# Struggling with opening lines



## Eicca (Jun 17, 2014)

My story opens with the main character sitting on a curb in New York City. He's smack in the middle of the scene of his brother's murder, surrounded by police cars. From here the story develops into a devious conspiracy with a fantastic twist. Problem is, with such a grand plan, I feel like my opening lines just don't do it justice at all. Here are a few of my attempts. Constructive criticism, no matter how harsh, is needed. Thanks in advance!

"Another bloody crime scene, highlighted by flickering red and blue. Passersby grimaced, trying to see as much as they could without actually looking. Impatient officers waved them along. A lot of minds were quizzical, but most knew the answer. Police never responded to anything but murder anymore. Those strobing lights--visible for blocks--were a harbinger of death."


"The flashing red and blue lights of police vehicles were an all-too-chilling sight in the city. Passersby grimaced............(same as above)"


"New York City. How he hated it. That city was the embodiment of his past. Dark alleyways of fear and uncertainty. Pride as tall and cold as the steel that pricked the sky. Tumultuous chaos that left his mind as filthy as the streets."


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jun 17, 2014)

Well, all three of them are problematic because you just told me that he's at the crime scene of his brother's murder yet we don't even get that in the first line. Imagine you were at the scene of your brother's murder. Would you care about the flashing red-and-blue lights or the dark alleyways? I'm sure you would be too emotionally erratic to care about any of that. "New York City. How he hated it." Really? The guy's brother is lying there dead and his only response is, "Man, I really hate New York City"?

What you want is an opening line with some indication that this guy is looking at his dead brother and he feels pretty damn awful about it.


----------



## LeeC (Jun 17, 2014)

Not the kind writing I do, but to my mind you need to get the reader into the scene as quickly and concisely as possible.  Maybe a sort of stream of consciousness approach like the following:

My brother brutally murdered, annoying police lights strobing, curious passersby's grimacing yet with an almost thankful look, these filthy streets and dark alleyways of fear and uncertainty. "Why," I scream. 

Just a thought,
LeeC


----------



## InstituteMan (Jun 17, 2014)

I would go big from the start here. I would do something like this (I am calling your protagonist Joe and his brother Jim for ease here):

His brother was dead, that much Joe could process. Jim's blood puddling in the street made the grim faced New York City police officer's matter-of-fact report unnecessary. Everything beyond his murdereed brother was lost to Joe in a haze of flashing lights and sirens.

Just a suggestion! Happy writing!


----------



## Eicca (Jun 17, 2014)

Hmmmm. I reveal all the details gradually throughout the opening but you bring up an excellent point: the fact that he's at the crime scene is the most important part and I don't even talk about that. I feel like that would help fix it. Lemme hit the drawing board quick.


----------



## thepancreas11 (Jun 17, 2014)

I think you might be writing this in the wrong forum, not that I can blame you because it's quite an extensive space. Maybe Writing Discussions? You'll get more accurate responses there.

Now, that being said, let's walk through this:

"Another bloody crime scene, highlighted by flickering red and blue. Passersby grimaced, trying to see as much as they could without actually looking. Impatient officers waved them along. A lot of minds were quizzical, but most knew the answer. Police never responded to anything but murder anymore. Those strobing lights--visible for blocks--were a harbinger of death."

Why I like it: Scene Painting. Not only do you create an environment, dropping little hints here and there as to the nature of your story world, but you give it a noir style, cutting some of the verbs, splicing some sentences together. Interesting. It immediately draws to mind the black and white crime dramas of the forties and fifties.

Why I don't: Passive voice. Particularly "Another bloody crime scene, highlighted by flickering red and blue" and "A lot of minds were quizzical." Have the actor, then the action, then what is acted upon whenever possible. The actors: lights; the action: highlighting; the acted upon: bloody crime scene. Flickering red and blue lights highlighted another crime scene. Better construction. The second sentence, we don't even know what makes them upset in that sentence. We have to read to the next one. Any sentence that does not contain the actor (i.e. the fact that the cops aren't around), should be used with incredible rarity.

Also: Figurative language. Who hasn't overdone it, am I right? You have so many flashy words and not necessarily enough meaty ones. Flickering, highlighted, quizzical, strobing, harbinger. Adjectives are our friends...but the kind that like raid your fridge and drink all your booze. Have them over only as much as you are willing to pay for every one of them.

"The flashing red and blue lights of police vehicles were an all-too-chilling sight in the city. Passersby grimaced............(same as above)"

Same thing here. Gerunds...they feel so good, but they can sound so gray on the prose scale.

"New York City. How he hated it. That city was the embodiment of his past. Dark alleyways of fear and uncertainty. Pride as tall and cold as the steel that pricked the sky. Tumultuous chaos that left his mind as filthy as the streets."

Careful with the adjectives, but if you peeled some away, I'd read this piece in a heartbeat.


----------



## Eicca (Jun 17, 2014)

That is excellent information. Thanks!

I've got another opening in the works. I tried for the idea of starting straight at the main character's viewpoint. I think it works better. I'll post it in a moment and see how it goes.


----------



## Chris Miller (Jun 18, 2014)

#3 is the best because it establishes point of view. We know it's limited 3rd and learn something of his character. The first two establish no character or point of view.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 18, 2014)

I concur with Mr. Chris Miller. 

Two things I noticed from the examples provided is that you're trying too hard, and you're not establishing a point of view. I'm assuming you're shooting for third person. So, what I would do is sit down, imagine yourself in this character's shoes, and see, think, and feel what he's seeing, thinking, and feeling. Once you do that, translate it to words in third person point of view. Let the character describe the atmosphere through what he's experiencing. If he sees a passerby look and grimace, then show us and tell us what he's observing, and what he's thinking or feeling.


----------



## glenn84 (Jun 18, 2014)

Imagine you're in the character's shoes and describe all the important details he sees--the one's that illicit an emotional response. That's the best way to let the reader know how he's feeling . 

Something along these lines: 

_[insert MC's name here] arrived at the murder scene promptly, not knowing he would be looking down at his own brother sprawled out on the pavement. On his brother's feet the Nike shoes he'd taken without asking were unlaced, one of which had been half removed on a size 10 foot, revealing a ripped up bloody sock. He had yelled at him for taking his shoes without asking on a number of occasions, but now he didn't care about the damn shoes, he just wanted his brother back. _

Then you can go ahead and get into New York and the officers and the passersby. Those things should be last on your list because there's a good chance all of that would be blocked out from your periphery and thoughts as you focus in on your dead brother. Make believe it's your brother that's lying on the pavement, what's the first thing that is going to go through your head? It's not going to be the strangers huddled around or the police officers or the lights.


----------



## Eicca (Jun 18, 2014)

Alright! It's starting to click! Thanks to all the help  I'm starting to recognize strong viewpoint and spots where it's weaker.

I made some tweaks. How does this sound? (Still not final, but I feel like it's getting close. ...I know I haven't revealed his name yet. I forgot to work that in before I made this post.)

-----------------

He stayed where he was, sitting against the wheel of the police car. Neither the ache in his back nor the protests of the officer could persuade him to move. His face remained in his hands. Sweat from his palms stung his sunburned face. Occasionally his ears would pick out details: Scuffling boots, buzzing radios, another police car stopping nearby. Another one? Why did they keep coming? What a waste. It was already over. The bullet casings were collected, the photographers had captured every detail, forensics had given the clear to clean up.


He took a deep shuddering breath. A night breeze prickled his skin. The smell of blood touched his nose and his stomach clenched. He shakily raised his head, trying hard not to vomit all over his jeans.


