I hate books that start slowly, or with a lot of description. Starting with a "bang" doesn't have to mean jumping into the story at a moment of intense action. It just means hinting at conflict from the very first lines. I wrote a post-apocalyptic novel that took place about 20 years after most of humanity got wiped out. The story began with a character trudging aimlessly through the woods--injured, but almost numb to the pain because she has been alone for about a month after losing her companion, and she's not sure what to do next. That's when she sees another main character by a lake, and observes that a group of men are sneaking up to attack this new person, and despite her own pain she has to jump in and help... In Chapter 1, I introduce the three main characters of the book through an action scene, establish a little bit of their backstories through dialogue, and hint at how the world has gotten to its current state. The reader knows enough to get the general idea of what's happened (and feel oriented), even if no details were given via info-dump. Doling out information over the course of the story, in an organic way, won't turn off readers and will hopefully keep them interested. Sometimes as a writer it's easy to imagine that readers absolutely need to know things that they really don't--at least not at that moment. As a reader, I know I'd rather learn about the world and characters I'm reading about through action and dialogue, and NOT paragraph after paragraph of boring description. That's the technique that is most likely to turn me away from a book completely.
That rather depends on the genre and style, though. One of my favourite books of all time is Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon Days, which starts slowly and doesn't really speed up at all -- which is rather the point. I also love Steinbeck's East of Eden, which has plenty of conflict but which really takes its time setting it up because it's a much more psychological novel than an action novel, so there's no need to rush into any action.
Literary fiction is very different than genre fiction. Absolutely. My personal preference for any novel is that it start with at least a hint of conflict. By conflict I don't necessarily mean an explosion, a fight scene, an argument, or anything super whiz-bang. I want to be introduced to a character or situation that piques my interest and makes me want to turn the page. Maybe the character is just hungry. Or tired. That's conflict! I just don't have a high tolerance for dry narration that tells me nothing about the characters I'm about to get to know. Honestly, I find the first page of both Lake Wobegon and East of Eden to be quite dry. Both are regarded as "classics", in a sense (Lake Wobegon being a modern classic) and that would help me chug through the dry stuff, knowing that my perserverence will pay off. I wouldn't suggest that most new authors--especially those writing genre fiction--start too slowly. When a reader picks up a story to decide if they want to read it, they usually base that decision on whether the story hooks them. Most people are not hooked by dry exposition. And if I'm reading a novel about robot demons that destroy the earth, I definitely want the story to start moving pretty quickly. I don't want a big long history of the history of the robot demons and their nefarious misdeeds. I want to know who survived, and what their life looks like now.
That covers East of Eden. I don't think Lake Wobegon Days is literary fiction; it's humour. But in retrospect I was wrong to say that its opening has no conflict. It has no internal conflict, but the humour comes from a conflict between what we read and our expectations. I'm not sure it would with Lake Wobegon Days because it pretty much stays like that. I love that gentle, understated humour, but I know that some people get irritated with it. Wasn't Lake Wobegon Days Keillor's first full-length novel? Of course, he'd already made his name with essays and short stories. Which comes to another point -- I wouldn't suggest that any new author start with a full-length novel.
I can find those books hard to get into cause I feel like I've missed something and it kind of leaves me feeling like I am playing catch-up the entire time. I am sure there are exceptions but I like starting kind of slowly most of the time.
A skillful author should be able to bring you into conflict and story swiftly without leaving you confused. I'm not saying I want to literally be dropped into the middle of an action scene without being given any context. What I'm saying is that I don't want to read exposition at the beginning of the story. I want to read the story.
Well I would start out with outlining, which can be so boring.. They I start with a rough daft, but I write the draft as if I was the writing the real thing. I keep writing drafts until I love it, like I do with my short stories.. But a novel for publishing is normally 75000 word or more. (But don't put anything online if you wish to try to publish it.) That's just a quick note. Sometimes I write the thing over five time, but most writer do the same thing so not a big thing.
My novel is about 18,000 words long. I had no idea how many chapters was required to have for it to be a novel...I have like 18 chapters. Maybe I should think of something I can add to the manuscript.
