Need help with my first line!

Discussion in 'Word Mechanics' started by Cailinfios, Jan 22, 2014.

  1. CapnNogrow

    CapnNogrow New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sweden
    That made me spit beer over my monitor :D
     
  2. Cailinfios

    Cailinfios Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2013
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Pretoria, South Africa
    goodness, I've started quite the dabate here....

    How does this sound to everybody?

    I’m making waffles when my mobile rings.
    I grab it with floury fingers and squash it between my cheek and shoulder.
    “This is Siena.”
    It’s Robin Wright, my work partner. “Siena. We found another body.”
    “Let me guess. The Eliminator?”
    He sighs. “Yeah.”
    “I’ll be there in a sec.” I wipe my hands on my apron while Robin reads me the address.
    I end the call and return to my attention to the waffles, only to discover they’ve burned.
    “Damnit,” I mutter. I pull the pan off the hot plate, then go to my room. I change quickly, tugging on black combat boots and pulling a khaki jacket over my shoulders.

    Its not the polished product of course, just a rough idea. Doe sit work?
    Personally I don't like how sthe first things he thinks about is waffles when a body has been discovered...
     
  3. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    I think that works fine @Cailinfios. As you said, you'll polish it, but the idea behind that approach works.
     
  4. EdFromNY

    EdFromNY Hope to improve with age Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    5,101
    Likes Received:
    3,203
    Location:
    Queens, NY
    Actually, I like the notion of the waffles. It shows that the discovery of the body is a jarring event.

    If I may make one small suggestion...I'm guessing "The Eliminator" is the villain. If so, there are two reasons why I wouldn't mention him (her?) so early. One is that, even in cases involving serial offenders, police don't typically declare a newly discovered crime to be connected, even if they think it. At most, they might say something like "looks like it could be..." And that leads me to my second reason: why give that to the reader so early? Presumably, you'll still have to tell us why it might be The Eliminator, and by introducing him (her?) this way, you relegate all that to backstory. If it's me, I at most have Robin say something like, "It has some familiar aspects" and keep the reader guessing not only as to who it may be but also what the indicators might be. That way, the reader gets to do the cop thing as they read, and it's an additional device to pull them into the story.
     
    VM80 and Tesoro like this.
  5. Mckk

    Mckk Member Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,541
    Likes Received:
    4,776
    Personally I would say put the first line in past tense, and then the rest in present tense. I don't see why you can't do that, why everything has to be one tense. In fact, especially when something is written in the present tense as a whole, the tense does sometimes change. Take Hunger Games - the whole thing is in present tense but when Katniss talks about her father's death, it naturally must be in the past tense. Same book, but there're different tenses here. John Green's The Fault in Our Stars also has plenty of tense changes, written I think in the past tense generally but when it talks about universal truths that the character holds, it switches into the present tense because it's a first person narration. So I'm not saying you can't write in the present tense - I have no feeling about it either way as I've read works written in both present and past and personally both works fine for me. What I'm saying is, you are really not restricted to just one tense as long as you're careful about it.

    This might be also one of the problems a lot of less experienced writers have with first person present tense narration - these kind of natural tense changes and navigating around when it's actually appropriate and when it's a case of "switching tenses wrongly".

    In your case, I'd say it's one of those occasions when it's appropriate to change tense for only that sentence and then keep the rest in present tense. However, it being your very first sentence is what makes it problematic because the tense the work is written in has not been established yet, meaning the change feels weird rather than natural.

    Is it absolutely essential you start the way you do? Why can't you just have well, a different sentence? Why is it important for us to know, in the very first sentence, that she's bad at cooking? It's a character-development detail that feels unimportant right now - you could drop it in a little later, like, even just one or two sentences later or after the initial opening dialogue. Being bad at cooking is 1. not that important, esp not in a crime novel and 2. not that interesting and 3. more of a character quirk than anything that's shaped who she is mentally, emotionally and/or spiritually. I don't think such a detail, given the reasons above, is worth all this trouble of tense changes and the awkward way "burning waffles" sounds.