The red and blue strobe lights assaulted his vision, leaving streaks. He closed his eyes again, hard. Afterimages of storefront windows and road flares spun before him. When the nausea subsided, he looked up again, surveying the scene. 


To him, he officers were the most prevalent detail. They seemed unconcerned, even bored. This was just another day on the job for them. Another bloody crime scene. Murders were all they ever responded to anymore, and they were clearly accustomed to it. They exchanged small talk and casually took down the yellow tape, oblivious to what he had just been through. He was nervous wreck sitting smack in the middle of it all, and nobody seemed to care. His jaw tightened; his piercing blue eyes wished death on everything around him.


New York City. How he hated it. That city was the embodiment of his past. Dark alleyways of fear and uncertainty. Pride as tall and cold as the steel that pricked the sky. Tumultuous chaos that left his mind as filthy as the streets. Millions of thoughts wandered about, wanting never to be disturbed. The stench of sadness--cigarettes, alcohol, drugs--filled his lungs to suffocation. He had worked so hard to leave it all behind. He had vowed never to return.


Somehow, by bad luck, coincidence, an act of God--he didn’t know, he didn’t care--he was back. The demons he had left to die wasted no time trying to destroy him again.


Hands grabbed him under the arms, lifting him toward the passenger seat of the police car. He did not resist. Dizziness made his stomach flip and his knees shook violently. But he made it to the passenger’s seat without collapsing or throwing up.


The door closed, and he rested his forehead on the window. The car eventually began moving and the surroundings passed in a blur.


He stifled a moan of despair. The city had always fought dirty and had only gotten worse during his absence. The wounds that had taken years to heal now oozed freely, ripped open by the sight of his brother bleeding to death on the sidewalk in front of him.


He gasped and shook his head to dislodge the image, but in his weakened state the attempt was useless. His mind was a movie reel that he couldn’t shut off.


Fresh new memories joined the old: Gold badges, flashing lights, the car door open wide like the jaws of a shark. Flailing fists. The state trooper. The knife blade, shiny, black, three inches long, spring-loaded. Agony twisting his brother’s face. Guns, suddenly, everywhere, pointing at him. The CIA. Medics. An ambulance. The agent forcing him behind cover. Trying to break free. He couldn’t see, was he alive? Was he alive??


Justin Baron was pronounced dead at 11:28pm.


The news came over the police radio. He felt like he had been stabbed himself. His breath stuck in his throat. His hands grappled for the door handle. Before the vehicle fully stopped, he stumbled out onto the cement of the parking garage. He steadied himself against a cement pillar, breathing hoarsely. It couldn’t be true. It wasn’t possible. How had this happened?


“Contain yourself, soldier.” The voice was female, young and light, but demanding.


His instinct fluttered. Something inside him fell into alignment. That’s right, he was a soldier. He was stronger. He couldn’t let this consume him. He turned to face the voice with eyes that were red but somehow still tearless.


He recognized her from the crime scene. The CIA agent with the short red hair that had shoved him behind her truck when the gunfire started. She was the one that Justin had dialed, hoping that she would be able to defuse the situation. The one that had arrived just seconds too late.


“Come with me.” She turned and pulled open a large metal door. He followed reluctantly, peering down the stark white hallway. A new kind of nervousness bubbled up inside him. A sort of long-term uncertainty. Getting involved with CIA business usually did that to people. He stayed a few yards behind her, breathing her perfume, going down a flight of stairs, down another hallway, finally stopping just outside a bare room made entirely of concrete.


She waved him in. “Take a seat.”


He did, cautiously, watching her close and lock the metal door. Instantly his heart began to race. Trapped underground with the CIA. What had he gotten himself into?


“Now,” she said, seating herself opposite from him. “Tell me what happened.”


----------



## glenn84 (Jun 18, 2014)

I think you bring in the brother's death too late. It makes for a much more emotional hook if you focus on the brother and not the other stuff going on around him. Also, I doubt he would continue to bleed to death when he's already dead. Just a thought.


----------



## garza (Jun 18, 2014)

My problem is with some of the words and the way they are used. Also, as pointed out, you've not established a point of view.

Lights on police vehicles don't flicker, they flash, and they don't highlight a scene, they punctuate it. Nobody grimaces in New York. They frown or scowl, but mostly look irritated or bored. Lose the 'actually' from looking. That's a case of an adverb cutting the heart out of a verb. The crowds were waved along by impatient cops. Minds quizzical? Maybe they wondered what had happened but being New Yorkers  didn't know or didn't care or didn't care even if they knew. Maybe they figured, 'Cops on the street - must be murder.' A harbinger says something is coming. The lights announced that death is here already. 

Here's the way I'd write it. 

Joe sat on the curb and stared at his brother's body. Cop cars blocked the street and their flashing red and blue lights punctuated the grey, rain-soaked day, bouncing from shop windows a block away. Cops in orange vests waved the gawkers by. Being New Yorkers they didn't know or didn't care or didn't care even if they knew. They looked but didn't look. Maybe they figured, 'Hey, cops on the street - must be another murder.' Joe paid them no mind. 

Strip it down to bare bones, then build it up again if it really needs building up. Don't let clumsy words and wrong usage get in the way of the story. It's the story that's important. Clean, clear, direct, and strong will catch the reader. Fuzzy, uncertain, oblique, and weak will not.


----------



## Eicca (Jun 18, 2014)

Yeah finding words that both work properly and convey the image I want is a trick.

One of the things I've had in mind setting up this scene is keeping questions up in the air and starting close in and working outward. That's what I went for in the revised bit (post #11), starting immediately with the MC, getting the question of what he's doing sitting by a police car out in the open right away, and then gradually expanding the scene in such a way: police car<crime scene<actually a murder scene<actually his brother's "murder" scene (not to be a spoiler, but later in the chapter you find out the CIA is pronouncing him dead to keep him under cover)


----------



## garza (Jun 18, 2014)

You don't need to look far to find the right words. Tell the story in the words you use every day, the words you know best. That way the image seen by the reader will be sharp. When you use  words you are not accustomed to using, you will probably pick almost but not quite the right word and the image seen by the reader will be fuzzy.


----------



## glenn84 (Jun 18, 2014)

I think all that would work just fine if he's on his way to the scene. If he's sitting next to a police car than he probably already knows who the slain person is already.


----------



## Eicca (Jun 19, 2014)

glenn84 said:


> If he's sitting next to a police car than he probably already knows who the slain person is already.



The main character knows, but my intent is to keep the reader wondering. That's what I was going for. I've read a couple books where it starts out almost cryptic and I really liked it.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jun 19, 2014)

Eicca said:


> The main character knows, but my intent is to keep the reader wondering. That's what I was going for. I've read a couple books where it starts out almost cryptic and I really liked it.



Never purposely withhold information from your reader. You gain nothing by doing it. If your protagonist already knows, there is no reason the reader shouldn't know either. This really bugs me when writers do this.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 19, 2014)

J.T. Chris said:


> Never purposely withhold information from your reader. You gain nothing by doing it. If your protagonist already knows, there is no reason the reader shouldn't know either. This really bugs me when writers do this.




I semi-disagree with this. There's no harm in setting a scene. However, I personally like to see them set up rather quickly, and the point gotten on with. Ultimately, it's always the writer's decision stylistically to lead the reader on, or be up front with them. 

Lee Child writes some amazing crime/action fiction, and usually always sets the scene up briefly before tossing you into Jack Reacher's chaotic world. 

