"Gripping" openings are like any other literary device - the cliffhanger, the foreshadowing, etc - put too much effort into making it really super-terrific-incredible, and you will likely overdo it and trip into cliche, etc. I, personally, tend to like novels that open in the middle of something, with either the main character or an important supporting character already involved in something. And my novels have tended to begin the same way. For example, my story of a political columnist begins with him engaged in an argument with his editor, followed by receiving the news that his high school coach had died, followed by a televised debate with a rival columnist that turns nasty. All three lead to important elements of the plot. My story of a group of middle-aged musicians begins with the drummer finding out that an old friend and fellow musician has been asking for him all over town, but failing to leave his contact information. My story of a young priest, on the other hand, begins with him arriving at his new parish. But I also can think of some beloved novels with openings that don't exactly do that, but still are gripping in their own way. Dickens, in A Tale of Two Cities, with arguably the most famous opening of all time, takes a single paragraph to set the stage for his novel, showing all of the divides of society in revolutionary France. Michener's Tales of the South Pacific begins with the line, "I wish I could tell you about the South Pacific", implying that he can't. But then he does. And he uses the rest of that opening section to introduce the reader to some of the memorable characters you will meet in the work...and some you won't. There is only one rule, really - make the reader want more. You can use a gimmick, a device or you can use good storytelling. What's good storytelling? I'll answer that question with a question: what have you found in your reading?
I have the same problem; most of the beginnings people cite in the "learn-to-write"-books doesn't do anything for me, even one of the most famous beginnings of a writer of my own country leaves me without any curiosity at all to keep reading... I guess I'm quite hard to please... from that we can assume there are lots of different and yet intriguing ways of starting off a novel that will make the reader want to know what happens next. people like different things.
The biggest impression other than the blurb would be the first three to five paragraphs. If I'm not wanting to see what happens, I won't read it. At the beginning of a book I can't put down is usually a very large hook. There's either a very intense action scene or thick tension. The hook needs to make me feel like I'm going to miss out on a good time if I put the book down. Then again, if that hook has no punch backing it up later on, I'll feel robbed and angry so I put it down (usually with great fervor). I try to emulate the hooks that I like in my own writing.
Yeah. IDK why it seems all the examples of good opening lines make me want to close the book. lol I guess if you don't like those lines, there's something wrong with you. I guess that's why I don't bother to try too much to make it gripping in the first line. I just let whatever comes, come. I think the audience will be more gripped by my natural instincts for what is best than they will by forcing something to be "gripping."
Maybe we can all agree that if someone gives up on a novel before the end of the first paragraph, that person is not a novel reader. Come on, people! There are wonderfully rewarding novels out there that have no hook on the first page. I recently re-read John Steinbeck's East of Eden, and it starts with a whole chapter of nothing but description of scenery. Sure, Steinbeck was an established author at the time he published the book, so he could get away with it, but it's a damn good book, one of my favorites, and I'd hate to think that people wouldn't keep reading just because it starts slowly. Reading a novel is not like listening to a rap song, or a two-minute Ramones song. It takes patience, and I think most novel readers have at least some patience. They're willing to immerse themselves in a long story that might not have a payoff for a while. Maybe the main reason agents and publishers don't want to read past the first paragraph in some cases is that they're looking for competent writing. They're looking for a writer who is skilled in building sentences and paragraphs. If you look around the internet, you'll find many writers who don't know even the basics of composition. I think those are the ones who get thrown away by agents and publishers early. The writers who demonstrate skill with language will probably earn themselves a little more effort, perhaps a whole page or two. If the writer hasn't written anything interesting by that time, then no matter how skilled they are, maybe they deserve to be tossed aside, or at least advised to speed things up a bit. But to insist that the first sentence has to be pure gold seems to be unreasonable.
I definitely agree. It'd be like turning off a movie because there wasn't some big conflict introduction in the first minute. I think there's gotta be a reasonable middle ground between not having something especially gripping in the first paragraph and waiting a really long time before you introduce something gripping. But then again, the ideas of what is "gripping" seem to vary by person so I don't think there's ever going to be a universally "right" opening sentence.