Should, would, could! I'd say even skillful authors can jump the gun with conflict. It doesn't have to be all or nothing either. I don't want a premature conflict. I think you can lead to the conflict with story without having to have the very first lines of the story bring the reader into it. Both choices have their pluses and minuses and times when they are appropriate and inappropriate to use. So you don't want exposition; I don't want premature conflict. See? Different tastes for different readers! I don't deny that skillful writers can make immediate conflict work; I just think that jumping the gun on the conflict just works against many of the very goals of books. I always did favor balance. Don't jump the gun(ie line 1); don't drag it out(wait forever to get to the point)! That's my philosophy of what I like to read! So that is what I expect of the authors I read from.
18k words is a short novella--or possibly a long novelette. Definitely not a novel. Generally a (contemporary) novel will have at least 50k words. I think the average length for a novel is around 80k words. You would have to do a lot of expanding of your story to make it a novel. If you were able to tell the story you wanted to tell in so few words, perhaps you should just choose another (more involved) idea and start fresh if you want to try and write a novel.
Yeah, I'd say at least 80,000 words. I've been advised to write a couple more chapters to round off my 'novel', and take it closer to 90,000 words. I wasn't sure at first, as I deliberately ended on a (somewhat) pessimistic, abrupt note. Now I'm coming round to the idea of 'going full circle', and for my main protagonist to 'go back to where he came from', and to end on a slightly more hopeful note. Anyway, to start a novel- definitely agree with the 'no info dump'. I personally wouldn't have anything too overly descriptive, but something to the point, involving one of the main characters.
80-100k is what most publishers require for a first adult market novel... sci-fi and fantasy for the YA/adult cross-market can run a bit longer... YA will run shorter [40-75k], for the younger end of that wide range...
I love starting the story, its always my best part! i always start off with something mysterious, interesting to draw the reader in, but move on to explaining into depth about your character. Seen as yours is a historical background, you should be really discriptive and explain the setting, make it interesting, make the reader want to read on
I always have trouble starting a novel because I want it to be perfect and to hook the reader. Like right now I'm starting off with a prologue where my villain reveals his plan on how to take down the World Order to the clan that he leads. But i still feel like I need to perfect it, but for the sake of my novel I should really push forward and come back to it once I have more written just in case there are characterization or plot errors.
I always thought a great way to start a novel would be, "There's nothing quite so beautiful as a dead hooker in the moonlight."
Nothing that you can tell the reader in Chapter One will be as interesting as what you show the reader in Chapter Two. Starting a novel is like telling a joke, if you have to do a bunch of explaining it's not funny (or scary, or exciting, or romantic).
Okay, that just caused a horripilation reflex! That's one of the first things that another writer told me back in 2001, and something that has haunted me since. Show, show, show.... One of the best pieces of advice anyone could ever give.
Actually I don't agree - when I abandon my mix of show and tell reviews of my work are never as good. Do what is appropriate and correct for your book, style and character.
I agree that the opening sentence is the most important. I want one that will immediately pull the reader in. This is the opening sentence in my current WIP Two broken lights provided the darkness needed for cover. This line does several things. First it hints at the scene . It's dark. Second, it implies that someone is doing something secretive. Maybe for the good, maybe sinister. Third, and most importantly, it gives no detail about anything. It sets the mood. It leaves unanswered questions. If the reader knows everything about the story, there is nothing to compel them to keep reading.
It was a broad bricht moonlit nicht. On yonder hill there stood a coo its not there noo it musta shifted Sorry couldn't resist I love McGonagall, your openers have given me this great desire to start a book with mushed up lines of his poems He was the Stephenie Meyer of the poetry world I guess lol
This is good advice. Don't start off with too much biographical information. If I learned one thing from my very first would-be novel, that was it. I had a hopelessly long prologue that would be too much even for the most dedicated reader. I deleted a huge chunk of it during revisions. Chapter 1 starts with my MC stepping out from the central government building into Government Square. It doesn't need to be 'action' immediately, but something that hooks or intrigues the reader in some way.
I did a little bit of both with my book (very first book attempt). The MC, Kincaid, is standing in a park on a snowy night, waiting for the demon he's been tracking to cross his path. He reflects on the beauty of the calm night briefly, just enough to give the idea that his life doesn't have many periods of calm. He briefly speaks to another member of his team over a small ear-mounted transmitter and so introduces one other player and gives a bit of insight into their relationship. Pretty soon after that, it's on to the action. A small bit of personal reflection gives a bit of background on why he hunts demons. It isn't much, as I don't like to give lengthy background descriptions. My preferred method is to let the reader pick these things up during action and interaction.