Speaking of Lee Child, Eicca, if you haven't read his work, I highly recommend it. His writing is tight, concise, and he does a great job of translating emotion from stronger characters. Child's writing is also a great example of capturing deeper perspective. 

As Garza basically said, don't over think writing. Know your story, and tell it in a simplistic way. Great, elaborate writing doesn't make a good story.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jun 19, 2014)

I'm not talking about scene setting, but important information that a writer intentionally withholds from the reader. That irritates me.


----------



## Jeko (Jun 19, 2014)

> Constructive criticism, no matter how harsh, is needed.



Actually, it's not. One of the worst things I've ever done is sought feedback immediately after starting a story; when I should have been continuing the story, I was worrying about how I started it and hence got myself nowhere. 

The truth is, you'll never know if your opening is right until you've written the rest of the story; once everything is on paper, you can work out what you're introducing the reader to. But until you've done that, you're introducing them - and yourself, likewise - to nothing.

Not that I wouldn't listen to some of the great advice here, but even if you get that opening 'right', you'll revisit it again and again the more you understand your story and its characters. If you want to do it justice, move on for now. As long as you know _where _you're opening, you can tell the whole story from here. 

Anyway, I'd use no. 3 for Chris' reasons.



> Never purposely withhold information from your reader. You gain nothing by doing it. If your protagonist already knows, there is no reason the reader shouldn't know either. This really bugs me when writers do this.



I wouldn't walk into an English Lit class with that sort of view; one of the great powers of the narrator is to choose what the reader knows and what they don't, and this can be used for incredible effect. 

For example, a murder mystery told in the perspective of the killer wouldn't begin 'reader, I murdered him!'.

Similarly,



> Would you care about the flashing red-and-blue lights or the dark alleyways? I'm sure you would be too emotionally erratic to care about any of that.



Not all characters are alike. The existence of a critical event can be made more intriguing by the narrator's treatment of it; if they don't seem focused on it, what does that tell us about them? I love characters that do this, like Joe Rose in McEwan's 'Enduring Love'; he's so obsessed with detail, it takes him forever to tell you that there's a man dangling from a balloon in the sky. Even though that's the start of his story, and he draws attention to this fact, he delays our perception of it for his own purposes. I immediately hated and loved him for it.

A writer should embrace the potential complexity of their characters, as this adheres to the complexity of humanity itself.


----------



## Clove (Jun 19, 2014)

FleshEater said:


> As Garza basically said, don't over think writing. Know your story, and tell it in a simplistic way. *Great, elaborate writing doesn't make a good story*.



I fundamentally disagree with this maxim. For me there is invaluable merit in the precise ways a story is told; the 'great' books that preserve have always been ones that do new things with language and style in conjunction with story, never excluding one for the other. There are plenty of writers who not only have a great story, but equally great elaborate writing to boot. I think this either/or myth is rather a dangerous and lazy one to perpetuate, especially for beginning writers. Of course, some people are naturally born story-tellers whilst others are naturally more inclined to write beautifully. There is no 'right' method in either case; some readers are happy to read an 1000-page novel about twenty-fours hours in the life of a man wandering a city, whilst others are content with badly wrought teen-vampire-romances. 

In terms of first lines, it depends on what type of a writer you are. For me personally, I need to have an _almost_ perfect first line down first. It sets the key conflict, the tone for the characters for the story and I often return to it if I'm wandering a little by the wayside in the body of my writing. Without such a line or beginning, I would really struggle to place everything in my mind and on the page.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jun 19, 2014)

Clove said:


> I fundamentally disagree with this maxim. For me there is invaluable merit in the precise ways a story is told; the 'great' books that preserve have always been ones that do new things with language and style in conjunction with story, never excluding one for the other. There are plenty of writers who not only have a great story, but equally great elaborate writing to boot.
> 
> In terms of first lines, it depends on what type of a writer you are. For me personally, I need to have an _almost_ perfect first line down first. It sets the key conflict, the tone for the characters for the story and I often return to it if I'm wandering a little by the wayside in the body of my writing. Without such a line or beginning, I would really struggle to place everything in my mind and on the page.



Richness of language and originality of style is every bit as important to me as a good story. We write in a similar way. If a sentence doesn't read well to me, I have a difficult time moving on with it.



> For example, a murder mystery told in the perspective of the killer wouldn't begin 'reader, I murdered him!'



I would like to know that up front, because I would be very, very annoyed if the narrator strung me along for two-hundred pages of "Did I kill him or didn't I kill him? Hang on. I'll tell you all about that later." I see it a lot in students' writing. I'm just a need-to-know kind of guy that way.


----------



## Greimour (Jun 19, 2014)

I agree with Cadence.

For this kind of story, I really like the black and white Noir style you keep entering, but seriously - if you don't get the story itself finished before getting feedback you will never get passed the beginning.

I have a story that reached 40k words in under a week (6 days roughly) -I churned it out from wake till sleep, stopping only to use the toilet, fill my coffee and occasionally eat. At the time I smoked at my computer and the ash tray was brimming. During my working hours I was filling A4 writing pads with stuff that would later be transferred to the computer or else continuing on paper for entire chapters.
- Then I did something that stopped me dead. I read it back and began fixing the typos, the bad sentences, the hooks, the emotion, etc...
In the past six+ years, I have revisited the piece more times than I could guess at and yet I have never written a single day further into the story. I can't let go of what's done and I can't move on from where it stopped all those years ago. I have practically given up on it now, but I still revisit it on occasion.

Truly, the best thing you can do is just finish. After that comes the work, the worries, the edits... why do you think artists don't let people 'see' their work before it is finished. Whether the artist writes, draws, sculpts or anything else an artist may have want to do... they almost never show the unfinished piece that is their work. For me, I couldn't even show the unfinished work to myself... it stopped me dead.

I think in that- is a lesson for all. 


~Kev.


----------



## Jeko (Jun 19, 2014)

> Without such a line or beginning, I would really struggle to place everything in my mind and on the page.





> If a sentence doesn't read well to me, I have a difficult time moving on with it.



It's something that discipline sorts out for you, and the best way to develop that discipline is to get past your own judgement and remember that you have a story to tell that you cna retell as many times as you like - but only once it's been told.



> I would like to know that up front, because I would be very, very annoyed if the narrator strung me along for two-hundred pages of "Did I kill him or didn't I kill him? Hang on. I'll tell you all about that later." I see it a lot in students' writing. I'm just a need-to-know kind of guy that way.



You probably see it in a lot of students' writing because they've been taught well about the unreliable narrator. 

The suspension of understanding is what the denouement of a narrative relies upon to be effective; you're arguing against the entire theory of narrative here.



> There are plenty of writers who not only have a great story, but equally great elaborate writing to boot. I think this either/or myth is rather a dangerous and lazy one to perpetuate, especially for beginning writers.



There is no 'either/or myth'; FleshEater was advocating substance over style, which I find to be an essential focus while drafting. You can style something worthwhile, but you can't polish a turd. And even if you somehow manage to, it'll still be a turd. So the actual story takes precedence over how it's being told in the drafting stage. Else, you're caring more about yourself than your characters, and that rarely leads to effective storytelling.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 19, 2014)

Clove said:


> I fundamentally disagree with this maxim. For me there is invaluable merit in the precise ways a story is told; the 'great' books that preserve have always been ones that do new things with language and style in conjunction with story, never excluding one for the other. There are plenty of writers who not only have a great story, but equally great elaborate writing to boot. I think this either/or myth is rather a dangerous and lazy one to perpetuate, especially for beginning writers. Of course, some people are naturally born story-tellers whilst others are naturally more inclined to write beautifully. There is no 'right' method in either case; some readers are happy to read an 1000-page novel about twenty-fours hours in the life of a man wandering a city, whilst others are content with badly wrought teen-vampire-romances.
> 
> In terms of first lines, it depends on what type of a writer you are. For me personally, I need to have an _almost_ perfect first line down first. It sets the key conflict, the tone for the characters for the story and I often return to it if I'm wandering a little by the wayside in the body of my writing. Without such a line or beginning, I would really struggle to place everything in my mind and on the page.