I disagree. I love reading - when I'm really into a book I love it more than anything else: I will even blow off my partner for a book if it's good enough. However, if the first page just isn't gripping enough then I won't bother. There are millions of books out there and unless someone catches me on the first page I won't have the interest to continue. Why should I do so when so many authors put so much effort into the opening of the novel? I'd rather go with someone who knows how to attract my attention. If a novel doesn't grip me straight-away then I'm not interested. However, that doesn't mean I'm not a reader - because I am. Reading is a passion of mine if the novel has something that pulls me into it. If someone isn't making an effort to attract my attention to their novel then why should I put in the effort to read it? I also disagree with your other point. As a reader I have no patience whatsoever. If you don't grip me from the very beginning then I'll just give up and go find someone else who can: there are so many authors who have the ability to get me right from the beginning so why should I give my time to someone who can't? I'm not patient and I'm not going to pretend to be: I'll only be patient once the writer has pulled me into their story and made me care about it. Otherwise, why would I have a reason to stick around? I'm not going to wait for a story to get interesting: I want it to be interesting from the very beginning. It doesn't need to be action-packed and over-dramatic, it just needs to introduce something in the first few paragraphs that makes me care about what is eventually going to happen.
Yoshiko, I think you're missing out on a lot of terrific literature. There are writers out there who can write a great first page and who wallow in crap for the rest of the book. (Hello, Dan Brown! I'm talking to you!) And there are writers who may have a relatively placid first paragraph (you might think it's even boring), but who write a wonderful novel following it. You are practically the stereotype of the person who judges a book by its cover. (Or at least by its first page!) I urge you to give novels more of a chance than you're giving them. I think you'll find you've been well rewarded!
Ah, but that depends on what you class as an "interesting first paragraph" and the genres you're into. I have certain genres I read and I sometimes venture out of them if something catches my eye - however, if it doesn't seem exciting then I'll give it a miss. It's not a "judge it by it's cover" situation but if it doesn't grip me then it just won't attract me. It's what attracts me personally, rather than what is seen as interesting to the majority. Eg: fantasy/sci-fi doesn't grip me - it doesn't matter what the author does (whether its' a first page or a whole novel, believe me when I say I've given both a shot, it doesn't grip me) I just won't get it. However, I will admit that Storm Constatine's "The Wreathe: The Enchantments of Flesh and Spirit" gripped me instantly based on it's blurb and not it's first page, which wasn't exactly interesting. To be honest, it doesn't take too much to psyche me up about a novel. It just takes something that interests me on a personal level. In fact, most of my favourite novels aren't best sellers. If someone relies too much on description to get them through the first page then I'm not going to take an interest because it sets the pattern for the rest of the novel. I'm not interested in description: I want to see dialogue, action, something exciting! It needs to induce something that makes me feel like I want to turn the page. If the first page doesn't push me to turn the page -- whether based on description or action -- then I don't see a reason to continue. It needs to be interesting to make me want to read it. As a writer, of course I think slightly differently! But as a reader I want a fast introdution so that I meet the characters and the setting in an instant. That doesn't mean I want to be confronted with a fight or a war: even simple openings grip me. More than anything, if it's not action that I want but rather something that makes me think. If it provokes me to consider my own opinion about something then I'll read it. Ignore me if you wanna, all my posts are made half-drunk tonight.
There's no such thing as the perfect novel. If there was then that would be written and no others would need to be written ever again because the rest wouldn't compare. And that's because people have different tastes and preferences . . . BUT that doesn't mean this rule isn't true. It does work for the audience you are trying to reach. I agree with you. Regardless, isn't our job as writers to appeal to both the regular reader and the non-reader, so you can get as many people reading your book as possible? And if readers aren't actually this way (which I think they are), then I'm pretty sure non-readers are and this kind of introduction appeals to both, so its the better one to write. Those are the exceptions, not the rule. I've read a ton of boring introductions that led into boring novels. I like reading fantasy and therefore I'll sometimes pick random books off the shelves and when the beginning is boring, so is the rest and I've read them to the finish trying to give them a chance before, too. If you can make a novel interesting, then it shouldn't be so hard to do the same with an intro. If you can make an intro interesting, then they need to learn to do that with the rest of the novel.
Yoshiko, do you realise that there are stories that command a perspective in the long distance to "carburate"? I think about Dune, the Lord of the Ring, Ulysses, Moby Dick, the Divine Commedy...