    Btw, re keeping Siena's first line together with the paragraph - it's fine. There's nothing wrong with it. The action is done by the same person who's answering the phone, thus I see no grammatical problem. It's only a problem is the action was done by say, Jack, and then the speech is made by Siena and the two happen in the same paragraph - *then* it would be wrong.
     
  6. Mckk

    Mckk Member Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,541
    Likes Received:
    4,776
    Well, it seems that not everyone agrees one way or another - I disagree with you, and you disagree with me. What's important is this - is it worth losing goodness only knows how many people as readers over a sentence like that? It's not like it's especially quirky, it's not especially elegant - even if we say it's a stylistic choice, it is a relatively ordinary one.

    What I mean is - if it's a particularly fine sentence, or something very distinct or unique to your voice - then YES, keep it. Definitely, even at the risk of losing some readers, because you write for those who are gonna love the way you write, to some extent.

    But in this case, even if we agree it's a stylistic choice, it's just not that extraordinary and it is not distinct enough for me to say it's anything unique to the writer's voice. It is ordinary. Nothing wrong with ordinary, but to potentially lose more readers than you have to (and considering the disagreement that's already happening here, we can know there will certainly *be* people of both schools - those who think it's wrong grammar and those who think it's just a style) over an ordinary sentence isn't really worth it. Do you get what I mean? (don't feel like I explained very well lol)
     
  7. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    I get what you're saying, but if it is a grammatical error, can you point out exactly where the grammar goes wrong? A narrator stating something that they don't yet know isn't a grammar issue. The grammar is correct. It's an issue of whether the narrative being stated in such a way as to present something the protagonist doesn't yet know is something you'll accept in a work of fiction or not. I doubt many readers would be lost over it, given that there are many books that use the narrative as a device to present such things.

    It looks like in this case people are hung up on the fact that it is in present tense. In past tense, no would would have a problem with it. I think that's a mistake in how the reader views a present tense narrative, but I have no issue with people not liking it subjectively.
     
  8. Mckk

    Mckk Member Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,541
    Likes Received:
    4,776
    Well, it depends on the POV - if it's supposed to be some kind of first person omniscient POV, then sure, you can say "I am burning waffles when they discover the body", because only then can it really explain how the narrator knows. But then the narrator may need to be something other than human or possess some supernatural ability that will later need to be established.

    But as long as it is impossible for the narrator to know about the body, the tenses are wrong, which makes it a grammar issue. Tenses exist to illustrate the timeline of reality. I can write: "I was at work. I am at the cinema now." But I can't write, "I am at work. I am at the cinema now." You would, rightly too, point at that sentence and say, "Hey, you got the tense wrong" - getting tenses wrong is a matter of grammar. I can't turn around and say, "Ah but it's my stylistic choice in how I want to illustrate time lapse," or some other attempt at style.

    The problem is, the sentence reflects something the narrator can only know on hindsight. You cannot present hindsight in the present tense.

    Regardless of what exact type of issue this is - grammar or not - you agree with me there's an issue. I do not think it wisest to have such a thing for your very very first sentence. Establish the story/characters first, and then start using this kind of unique approaches all you like. That's just being smart in my opinion.

    It is, however, true that a lot of readers would just read past it and not notice. But again it depends if the OP is trad-pubbing or self-pubbing. If I have an issue with the line and consider it poor grammar, I'd assume I'm probably not the only one, which means any agent who agrees with me will pick it up and disregard the MS almost right away, or at least it will leave a less than stellar impression before the agent is able to get into the story, if she ever does. I agree there may be also great agents who would rather agree with you, not me, and perhaps love it. But why alienate the other lot of agents for an ordinary sentence?
     
  9. Mckk

    Mckk Member Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,541
    Likes Received:
    4,776
    Only just read this now before I replied to you previously. The idea works, and I much prefer the opening sentence now.

    I agree with you about turning her attention to the waffles thing. Makes her come across as a little cold and also a little housewifey - nothing wrong with being a housewife, but just make sure that's the kinda woman you want Siena to be. You know, the kind of woman who prioritises the home and may be quite houseproud, that kinda thing.