What that comment implies is that if you're able to write elaborately and string beautiful words together it isn't going to make up for a terrible story, or a terribly executed story. 

Many writers, I've noticed, enjoy reading elaborate writing. Personally, I despise it. I don't care how well a writer can describe the wind blowing through the trees, through their character's hair, and/or how depressing or livened it makes their characters feel. All I care about is reading a good story. No amount of well written sentences can make a terrible story good.

Now, telling a beginning writer to worry about such nonsense, rather than simply telling their stories, usually results in what we're seeing here. A writer needlessly fretting over each sentence. Structuring some world worth some imaginary literary credit. I know, because I was there when I first started. It's a terrible place to be, and usually amounts to zero writing. 

Calling such tactics lazy is either out of bad taste, or a way to protect oneself from giving merit to a good story told in a plain and simple way. It'd be like saying any writer not like McCarthy, Faulkner, Hemmingway, etcetera is terrible because they're lazy writers. This, I find, ludicrous. Publishers and readers alike would probably agree. 

However, this opinion comes from a minimalist's perspective. Less is best in my opinion. And this opinion has been acquired by reading too much Chuck Palahniuk and Amy Hempel.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jun 19, 2014)

> You probably see it in a lot of students' writing because they've been taught well about the unreliable narrator.
> 
> The suspension of understanding is what the denouement of a narrative relies upon to be effective; you're arguing against the entire theory of narrative here.



No, what I'm talking about isn't an unreliable narrator. An unreliable narrator is a character whom the reader can't trust, not a _writer _whom the reader can't trust. Narrative arc and a writer who intentionally withholds information because he thinks it leads to mystery or suspense, but achieves the opposite effect, are two different things.



> It's something that discipline sorts out for you, and the best way to develop that discipline is to get past your own judgement and remember that you have a story to tell that you cna retell as many times as you like - but only once it's been told.



And here you're just telling a writer he can't write the way that works best for him. That has no objective basis really.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jun 19, 2014)

FleshEater said:


> What that comment implies is that if you're able to write elaborately and string beautiful words together it isn't going to make up for a terrible story, or a terribly executed story.
> 
> Many writers, I've noticed, enjoy reading elaborate writing. Personally, I despise it. I don't care how well a writer can describe the wind blowing through the trees, through their character's hair, and/or how depressing or livened it makes their characters feel. All I care about is reading a good story. No amount of well written sentences can make a terrible story good.
> 
> ...




I agree with this in theory. The best thing for a new writer is not to get hung up on the little things and focus on getting the fundamentals of good storytelling down. But when a writer gains more experience, it will serve him well to think of all aspects of good craft. Language is our bread and butter.

This is a good discussion to have. I like the ideas in this thread.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 19, 2014)

J.T. Chris said:


> And here you're just telling a writer he can't write the way that works best for him. That has no objective basis really.



I don't think Cadence is telling anyone to do anything. He's simply stating that it's unnecessary to worry so much on a first draft. Once the story is told, there is all the time in the world to ponder over every single sentence if you choose to do so.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jun 19, 2014)

FleshEater said:


> I don't think Cadence is telling anyone to do anything. He's simply stating that it's unnecessary to worry so much on a first draft. Once the story is told, there is all the time in the world to ponder over every single sentence if you choose to do so.



All writers work the best way for them. Some writers like to bang out drafts and rewrite them endlessly. Others, like Vonnegut, were infamous for working from a single draft alone, furiously trashing pages and refusing to move on until they were already satisfied. When the draft was finished, the story was finished. No re-drafting necessary. He rewrote as he went along, so to speak. There's really no rule for how to go about the process.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 19, 2014)

J.T. Chris said:


> I agree with this in theory. The best thing for a new writer is not to get hung up on the little things and focus on getting the fundamentals of good storytelling down. But when a writer gains more experience, it will serve him well to think of all aspects of good craft. Language is our bread and butter.
> 
> This is a good discussion to have. I like the ideas in this thread.



This is true. However, writing with one's natural voice is the most efficient way to acquire an end result. 


I can't tell you how many words I've wrote in my two years of serious writing. If I had to guess, I'd say it'd be over 250,000 words. I've learned a lot in two years and 250,000 or more words. And you know what? Nothing about elaborate prose has ever stuck, nor do I use any of the information today. Why? Because I've come to learn the importance of telling a story. 

The story is the most important thing. If your style is naturally unique or eccentric, then by all means use it. But there is no sense tirelessly overworking a story for some false literary merit.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 19, 2014)

J.T. Chris said:


> All writers work the best way for them. Some writers like to bang out drafts and rewrite them endlessly. Others, like Vonnegut, were infamous for working from a single draft alone, furiously trashing pages and refusing to move on until they were already satisfied. When the draft was finished, the story was finished. No re-drafting necessary. He rewrote as he went along, so to speak. There's really no rule for how to go about the process.



Every writer understands that. However, this is a writing forum comprised mainly of amateur writers, trying to offer suggestions and help to other amateur writers. So, in doing that, it's much like any writer's book concerning the "How-To," of writing.

Plain and simple. Take everything here with a grain of salt.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jun 19, 2014)

FleshEater said:


> This is true. However, writing with one's natural voice is the most efficient way to acquire an end result.
> 
> 
> I can't tell you how many words I've wrote in my two years of serious writing. If I had to guess, I'd say it'd be over 250,000 words. I've learned a lot in two years and 250,000 or more words. And you know what? Nothing about elaborate prose has ever stuck, nor do I use any of the information today. Why? Because I've come to learn the importance of telling a story.
> ...



I'm not sure I completely understand what you are trying to articulate. If you are suggesting that writers not try so hard to use superfluous, esoteric language in order to "sound writerly," then I agree with you 100% 

What I think I'm curious about here is this "false literary merit" you're referring to. Is it false for the OP to ask questions about how his sentences read? There is nothing wrong with that. It's healthy that he's focused on the language of his story.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jun 19, 2014)

FleshEater said:


> Every writer understands that. However, this is a writing forum comprised mainly of amateur writers, trying to offer suggestions and help to other amateur writers. So, in doing that, it's much like any writer's book concerning the "How-To," of writing.
> 
> Plain and simple. Take everything here with a grain of salt.



That's understandable, but somehow this thread turned into telling the OP how to go about writing his story. If rewriting sentences as he goes along works best for him, then he's not going to benefit from being told to simply finish the story and then seek feedback later. If he wants feedback on individual sentences, for a writer's forum, we should be open to offering feedback on that too.


----------



## Greimour (Jun 19, 2014)

FleshEater said:


> Calling such tactics lazy is either out of bad taste, or a way to protect oneself from giving merit to a good story told in a plain and simple way. It'd be like saying any writer not like McCarthy, Faulkner, Hemmingway, etcetera is terrible because they're lazy writers. This, I find, ludicrous. Publishers and readers alike would probably agree.