From my perspective, I think that gripping a reader into your story means that the reader is looking for the motivation behind the main character. Let us say that your main character is miserable and unhappy for a number of reasons. You can write a scene or sequence about the things that makes your character hopeless. Then when the reader flips the page, they may wonder what the main character will do to find peace in his life. That will be a page turnover if you tell us what situation the main character is in first before you start to have him to “fight” or before you decide to write action packed scenes. The opening story will probably set the tone and theme of the story for the readers that the character’s life appears to be miserable. The readers want to know what the theme of the story is before the obstacles (Act II). Other people may have different perspectives of what gripping a reader in is all about. If you start with the character’s goal, then readers might find the story to be “fast paced,” or find it not gripping enough. I am sorry if this does not make any sense to you, but this is just my perspective.
Imo the beginning must either have a hook or arouse the reader's curiosity, if not how can you expect the reader to read on? Before I buy or borrow (library) a book, I read the back cover and the first couple of paragraphs and I make my mind up based on that.
Then maybe you could have the openning scene take place in a setting that reminds the readers of what the theme of your story is about. Like it can be rainning, flooded, and even a tornado, or it can be something about another character's situation rather than the main character's situation. In my story, the main character is not introduced in the openning scene. It was morning time, hot, and the other character was walking out the grocery store. He took off driving to get home, until a reckless driver killed him. That does not really define the theme of the story, but it was something I had to work on first before I had him being killed in the car accident.
Of course I realise this, but it doesn't mean that as a reader I'm going to take an interest in it. When I read I disregard everything I've learned as a writer because I find I can't enjoy a novel when thinking about it from a writer's perspective on the first runthrough. I'm impatient and I want to know what I'm getting into ASAP or else I won't read on. But, once again, it depends on what interests the individual. Not everyone finds the same opening page exciting. Eg: I found the opening to George Owell's Nineteen Eighty-Four fascinating but the majority of my English class hated it.
All my reflections were made from the point of view of a reader, not a writer, I red these novel long...long before even conceiving to write a circle of novels in english. I agree that every reader has a different take on the first page, some may liked, some may not, but when I go out with a woman, I read a book, or I go to theater, I always give a chance! Sorry Yoshiko, too much talisker for me tonite as well...
Admittedly, I haven't read many of those books. I've looked a few up, but they haven't taken my interest even from the blurb. Except one - but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet. Even though I don't totally agree with what you're saying, I understand it, so I won't argue with you. Plus, my head is totally fuzzy and all my arguments will be total nonsense (if not already). I just wanna sleep now. x)
But I think that's just why the rule DOESN'T work. Nothing is going to be universally gripping. Somebody could be totally put off by being thrust into the middle of some intense conflict just as easily as describing the setting could. So it seems like this "rule" just doesn't have a real application. While one obviously has to use common sense and get the point before too long, this idea of a "gripping beginning" seems to at best, tell you what the person giving the advice wants to read, and little more. And the "Those are the exceptions, not the rule" argument just doesn't work for me. We're supposed to read books to become better writers and know what works yet anytime somebody finds a book that goes against conventional "How to write a book" advice, it's supposed to be ignored due to being an exception. Something's gotta give.
But I think what you're missing is that this thread was started in the interests of an unpublished writer hoping to find an agent or publisher. You see as a reader the rules don't matter. Reading is subjective anyway and the books we read are governed by our specific tastes. But as a writer who wishes to break in, you need to consider the general collective tastes of the world. On average most modern readers have a short attention span. Most readers want to be entertained early. Most readers would like to be gripped by the very first sentence. What is the definition of gripping? As you've so pointed out, the answer is grey. However the average reader would agree that gripping is equivalent to story questions. Starting of with a description can generally be abused by novice writers, hence the guideline that it should be avoided. But there's nothing wrong with a description that asks story questions. Maybe your opening describes a war ravaged city with mental questions like "what happened to this place? who was the war between?". So yes even descriptions can be a very effective way of sparking the reader's curiosity. But the suggestion that the guidelines should be ignored because there are so many exceptions, I feel is incorrect. As an unpublished author you want all the advantages you can get. Starting off slow and mundane so you can introduce a conflict in the second chapter immediately disadvantages you. Sure it says nothing about how brilliant your book ultimately is, but the disadvantage is there. Now you have to plug that hole with a captivating voice. I'm of the opinion that any book can be written in such a way as to make the opening 'gripping.' And really all new authors should strive for this. It is the single most important page of your book. If you don't agree, go to some of the popular genres(Fantasy, thriller, Sci-fi, mystery, suspense--the ones I notice most people on this forum seem to write) in the book store and pick up author debuts published in the last 2 years. Read the first pages. See how many of them start of bland and mundane. Either my local bookstore has a "riveting opening" policy or there's a definite trend in how the first page of debut novelists are structured these days. They're all pretty darn interesting and open up a host of story questions from the outset. That same trend has both spawned and stemmed from the guideline "Grip the reader from the first page--No boring mundane descriptions that don't pique the reader's curiosity." So don't look at the exceptions and feel the guidelines are completely pointless. Look at the trend and understand that most recent debut authors (ie. successful writers) are following those guidelines and as an unpublished writer you ignore them at your own peril.
