. It doesn't really matter what you write each one will bring their past experience and understanding to it as soon as they turn the first page, and although some may get similar experiences from it, they will still all be different. I think there is only much point in trying to make what you see in it clear, none in trying to control what they see in it. 
I used to be friendly with a strange person who lived in a boat on the Thames, and hung around Waterloo station playing self taught tunes on a piccolo. One day when I saw him I gave him my book of short stories to read, 'Why not?' he said, 'I have not read a book in thirty years.' Next time I saw him he gave it back with a very dark look, 'Terrible, terrible stories' he said almost shaking; I got the impression he was glad to get the almost daemonic thing out of his possession. I had not seen them like that at all.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 8, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> And this is why I don't like trusting to the imagination, experience, or knowledge of anybody that picks up something I've written; I don't believe that I can trust that they have what it takes to understand or comprehend what it is I'm trying to say, or the thought I'm trying to pass along.
> 
> Or even the attention span.
> 
> ...



Not bother?

I mean this sincerely and respectfully. If you have so little faith that 'anybody' will understand your work or care to try, what possible benefit is there in writing as opposed to daydreaming? Why pander to the boundless stupidity of the great unwashed?

Might just be me, I never understood how a writer could have anything but the highest regard, respect and undying gratitude for anybody who reads anything. Especially in 2019 when frankly it's an optional pastime.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 8, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Might just be me, I never understood how a writer could have anything but the highest regard, respect and undying gratitude for anybody who reads anything.




Might be because I'm _not_ a writer and don't want to be.

I'm just a guy who has a story to pass along, and is stuck having to write it down.

...and there _is_ a difference.

One way or the other, I want that story to be what it is, not what somebody else wants it to be, or has to have it to accept it.

Starting to get the picture?

 Writing is not my medium, but the medium I'm most used to is inadequate for this particular job.

I don't want the "average reader". I've got no need or use for 'em.

I just want to leave behind what I have, the best I can leave it. Nothing more, nothing less.

I couldn't care less who likes it or who doesn't. So long as it's seen for what it is.

...and that's why I'm here, learning what I am.

Anyway, sorry to divert the thread. Please, carry on.


G.D.


----------



## bdcharles (Feb 8, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> I used to be friendly with a strange person who lived in a boat on the Thames, and hung around Waterloo station playing self taught tunes on a piccolo. One day when I saw him I gave him my book of short stories to read, 'Why not?' he said, 'I have not read a book in thirty years.' Next time I saw him he gave it back with a very dark look, 'Terrible, terrible stories' he said almost shaking; I got the impression he was glad to get the almost daemonic thing out of his possession. I had not seen them like that at all.



I want to read those now.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 8, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> Might be because I'm _not_ a writer and don't want to be.
> 
> I'm just a guy who has a story to pass along, and is stuck having to write it down.
> 
> ...



I'm with Olly on this. Every reader will see your story in an at least slightly different way, and none of them will ever match what you see 100%. It just can't happen. That's why most people are disappointed in movies made from books, no matter how well the movie is made. The director's vision is not the same as that of the audience.

I never assume I'm smarter than my readers. If I did that I would be wrong half the time. I write to me. I don't explain things that I wouldn't need an explanation for if I was the one doing the reading. I don't simplify and I don't try to over complicate. It's just me sitting around a campfire telling stories to my friends.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 8, 2019)

Terry D said:


> I'm with Olly on this. Every reader will see your story in an at least slightly different way, and none of them will ever match what you see 100%. It just can't happen. That's why most people are disappointed in movies made from books, no matter how well the movie is made. The director's vision is not the same as that of the audience.



I understand this. Believe me I do.

But in this instance, it's like a news report; the facts are just that. 

And they're not going to be changed to suit someone's like or dislikes.

Sure, those facts can be conveyed in a lot of different ways, but my intention is to do so in the manner that gets as close as possible to what that is, not what people would prefer it to be.