I might've misunderstood that, but Hemmingway was a genius at telling the story in the most simple way possible. His sentences were the simplest constructions I have ever read and the quotes people pull from his work are a wonder unto themselves. Hemmingway's style is genius FOR it's simplicity, rather for the incredibly beautifully crafted sentences and descriptions. 

Personally, I have never been interested in Hemmingway but that's a personal opinion and it does not change any greatness to his style or his work. Just not my cup of tea.

In short, simple can be great, Hemmingway is proof. Those sentences people are trying to perfect are almost always perfect when written in their simplest forms - rather than reaching for grandeur and showing off outstanding vocabularies.


----------



## Sam (Jun 19, 2014)

Eicca said:


> My story opens with the main character sitting on a curb in New York City. He's smack in the middle of the scene of his brother's murder, surrounded by police cars. From here the story develops into a devious conspiracy with a fantastic twist. Problem is, with such a grand plan, I feel like my opening lines just don't do it justice at all. Here are a few of my attempts. Constructive criticism, no matter how harsh, is needed. Thanks in advance!
> 
> "Another bloody crime scene, highlighted by flickering red and blue. Passersby grimaced, trying to see as much as they could without actually looking. Impatient officers waved them along. A lot of minds were quizzical, but most knew the answer. Police never responded to anything but murder anymore. Those strobing lights--visible for blocks--were a harbinger of death."
> 
> ...



The problem is uniform throughout all of these openings. It's rather simple. 

*Nothing happens.*

You write well and it's obvious you know how to convey a scene, but opening sentences aren't about creating scenes. They're about grabbing the reader by the short and curlies and not letting them go. So many writers open with witty anecdotes and after-the-fact musings, but they don't do anything beyond demonstrating that one knows what a simile is and can write evocative sentences. Think about it. There are hundreds of thousands of books out there, on the shelves, being picked up by eager readers who want a reason to part with their money. To achieve that, you have to hook them. To hook them, *something has to happen. 

*Your opening sentences tell me there's a crime scene, passers-by, police vehicles, and dark alleyways, but what you're doing is in fact ignoring the one person who is pivotal to all of that: the grieving brother. Imagine you're arriving on the scene of your brother's death: would you give a toss about passers-by grimacing or impatient officers trying to do their jobs? Focus on the brother. He's going to be angry, frustrated, temperamental, and argumentative. _That's _where you hook the reader. Show the brother angrily pushing his way through the throngs and police officers, demanding to see his sibling's body. Engender conflict. Give us a reason to empathise and sympathise with him. You can do all of those things and still set the scene, but if I were you I wouldn't start with undue description that lends your story nothing of note. You're writing a thriller. Having read hundreds and written a dozen, I can honestly tell you that I would find it hard to keep reading your story if it opened as it does now. I don't mean to tell you how to write it, but that's my advice, for what it's worth.


----------



## Greimour (Jun 19, 2014)

Agreed, [With Sam] I like hooks in beginnings of stories. I always read the first paragraph of a book before I buy it. That one paragraph is the deciding factor on if I buy it. If the hook can drag me to paragraph five, it's a guaranteed buy. Not a fail safe method, but it almost never fails me. 

Perhaps I have missed out on some great stories because of it but the hook in the opening is the deal breaker for me.


----------



## Clove (Jun 19, 2014)

Cadence said:


> It's something that discipline sorts out for you, and the best way to develop that discipline is to get past your own judgement and remember that you have a story to tell that you cna retell as many times as you like - but only once it's been told.



Why does my process need sorting out? I honestly don't find it a weakness. Having a first line for me that does not need to be edited is motivational because it contains, within it, everything I want to get across about my story, as a first line should. Blah blah, _story_, blah--but you make it sound as if I spend years - like the writer in Camus' _The Plague - _stuck on the first line paralysed. Yes, coming up with a first line for me takes longer than perhaps for other people but the benefits of it outweigh the quite irrelevant amount of time it takes to produce it.  



> Now, telling a beginning writer to worry about such nonsense, rather than simply telling their stories, usually results in what we're seeing here. A writer needlessly fretting over each sentence. Structuring some world worth some imaginary literary credit. I know, because I was there when I first started. It's a terrible place to be, and usually amounts to zero writing.



I just don't see the advantage of being so reductionist whilst drafting. Writers should be perfectly capable in juggling various parts of a story, not simply _just the plot_. To focus on one thing no matter how important misses the forest for the tree. Concerns about words, language, sentence-structure, imagery, style do matter and should not just be pushed towards the end for the drafting because they are always in the end linked to the way the story is told. 



> Calling such tactics lazy is either out of bad taste, or a way to protect oneself from giving merit to a good story told in a plain and simple way. It'd be like saying any writer not like McCarthy, Faulkner, Hemmingway, etcetera is terrible because they're lazy writers. This, I find, ludicrous. Publishers and readers alike would probably agree.



Faulkner, simple? Hemingway, plain? Ludicrous. Faulkner was an expert stylist for whom language was on par with narrative, whilst Hemingway's short stories often bordered on the most banal things - thinking of _Hills Like White Elephants_ - on the surface, but it was what was not said [again, a stylistic choice] which gave him great depth. I enjoy minimalism as much as the next reader, and can appreciate it when it's done well and not merely navel-gazing, claustrophobic domestic dramas about nothing [or worse, adultery] which proliferate I fear under the minimalism banner. But there's a difference between writing in a minimillistic fashion and writing blindly, without thinking.

At the end of the day, preferences work for various people and there are many ways to write. What is silly is seemingly lauding one over the other when it comes down to personal preference; I have on many occasions, in my younger years, been 'forced' to write in a style that I honestly hated [and could not write in] because it was seen as the default 'it' style.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jun 19, 2014)

No one is suggesting that language needs to be flowerly or garrulous. The writers to whom you're referring still gave conscious consideration to the language they used, whether they used a 250 word vocabulary or a thousand-word vocabulary. That's what makes voice and style unique to the author. It's their calling-card. What we are suggesting is that attention to style is every bit as important as plot, character, and setting. Writing is a craft, and like a carpenter, you wouldn't shortchange the varnish because you think only the nails are the most important.


----------



## Folcro (Jun 19, 2014)

How well do you know your main character? How finished is this story?

What I believe may help you set this story off is to stop worrying about your opener and finish the story. When you have the entirety of the story beneath you as you go over it again, you will find that you get better and better at what to say at what time.

Is this guy a smartass? The kind of guy who looks at the humor in things even in the face of despair? Is he cynical, hateful, vengeful? What are his conflicts and frustrations? Who is he? Understanding this will be especially helpful in establishing the story through his unique and memorable voice.


----------



## Greimour (Jun 19, 2014)

J.T. Chris said:


> No one is suggesting that language needs to be flowerly or garrulous. The writers to whom you're referring still gave conscious consideration to the language they used, whether they used a 250 word vocabulary or a thousand-word vocabulary. That's what makes voice and style unique to the author. It's their calling-card. What we are suggesting is that attention to style is every bit as important as plot, character, and setting. Writing is a craft, and like a carpenter, you wouldn't shortchange the varnish because you think only the nails are the most important.



Hehe, though I agree... I also think that Hemmingway had little choice in how he wrote. I think his style of writing was not so much choice but the limits of his teachings/knowledge. 

I seen a mechanic on top gear repeatedly fix the same car with just 3 tools, nothing else was allowed. It was battered, half crushed, half destroyed, drowned twice... and he got it working again every time with just a screw driver, a wrench and something else. The guy must've been a mechanical genius or something...
A second mechanic had an entire garage of tools and staff and yet struggled to figure out why the Lexus he was working on kept stalling... 