^I actually went into a bookstore and did that the other day, to try and get my own opening sorted. All the books I opened introduced suspense in not just the first paragraph, but the first line. They made me ask questions about the story, right from the get-go. Who, what, why or how. The questions weren't always obvious and in your face, and in a couple of cases, they were constructed through descriptive language, but the questions themselves were always there.
If a reader needs to be gripped by the first sentence to enjoy a story, then they're probably not going to be gripped by much of anything. Heck, books themselves will be too slow for a world with a short attention span. Let's all make movies instead. The problem I have with asking questions is that questions by themselves are kind of irrelevant until the big one is answered: why should the reader give a hoot? I honestly don't see posing random questions really being gripping if the reader has no reason to see the answer yet. It's like watching a trailer for a movie. Lots of times I'm posed questions by them, but I don't see the movie because I just don't care to have my questions answered. I am not saying that the guidelines should be ignored as much as I am that they should be kept in a proper perspective. And I actually do what you say when I can. I often pick up books, both from established and new writers, and read the first lines. I found most to be quite boring and mundane, especially by some new authors. I actually found the most mundane to be those that were so obviously TRYING to be gripping. So I guess I just don't see this big "make the reader ask questions" thing as being widely followed, or if it is, unusually beneficial. Maybe you need to show me some more examples of good openings. The ones that have been forwarded as good so far don't seem to be doing it for me. Maybe your bookstore has that option cause all I'm seeing are boring and mundane in what I see. Even the book I recently bought and really liked kind of lagged for a chapter or two. (Author is still relatively new and book was a bestseller, BTW) I am not saying ignore trends. But I also don't ignore exceptions. IMO, following trends just to get published will make you just another face in the crowd. Guidelines are just that, guidelines. And I just don't see authors following these guidelines. That's the really strange thing I see when I read. The rules I see promoted as almost absolutes just don't seem to be as widely followed as they're promoted to be. I am sure they are not without their merit but often I see them elevated above where they should be, and since the way to follow these guidelines is just so vague, I feel it's at the peril of the unpublished writer.
I agree completely. My question is, does this come into play, with the debate of defining "gripping"? I mean I can be pretty negative towards the new releases of today. I have this instant response which automatically dismisses them as a product of a cooky cutter business model. I see the same thing on the music industry end as well. A one size fits all marketing plan which applied across the genre spectrum, with particular Popular genres getting priority over another. IE, fantasy books about vampires or wizards, being preferred. Or is that just my negativity showing?
Yet another sweeping generalization. And in my case, absolutely wrong. Not that I need to be pulled in by the first line or it's over, but the enthusiasm with which I approach the book is certainly shaped by the opening paragraph (as I pointed out in an earlier post).
Well we're trading sweeping generalizations. Only fair both sides get their share. I don't feel anybody can get a good feel for anything from the first sentence of a book any more than I feel one can get a movie from the first minute. I don't think the first sentences really CAN be especially gripping by themselves, especially if you try to make them gripping. (I always prefer to go with what fits best with the particular story) I'm still waiting for more good examples. Cause again, all the ones I see presented as good are just snoozes to me. So my point is that if somebody walks away because they weren't gripped by the first paragraph of something, I don't see them really being impressed by much of anything. Gosh, if I walked away from every book that didn't grab me right away, very few books would be left fully read by me.