    My only niggle with it now is the complete LACK of urgency.

    Someone's making waffles. That's cool.
    Body's been found! Whoa!
    Oh wait, the characters don't seem to care, and they seem to already know what it's about. ("Let me guess" shows a certain impatience, like she's already bored and familiar with everything. They have a code name for who I can only assume is the serial killer, Eliminator. Robin's sighing and monosyllabic response confirms the utter boredom both characters feel - on top of using the lazy "yeah" rather than "yes".)

    Result? Well, Robin and Siena are both bored before Siena's even out of the kitchen.

    Next, all Siena cares about is the waffles. Double confirmation - this murder isn't worth reading. C'mon, first page and both lead characters are bored with the case?

    My personal reaction based on the above: move on to the next book.

    But then again, I honestly don't think I'm your audience (yours read like a housewife's crime-lit... I'm not sure how to put it, not sure what that particular style/genre is called. Either way, it is not a gritty crime novel for sure, and I like gritty and dark. If I go for chick lit, which I do read, I prefer a tonne more humour. Hence my guess that I'm not your audience). So perhaps my reaction is not as important (aim to please your target audience first and foremost). But anyway, something to think about.
     
    Tesoro likes this.
  10. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    No, they aren't. Like I said, this is a stylistic technique that has been in use over many, many years. You don't like it, but it's a perfectly valid stylistic choice. Not sure why you're trying to turn it into a subjective error of grammar.

    "You cannot present hindsight in present tense?" Says who? Load of nonsense.
     
    Jack Asher and PBrady like this.
  11. PBrady

    PBrady Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2013
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    94
    Location:
    Nottingham UK
    From Hilary Mantel's Bring up the Bodies, which is mostly in the present tense: "It is late now; he will finish up at his desk, then go to his cabinet to read.". This is the start of a paragraph that is in the future tense. The tense reverts back to present tense in the following paragraph.
    It is a device that she uses very sparingly - possibly 2 or 3 times in this book, however it does move the action on in time.

    As to presenting future hindsight in the present tense - I will go to bed shortly, and I know that in the morning I will regret the amount of wine I drank.
    Admittedly not quite the same as a hangover can be a predictable event, whereas being told of a body is not, but you get the idea?

    The narrator knows everything, and the reader knows it is an artifice to write in the present tense.

    Occasional lapses from the narrow path of grammatical logic is certainly permitted. Writing is a creative art, and being creative will require "rules" to be bent a little.

    Occasionally it is helpful to think of them not so much as rules but guidelines.
     
    Jack Asher, Mckk and Steerpike like this.
  12. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    @PBrady Angela Carter has a story where she moves from past to present to future tense.

    But regardless of tense, you can still have a narration that moves forward in time in terms of providing information. I agree with you about guidelines. It's all a question of what the writer can make work. For just about any guideline you can find a published author who flouted it and made it work, even in first novels.
     
  13. Bryan Romer

    Bryan Romer Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    391
    How about
    "I’m burning waffles and my mobile is ringing."

    Forget "when they discover the body". The reader will learn about the corpse soon enough, and now the first line conveys impatience and mild irritation at being interrupted.
     
  14. Cailinfios

    Cailinfios Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2013
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Pretoria, South Africa
    You raise very valid points, ones I hadn't noticed before but totally agree with now.
    I totally don't want Siena to be the "housewifey" type - thats not her at all! In fact the only reason she insists on cooking when she obviously sucks at it is because she's a very stubborn person who will pursue anything until she's mastered it . (one of the reasons why she makes a good homicide detective.)