Point being... I believe Hemmingway was limited by his tools and yet- he still managed his craft with enviable proficiency.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jun 19, 2014)

Quite the contrary though, Hemmingway had an expert command on his craft, moreso that he was rebelling against the modernist institution in Western literature. There is fascinating scholarship on Hemmingway's terse style and the profound effect it had on 20th-century literature. As Clove pointed out, he was much more interested in what went unsaid than said. He was genius in his own right, that Papa. His style had nothing to do with limitations.


----------



## Clove (Jun 19, 2014)

J.T. Chris said:


> Quite the contrary though, Hemmingway had an expert command on his craft, moreso that he was rebelling against the modernist institution in Western literature. There is fascinating scholarship on Hemmingway's terse style and the profound effect it had on 20th-century literature. As Clove pointed out, he was much more interested in what went unsaid than said. He was genius in his own right, that Papa.



This, definitely. To say he was limited knowledge-wise ignores the whole Lost Generation group he was a part of. People seem to think Hemingway as the rebellious macho writer, but he was living quite comfortably in Paris under the tutelage of Gertrude Stein, along the likes of his contemporaries like Fitzgerald, Eliot and Joyce: writers who by no stretch of the imagination wrote in a very ornate, Modern style to which Hemingway must have been privy to. He was very much in the literary loop.


----------



## Sam (Jun 19, 2014)

If you want to discuss Hemingway, Faulkner, and the importance of craft versus plot, feel free to start another thread. This one has gone off-topic enough.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jun 19, 2014)

My 2c.


> "Another bloody crime scene, highlighted by flickering red and blue.


I like this, you will probably end up  rewriting it during the edit but it sets off the story and helps picture things in my mind.

I find my way of writing is my way of finding my way through the story, what the scene is, what the characters are feeling/doing/saying. How do things play out? Action and consequences. The bare bones are worked out but the internal organs and flesh are mailable and subject to whim. The character's character will develop and change as he/she/they/it goes through challenge and resolution. 

What would be the result of tossing a grenade into a firework factory? I won't know until I have tried it. What will the story turn out like?...

On a slightly off topic (sorry Sam) point, don't worry about the rough patches, get the whole thing written down before you lose the way, too much editing early on will stall your work and it is possible it will end up binned due to frustration.

Good luck
Bazz


----------



## Eicca (Jun 20, 2014)

Aaaaah this thread is a treasure trove of thoughts to work over! I love it.

I've picked out some details that I feel would help my opening, and I'm going to try it again. (In my defense, the story is already written. Like, if I wasn't dissatisfied with how it was now, it would already be at the publisher.) Here's my battle plan:

One of the previous posts, I forget who and I'm too lazy to look, identified a problem that made me smack my forehead: NOTHING HAPPENS. Amazing how I couldn't figure that out myself but it's blatantly obvious.

After some thought, I feel like my balance between concise punch and descriptive is too far on the descriptive side. Which is weird, because I've shared a number of my action scenes and everybody loooves them. Apologizing for my lack of modesty, my fight scenes are pretty sick. So why can I make a good, to-the-point fight scene but not a to-the-point opener? Something for me to experiment with.

In light of that last item, feel like I should work more with what I'm good at. My dialogue has been another area in which I've felt very satisfied. I'm going to try and work the scene with more dialogue and use that to help it move along. After all, it's more engaging when my characters talk than when I do.

I'll post the results when they are ready! Thanks for all the input!


----------



## Jeko (Jun 20, 2014)

No-one's saying that a writer has to move on from their first line regardless of how well it's written; but if a writer _can't _move on until it's well written, then that's a deficiency in discipline. At an early stage in a writer's life, one cannot defend their 'process' with anything more than supposition on how well they think they're doing. Experimentation is key; explore different paths and see what works for you. But unless you can get past being unable to leave an opening line as it is - unless you can get past _necessity _for self-evaluation (as opposed to using it as a tool) as you write - you can't explore the options available to you when it comes to writing your story.

But since



> the story is already written.



It seems that you already have that discipline; now _is _the time to focus on that opening. I might try to pull together a more in-depth critique when I have time.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jun 20, 2014)

Hi Eicca,
now I have a red face. You are doing this the correct way round and I'm a dope.


----------



## Eicca (Jun 20, 2014)

No worries  I'm glad the discussion took place, it's given me a lot to think over.


----------



## Eicca (Jun 22, 2014)

Alright, so I have a revision that I think is a step in the right direction. Check it out here.


----------



## Mutimir (Jun 22, 2014)

Eicca said:


> Alright, so I have a revision that I think is a step in the right direction. Check it out here.



That is much better. It's a bit simpler yet connects your MC to the murder. Where you were describing it the first time it was too generic. I can understand that from a certain perspective but from someone who just lost a family member your new revision reflects that much better.


----------



## Morkonan (Jun 25, 2014)

Eicca said:


> ...I feel like my opening lines just don't do it justice at all. ...



That's because you're under the mistaken impression that your opening line must have something to do with your story... I know that sounds like nonsense, but it's true - An opening line doesn't have to have anything to do with your main story or your plot.

What is the purpose of your opener? You can't write an opening line to you story until you know why you're doing it, right? So, why? It is not, contrary to popular belief, how you start telling a story. There is only one purpose you should focus on when crafting your opening line - To force the Reader to desire to read the next line.

Everything you write is focused on "Keeping the Reader Reading." That is your job. If you fail to do that, you fail at telling your story. No matter how wonderful your plot is and how imaginative your characters, if you can't keep the Reader reading, nobody is ever going to experience all of those wonderful things.

Keep the Reader Reading.

So, examine your opening lines. What is there about them that reaches out from the page, grabs hold of the Reader's ears and forces them to continue Reading? Anything? Nothing?



> "Another bloody crime scene, highlighted by flickering red and blue.  Passersby grimaced, trying to see as much as they could without actually  looking. Impatient officers waved them along. A lot of minds were  quizzical, but most knew the answer. Police never responded to anything  but murder anymore. Those strobing lights--visible for blocks--were a  harbinger of death."



This could be interesting, but only if it was re-written. This is not enough of a shock to count as a good opening line. I'll demonstrate:

"Blood."

There, done with my first line.  Now, the rest that the Reader is intensely interested in Reading, since "Blood", by itself, conjures all sorts of curiosity and morbid images. So, in full...

"Blood." Blood everywhere. Bloody hand-prints on the outside wall of the small convenience store on the corner. A trail of splatter crossing the street on its way to this corner. Blood on the sidewalk, inching its way towards the gutter that was never meant to carry such a precious thing. It was somehow profane, another human being's life essence being treated like common runoff. The victim's blood trail ended here, on the corner of an unassuming neighborhood, right next to a postal drop-box. The victim had leaned against it in his final moments, his blood smearing across its surface in his final moments and likely finding its way within. The U.S. Post Office was going to be pissed."

Meh, it ain't great, but it gets the job of providing an example done. So, what did I do? For one, I lead with a huge punchline - "Blood." One word, ominous, yet intriguing. If you read that as an opener, you would read the next sentence, right? Well, there ya go, I've already got you habituated towards "reading the next sentence" and we haven't even gotten to any story elements yet! You'll be addicted, soon... Next up, the intent is to use a visual assault as part of a sort of "mystery" type of opening - The Reader keeps reading to find out what all this interesting and tantalizing stuff is really about. But, I give the Reader enough for them to pleasantly arrive at their own conclusions, before I reveal the truth. This is called an "Aha! Moment." I am providing clues to the Reader, not to entice them into searching for the answer, but to drawn them into desire to have their diligence rewarded by the story confirming their suspicions - It is a crime scene. That would be what I introduced in my next paragraph.