Terry D said:


> I never assume I'm smarter than my readers. If I did that I would be wrong half the time. I write to me. I don't explain things that I wouldn't need an explanation for if I was the one doing the reading. I don't simplify and I don't try to over complicate. It's just me sitting around a campfire telling stories to my friends.



It's not so much being smarter than the reader as it is not knowing what knowledge base that potential reader has to work with.

Take that paragraph of your story that you posted on the other thread, for instance.

Emma saw aliens. I saw insects.

Why? Possibly because I've spent a lot of time working in environments where I saw bugs eat a lot of things, and watched a lot of odd documentaries, and maybe Emma hasn't.

It's no big deal, no right or wrong, simply one person having exposure to things that someone else doesn't.

And since I can't be sure of what somebody else knows, I have to be sure that what I'm telling them is as clear as possible, with very little room for error.

There's also the fact I recognize the limits of the medium, and how poor the written word is at conveying some things.

...and also how poor the other medium I have at my disposal is at conveying others.

Ideally, making a movie of the story would be the best choice... The problem there is that I would still have to find a way to convey the thing to others, as well as finding those others to do the job.

...and they're no doubt gonna have their own ideas about what the finished product looks like.

So, I have a choice; leave it where it is - in my head - or use the best means at my disposal for getting it 'out in the world'.

And at the moment, writing it down is it.

Now, once I've done that, other people are free to make what they will of it.

But one way or the other, it's going to be as close as I can get it to what _I_ literally have in mind.

Does that make sense?

Oh, and by the way... odds are pretty good that once I get this story out there the way I want it... IF I get it the way I want it... I'll likely never write another thing.

I've made no bones about why I'm here; to learn a new skill.

And that's pretty much it. I'm not looking for a new career, or for fame and fortune.

I just want to make sure I'm doing what I am to the best of my ability.


G.D.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 8, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> One way or the other, it's going to be as close as I can get it to what _I_ literally have in mind.
> 
> Does that make sense?



Yes it does. But, remember, readers have a great talent for 'filling-in-the-gaps' so you don't necessarily need to do all the work.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 8, 2019)

bdcharles said:


> I want to read those now.



'A read for the train' , a fiver 0n Lulu, cheap at half the price


----------



## Theglasshouse (Feb 8, 2019)

For a good hook I read we should start with something bad happening. I agree that orwell's 1984 has a strong opening. His voice or personality is what makes the story, his opinions, thinly veiled as metaphors, his subject matter was unique at the time. Thought I'd contribute something of worth to the discussion. His biography is unique too. Coming from an oppressive country. That's why he chose a pseudonym, but I will never forget the opening. 

For something bad happening start with the low point supposedly and randomly write something that you would like or be proud off after of course the mandatory rewrite.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 9, 2019)

Theglasshouse said:


> For a good hook I read we should start with something bad happening.



I think you mean to include a pre-existing problem that is bad. ("...he had gone eighty-four days now without taking a fish." Lennie has mental problems.)

Actually, a classic start is the dame walking into his office. He likes looking at her. Her offer of money is good. It starts the story.

Another style is to present a normal life, and then a precipitating event that causes a problem. In The Princess Diaries, that's learning she is a Princess, which causes problems but I don't think can be called bad. I would have no trouble starting a book with the main character receiving an offer of a wonderful new job. Isn't that kind of The Firm by Grisham?

And I think you mean "something bad which starts the story." If the story starts with her cousin dying, and that drops from the story, no one is going to like that."