    I've re-written the opening, and personally, I really like the result! I miss my original opening line, but I understand why it was necessary to remove it. And as someone wise once said: Kill your darlings

    Newest version:

    I’m making waffles when my mobile rings.
    I grab it with floury fingers and squash it between my cheek and shoulder. “This is Siena.”
    “Siena.” It’s Robin Wright, my work partner. “We found another body.”
    Instantly I stiffen. Placing the spatula on my kitchen counter, I ask tersely, “Is it him?”
    “Yes.”
    I hurriedly wipe my hands on my apron. “I’m coming right now. Don’t move anything, I want to see the scene exactly as it was found.”
    “Alright.” Robin reads me the address, then I end the call.
    A sharp burning smell assaults my nose and with a muttered curse I yank the pan of now-charred waffles off the hot plate. Then I change quickly, tugging on black combat boots and pulling a khaki jacket over my shoulders. I yank my obstinate shoulder-length black hair into a dishevelled pony. The red strand of hair on the left side of my face falls loose, but I don’t bother to fix it – I’m in a hurry to get to the scene as soon as possible. I leave the house and take the short flight of stairs two at a time, dreading what I know awaits me.


    what do you all think?
     
  15. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    It's not bad. I'd get rid of "Instantly," before "I stiffen." I'd probably also remove "tersely," "hurriedly," and "quickly," but maybe that's just me. I don't believe in an absolute prohibition on adverbs, but they often weaken writing and you can either reword or just drop them.

    For example, the two words "I stiffen" sound a lot more instant than the three words "Instantly I stiffen."
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2014
    Thornesque and Andrae Smith like this.
  16. mammamaia

    mammamaia nit-picker-in-chief Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    19,150
    Likes Received:
    1,034
    Location:
    Coquille, Oregon
    ditto all steerpike just said...
     
  17. Mckk

    Mckk Member Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,541
    Likes Received:
    4,776
    Because by virtue of it being hindsight, you kinda have to look *back* on something. PBrady expressed it far better than me - using his example, the knowledge that the narrator will know that they'll regret how much they drank is a logical assumption, and in any case is presented in the future tense, not present. But burning waffles and discovering a body are not events one would normally, logically assume would happen together.

    I'm not "trying" to turn it into anything. You sound annoyed, and I'm sorry if I've annoyed you. It is a very simple discussion of a point on which we disagree. You're expressing your thoughts, I'm expressing mine. Of course we both think each other's wrong (it's why we disagree, right?). That's not "trying to turn it" into anything.

    In any case, I have read something that has risen my own doubts about it being a grammar issue. I'm not so fussed about being right - I just think what I think, is all. So, I shall present evidence that's gonna weaken my own argument (lol), just 'cause it's interesting.

    I'm reading To Kill a Mockingbird right now (cus of another thread Lemex created about the 10 books everyone pretends to have read) and just now I came across this sentence:

    "Put on your coat," Atticus said dreamily, so I didn't hear."
    While this is written in the past tense, the idea is the same - how can Scout report on what Atticus had said if she didn't hear him? Now, since it is To Kill a Mockingbird, I'm gonna go ahead and assume it's got perfectly fine grammar (written in a southern drawl of course), and this did indeed make me think. I am no longer so sure it really is a grammar thing.

    @Cailinfios - so perhaps I was wrong, I'm still not sure, but judging from the fact that Harper Lee did it (look at the italicised line above), maybe you could keep your original line after all. Also read your revised opening, I prefer it :) There's much more urgency to it and Siena feels more human. I'm with Steerpike on the adverbs though - you use them in very close succession.

    It does sort of depends on what sort of novel you want it to be - chick lits use a tonne of adverbs usually and pretty much the only author I read consistently is Sophie Kinsella, and I don't mind it one bit. It fits with the tone of her writing. So it depends on the tone of your writing. Using too many adverbs is not generally considered good practice, and certainly you can write easy-to-read writing even without the overuse of adverbs, but I'm just saying - ask yourself why you're using so many adverbs. Is it part of the voice you've chosen to write in, and part of what's appropriate for the genre and market? Or is it because you're afraid your writing won't convey what you need it to but have no succinct way of putting it across?

    If the former, then it is fine - like I say, Kinsella uses a billion adverbs and she's a bestseller, and it is very much a deliberate choice I think on her part. If the latter, then I'd remove the adverbs and ask yourself if there're better ways of putting your message across. (when I say "remove", I don't mean you have to never use any adverbs. Just not 3 in 3 lines.)