But, I would not do it as you have done. I would not want to downplay this crime scene and make it seem "boring." Instead of "passersby" grimacing and attempting to avoid the scene, have one or two appear to try to gawk, while the majority of the rest seem purposefully disinterested... Contrast the presence of only a few onlookers with the overwhelming avoidance by the masses. I also don't understand what you mean by "a lot of minds were quizzical, but most knew the answer." That doesn't make sense unless "minds" are actually disembodied intellects. (At least, in the current assumed context.)

Let's look at the next example:




> "The flashing red and blue lights of police vehicles were an  all-too-chilling sight in the city. Passersby grimaced............(same  as above)"



I see what you're trying to do, but you're drawing on something that the Reader hasn't read, namely your "harbinger of death" line. Don't write about stuff the Reader can't or hasn't read about... 

Now, what is our purpose? Our purpose is to "Keep the Reader Reading", right? But, in an opener, we must "force" the Reader to keep reading. We are attempting to addict the Reader in one line or two, in a way. So, what's the most powerful opener I could use, here, given your intent as illustrated by your example?

"The Harbinger of Death wore red and blue lights."

There, done. (Any number of alternative openings could use a similar strategy.) I have taken your "intent" and focused it where it should be focused - On providing an opener that deals heavily in metaphor, but metaphor that can be easily understood in a few sentences and, more importantly, can even be "figured out" by the Reader before we fully demonstrate it to them. When we confirm those suspicions, we are rewarding the Reader for the effort of "thinking" and reading our work. Task, reward, task, reward, task, reward... Your book is a big Skinner box.

Next up:



> "New York City. How he hated it. That city was the embodiment of his  past. Dark alleyways of fear and uncertainty. Pride as tall and cold as  the steel that pricked the sky. Tumultuous chaos that left his mind as  filthy as the streets."



Yes, it's always best to start out with hatred of something that you're going to be writing about... (No, it really isn't.) Remember that "Skinner Box" comment? Don't start off pairing what you're writing about with something as intense as a hatred of it. That just colors it all wrong. Instead, demonstrate that hatred, if you must, but do it in an entertaining and interesting fashion, passionately if possible. It's not the objective hatred that you are counting on to draw in the Reader, it's the passion of it, the intensity of it. If I wanted my character to hate stuffed animal toys with similar passion, I wouldn't start off with "I hate stuffed animals." Instead, I'd start off with describing the qualities of stuffed animals, to demonstrate that hatred, and magnify that with evidenced intensity, to further develop interest. Then, the Reader becomes focused on examining this persons hatred from an intimate and emotional level, not an objective one.

"It's a proud apostate, ceaselessly shouting its demanding barbaric yawps across its own rooftops."

I liked your "pride" line, but I wanted a more indirect approach in an attempt to create a personae for "New York", in much the same way as you did, except a more fully fledged one. (And, apologies are due to Whitman for my abuse of his lovely line...) We can go on to anthropomorphize New York, but it doesn't serve a lot of purpose for me to do so. My main point is this - When you started out with "New York" in your opener, you've shot yourself in the foot. Don't come straight out with telling the proper name of such a place if you're going to spend several lines of metaphor and simile in describing it in an opener. Instead, let the Reader savor those metaphors and similes a little bit, keeping the mystery alive for another line or two. True, in this sort of opener, you want to introduce the proper place name in the second or third line, since your opening pages aren't really about all the anthropomorphic characteristics of the city, but the "actions" of the characters within it.


I am not writing examples to demonstrate anything other than the concepts contained in their explanations. Above all, what you must do is to keep the Reader reading. That is all that your opening line must do and, in fact, so must everything else that you write! But, in your opener, with a Reader completely unfamiliar with your story, setting and characters, you have only one logical choice, only one ultimate purpose to ascribe to your opening lines - Keep the Reader reading.

There are a number of ways you can do that. Popular ones are "In Medias Res" openings, where the opening line starts the story off "in the middle of the action." Others are "Mystery" openings, where some sort of mysterious line or word is mentioned and the author draws heavily on the intrigue and the Reader's desire to unravel the mystery. But, no matter what you use as a "hook" for your opener, none of them will work unless you write purposefully to keep the Reader reading.

Lastly - Nothing you write has to have anything to do with anything else other than keeping the Reader reading. It doesn't have to introduce your characters or Setting. It doesn't have to contain plot components. It doesn't have to foreshadow a theme or stack Chekov's shotguns along the walls. No, all it must do, it's entire purpose, is to keep the Reader reading. Hopefully, you'll keep the Reader reading long enough to introduce all those cool plot pieces and interesting characters you've got going on. But, you won't reliably do that if you don't focus your opening lines on that purpose.

You can do this. You can write openers and hooks that are solely dedicated towards keeping the Reader reading, without being fussy and obvious in their attempts to introduce "story" elements. Heck, if you write interestingly enough about your main character brushing his teeth in the morning, you'll do perfectly well! Go ahead, try it! Try to write an opener, as an exercise, that focuses on enticing the Reader in with a scene about tooth-brushing... teeth-brushing... teeths being brushed... Well, you get the point - You can do it with anything! So, take off your shackles and stop worrying so much - All you must do in your opener is write lines that the Reader wants to keep reading. The rest will take care of itself.


----------



## Clove (Jun 25, 2014)

Honestly, if a reader isn't willing to put in those few extra seconds to read beyond the first line, and give your writing the chance that it deserves then that reader is probably not one you would want reading your book. A great first line can be great, but never have I physically been dissuaded from reading by a bad one.


----------



## Kyle R (Jun 25, 2014)

Clove said:
			
		

> Honestly, if a reader isn't willing to put in those few extra seconds to read beyond the first line, and give your writing the chance that it deserves [...]



I understand what you're saying, Clove, but I have to respectfully disagree. :encouragement:

As a writer, I expect no handouts or fairness. My writing deserves nothing. I have to _earn_ the reader's devotion, to snag them like a barbed hook right through the lip. This, in a world where they can be doing a hundred things other than reading.

If my writing doesn't compel the reader to continue, then my story _deserves_ to be put back on the shelf. That, or sent to the rejection pile.

I agree that a story's quality doesn't hinge on the opening line itself. But, in today's world, the average person waits three seconds for a webpage to load before losing patience and surfing somewhere else. These are the same people who will be flipping open your book to see if it's worth their time.

If your opening isn't strong enough to grab a reader's attention, why should they expect the rest to be any different?


----------



## Morkonan (Jun 25, 2014)

KyleColorado said:


> ...If my writing doesn't compel the reader to continue, then my story _deserves_ to be put back on the shelf. That, or sent to the rejection pile....



That line deserves a beer, given in appreciation for it. Here ya go: http://www.beer100.com/images/beermug.jpg 

And, of course, I agree with you completely. I have never read a story that I did not want to finish reading. Ever. (I have a corner that I throw books to that aren't worthy of further reading... Then, I loan them to friends who, so far, don't hate me too much for doing so.  )


----------



## Jeko (Jun 25, 2014)

> Honestly, if a reader isn't willing to put in those few extra seconds to read beyond the first line, and give your writing the chance that it deserves then that reader is probably not one you would want reading your book. A great first line can be great, but never have I physically been dissuaded from reading by a bad one.



When we talk about 'hooking' the reader, it's a more subtle business than this; I prefer to think of it as not _whether _they continue beyond the first line (because you're right - people usually read more), but _how _they continue.