So, right, problems to solve, difficulties to overcome, events which propel the main character into new situations. Something bad fits right in and is a basic technique. But not necessary.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 9, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> It's interesting you mention Jurassic Park because, under your definition, that book is rife with spoilers.
> 
> If I remember right, he story begins with a series of strange animal attacks being reported, which are made clear to be escaped dinosaurs - not to mention the cover of the novel in most editions bears a T-Rex. Not to mention the title of the book is 'Jurassic Park', so we know it isn't about a koala bear sanctuary. This all, of course, comes a long way before the actual dinosaurs make their way into the narrative.
> 
> My point is that giving a reader clear hints as to what is coming is often necessary to keep readers interested and avoid _deus ex machina. _It would be really weird, wouldn't it, if Crichton had totally avoided any allusion to dinosaurs until one actually appears? What makes Jurassic Park effective is not the revelation that the dinosaurs have escaped (we can guess this almost immediately, or from reading the blurb on the back) but how it happened, how it ends, and the survival stories of the humans stranded among them.?



Actually, the cover is a T-rex fossil -- just the bones. I am not sure why they would do that _except _for avoid spoiling some scenes. Jurassic Park could have just fossils or animations. The opening scenes in fact are like you said -- small hints, stronger hints, and allusions, which is a standard way of handling that, that slow reveal. I agree that the scene where the paleontologist realizes there are living dinosaurs is faded by spoiling.

The first line of the prologue is, like many first lines, normal. 



> The tropical rain fell in drenching sheets, hammering the corrugated roof of the clinic building, roaring down the metal gutters, splashing on the ground in a torrent. (Jurassic Park, Crichton)



Think "It was a dark and stormy night." There's a flashback, but the events in this scene are in chronological order. Yes, he could have written



> On the day that Roberta Carter saw what a dinosaur could do to a man, the rain was falling in torrents.



Maybe that would have been a better start. Maybe it would be a better start for unpublished authors and published authors can get away with more. I'm just saying the actual starting sentence spoiled nothing. And yep, if the book has a blurb, it spoiled everything. The slow reveal would have been torturous, I'm guessing.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Feb 9, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> I think you mean to include a pre-existing problem that is bad. ("...he had gone eighty-four days now without taking a fish." Lennie has mental problems.)
> 
> Actually, a classic start is the dame walking into his office. He likes looking at her. Her offer of money is good. It starts the story.
> 
> ...



 I agreed with your points. The opening is a promise that the writer makes to the reader and can't be dropped. Maybe that's why a bad event at the beginning of the story can never be ommitted. 
Other ways to describe an opening is a crisis or turning point in a character's life. That may fit your definition with the princess having problems that develop. Because she discovers she is a princess. Or the John grisham example. I like your definition. The lowest point in a character's life is most likely another way of describing it and probably is a different way to explain it.  Right now can't back up my post with examples. I did see a movie once called the machine gun preacher. In this movie the preacher starts with drugs almost kills someone and wants to change his life. Or it could kill him, if he doesn't change. 

One exercise i read has to do with rewriting famous openings in your own words or scenes so that you can be inspired to write.




> So, right, problems to solve, difficulties to overcome, events which propel the main character into new situations. Something bad fits right in and is a basic technique. But not necessary.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 13, 2019)

A story is a series of events abstracted from the continuum of life, so a start is made at a point that gives a natural break in the continuum. That could be good or bad I guess, I start my story with an arrival.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 14, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> A story is a series of events abstracted from the continuum of life, so a start is made at a point that gives a natural break in the continuum. That could be good or bad I guess, I start my story with an arrival.



I decided that there is more to a story than a series of events. I realized that a football game is a series of events, but the sportscasters try to find turning points, they try to personalize the conflict, and they would love a comeback win at the last second. And part of that is finding the start, right?

So I've been thinking about where the precipitating event fits with the actual start.  It can be anywhere, and sometimes there's already a problem and no precipitating event. An arrival sounds like the participating event. And it sounds like starting with action.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 22, 2019)

DENIMATY said:


> We knew that. But I have been trying to analyze starts, and I was surprised. First, they sometimes just dangle, unconnected to whatever comes next.



I can guess what you mean, but I'm not sure. Example?

I want to hear what comes out of your analysis.


----------