----------



## Clove (Jun 25, 2014)

KyleColorado said:


> As a writer, I expect no handouts or fairness. My writing deserves nothing. I have to _earn_ the reader's devotion, to snag them like a barbed hook right through the lip. This, in a world where they can be doing a hundred things other than reading.



I wouldn't want a reader who would prioritise a hundred things over reading in the first place. 



> If my writing doesn't compel the reader to continue, then my story _deserves_ to be put back on the shelf. That, or sent to the rejection pile. I agree that a story's quality doesn't hinge on the opening line itself. But, in todays world, the average person waits three seconds for a webpage to load before losing patience and surfing somewhere else. These are the same people who will be flipping open your book to see if it's worth their time.
> 
> If your opening isn't strong enough to grab a reader's attention, why should they expect the rest to be any different?



I feel like these ideas of 'compulsion' 'hook' 'grab' etc. all these rather violent and base metaphors turn reading into something so much more commercial than it is. Reading, for me, is more than just one word after the other. Of course, writing _should_ be compelling, but I think often writers misjudge the intellect and/or interest of their audience as a whole. Readers don't need one-word, exclaimed (!), first-liners to be captivated: we are more than the three-second attention span generation that _supposedly_ defines us. 

As a wide-reader myself, I can only say from personal experience I have never judged the basis of a book solely alone on its first line. If I don't apply the same principle in all other walks of life, why do so with reading? I don't buy houses based purely on a five-second impression of its exterior, nor do I stop watching films if it lingers on the sunset in the opening scenes for a few more seconds than it probably should have. Like I said, a great first line does wonders - and I am not at all ignoring the importance of creating a good impression from the first line - but equally, an _average_ [note: not good, not bad] first line can be bested by a variety of other attention-grabbing factors like the book-cover, the blurb, your thoughts about the author's reputation etc.

Like I mentioned writing _should_ be compelling - but evidently not all published writing ever is compelling for everybody. Terribly dry, turgid prose abounds yet people are still compelled to read them for a variety of reasons.


----------



## A_Jones (Jun 25, 2014)

I posted in your thread.  You are right I feel the same way.  Just move up the paragraph I talked about though and I think you will have a wonderful opening line!


----------



## Morkonan (Jun 25, 2014)

Clove said:


> I wouldn't want a reader who would prioritise a hundred things over reading in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You appear to be mostly viewing all of this from the perspective of a Reader. While writers must see through the Reader's eyes, at times, a writer can't afford to ignore their side of the story experience. I agree a writer must stand back from their work and examine it from the Reader's perspective, but there are some things that the magician must keep from the audience.

In my opinion, and it's just an opinion, as a writer, I must "deserve" the next line to be read by the Reader. If I haven't worked to make that happen, then I deserve it _not happening._

That doesn't mean that I should "overwrite." I agree that some work seems to be full of itself... But, I must write with acknowledgement of the fact that what I write must deserve to be read. That includes the very first line, especially if I'm concerned about the Reader reading it... 

(IOW- If I'm worried about constructing the Opening Line, then I must focus on forcing the Reader to keep reading. Yes, "force", but in a loving, gentle and congenial way, with fuzzy handcuffs... If, on the other hand, if I'm writing an addition to a long-standing series with bajillions of Readers, I might not care too much about my opening, assured that my rabid fans will eagerly read the opening line of this latest offering, thanks to my horribly contrived cliff-hanger present in the ending in my last over-published crappy vampire/werewolf/YA-Urban-Fantasy-torture-fest....  )


----------



## Jeko (Jun 25, 2014)

> I wouldn't want a reader who would prioritise a hundred things over reading in the first place.



As long as they prioritize one book over yours, you aren't going to get their attention. That's the trick here; not just making your story more attractive than doing other things, but more attractive than other books as well.


----------



## Sam (Jun 25, 2014)

Clove said:


> Honestly, if a reader isn't willing to put in those few extra seconds to read beyond the first line, and give your writing the chance that it deserves then that reader is probably not one you would want reading your book. A great first line can be great, but never have I physically been dissuaded from reading by a bad one.



That belief will get your book shelved time and again. 

If you don't grab my attention with line one, why should I think you'll grab it with line twenty-one? I'll put it like this: have you ever met someone and had a really bad first impression of them? Statistically speaking, it is almost impossible for it to change in the future, no matter how much the person does to make you think they're a better person than you originally thought. You don't have only one shot to impress me as a reader, but that first impression can go a _long _way towards me deciding whether or not to part with my money. I might read line two, but if line one hooks me I'm already at the till.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 25, 2014)

I'm with Clove. If I go through the trouble of picking up a book and reading one line, I'm not going to stop unless it's a bad first line. I would be surprised if many people quit after one line. I know, I could be wrong.

If the first line is a single word, like "Blood," I will be discouraged. But I think that's just me, I am not as tolerant as I used to be.


----------



## Ixarku (Jun 25, 2014)

I'd like to believe that I don't make snap judgments about a story based on the first few lines or pages, but the reality is, if I see anything really bad in the opening paragraphs, I'm going to pick up on it immediately and it's going to give me a bad impression that later lines are going to have a harder time reversing.  I've noticed that I'll breeze through the first few paragraphs quickly even if they are a bit confusing as long as they don't strike me as overtly terrible.  However, if something early on is easy to follow but obviously hackneyed or cliché, then I may forgive it once or twice, but after that, I'm probably going to put it down.  I remember reading some stuff from two different well-known fantasy authors that was so astonishingly awful that I'll never pick up another book by either of them again.


----------



## Morkonan (Jun 27, 2014)

Ixarku said:


> I'd like to believe that I don't make snap judgments about a story based on the first few lines or pages, but the reality is, if I see anything really bad in the opening paragraphs, I'm going to pick up on it immediately and it's going to give me a bad impression that later lines are going to have a harder time reversing.  I've noticed that I'll breeze through the first few paragraphs quickly even if they are a bit confusing as long as they don't strike me as overtly terrible.  However, if something early on is easy to follow but obviously hackneyed or cliché, then I may forgive it once or twice, but after that, I'm probably going to put it down.  I remember reading some stuff from two different well-known fantasy authors that was so astonishingly awful that I'll never pick up another book by either of them again.



I found myself doing much the same as you, as a Reader, when reading - I didn't judge the author too harshly for early errors, when I could readily identify them. However, not that I am a more well-seasoned and informed Reader, thanks to my writing, I _*do*_ judge works based on the first few pages... 

If the author isn't making his grand entrance, isn't giving me their "yawl", isn't pulling out all the stops to engage me and to encourage my desire to read further, then they aren't producing the quality of work that I find enjoyable. So, as a result, I have a stack+ of books that I never read past the first few pages or chapter. Well, I admit, there were a few that I read further than that, but only so I could crack jokes about them with friends who also read the work... (One of the worst I ever read was handed to me by a friend, who encouraged me to read it. Little did I know that his only reason for encouraging that was so we could make wisecracks about it.. Oh, the book was a breakout novel that had been refused by many publishers, until the writer's big break. Now, it's a fairly large series. Still full of crap storytelling, though... )

The point is - A writer should be trying their hardest to keep you reading and nowhere is that more important than the beginning of the story. In some rare cases, this effort may not be as important, as in the case with some serial fiction. But, that doesn't mean that's an excusable offense... It's only that Readers of that series will be more tolerant of such lapses.

As a result if my more discretionary reading practices, I have a great many books that I've never fully read. I give these away, periodically, but only to those who are aware of the dangers that lie within them.


----------