     
  18. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    @Mckk no, I'm not annoyed :)

    I'm not suggesting the author has to keep it. The author should do what he/she likes. I'm just pointing out there is a long history of this sort of thing in established literature. The To Kill a Mockingbird example is one I was unaware of, but I've seen it done a lot. The reason Harper Lee can do it is because she approaches fiction as an art form and things like point of view and tense as literary devices. Certainly you can write in a strict POV so that only what the viewpoint character knows is related, but you don't have to do that. That's all I'm saying.
     
    Jack Asher and Mckk like this.
  19. Cailinfios

    Cailinfios Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2013
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Pretoria, South Africa
    I removed "hurriedly" and "tersely" though kept quickly. I do feel adverbs are a strong part of my writing style, but obviously three in three lines is overkill.
    I'm very happy with how the section has changed. Thanks to everyone for their comments and suggestions!
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2014
    VM80 and Mckk like this.
  20. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    I haven't seen anyone mention: I've never seen waffles made in a pan. I've always seen them in a waffle maker with a timer, so that it's difficult to altogether miss the moment that they're done. Presumably before electric waffle makers they were made in something else; I don't know what.

    But pancakes are made in a pan and fairly easy to burn. They would solve that problem.

    Except that you usually mix pancake batter with utensils, so there would be no particular reason to have floury fingers. Bacon, now, can burn in an instant if you don't catch the moment that it's done, and I've known people to peel the slices of bacon off with their fingers. (I don't, because I was raised by a mother who was convinced that all pork was just waiting to give you trichinosis, so her sanitary precautions while dealing with the raw product were rather like preparing to do surgery.)

    So you might want to consider burning bacon, and greasy fingers.
     
    Cailinfios and Jack Asher like this.
  21. Jack Asher

    Jack Asher Banned Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages:
    3,545
    Likes Received:
    2,083
    Location:
    Denver
    We are all complete idiots. How did none of us catch that?

    Before there were electric waffle makers there were waffle irons, where you poured the waffle batter in and closed it and just laid the whole thing on the element.

    I think poetically you have to keep waffles. The word is just to great.
     
  22. mammamaia

    mammamaia nit-picker-in-chief Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    19,150
    Likes Received:
    1,034
    Location:
    Coquille, Oregon
    so true!... even with the old on the stove method, it wouldn't be a 'pan'... and what's with the 'spatula'?... i make waffles all the time and only would use a spatula when pouring the batter into the 'waffle iron' [no 'pan'], to stop the flow and avoid drips from the lip of the bowl... so, since the waffle is burning, meaning it's been baking for a while, so why's she still holding the spatula?

    if the waffle is kept in, all the rest really needs to be fixed, to be believable... also, waffles are made one at a time, so 'burning waffles' needs to be 'burning a waffle'...
     
  23. Jack Asher

    Jack Asher Banned Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages:
    3,545
    Likes Received:
    2,083
    Location:
    Denver
    No no, the pans had sections of four, either in the round or square, so one pan is actually four waffles.

    But the whole thing works because you can't see the waffles as they're cooking. You either need a timer, a really good sense of duration, or the ability to see into the future to keep from burning at least one waffle.
     
  24. Cogito

    Cogito Former Mod, Retired Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    36,161
    Likes Received:
    2,827
    Location:
    Massachusetts, USA
    Frozen waffles can be reheated and browned in a frying pan if you don't have a working toaster handy, and they will burn if you aren't careful. Not strictly "making" waffles, but it works.

    For that matter, I have an electric waffle maker without a timer. There's a light that blinks on when the waffles are approximately ready, but you can certainly burn them if you aren't paying attention.

    Sometimes it doesn't pay to pick the nits too carefully. On the other hand, if you look too closely at the brilliant deductions in mystery novels, they don't often hold firm. The moral to this is that it isn't about making an airtight scenario. It's about telling it smoothly and convincingly so the reader doesn't snag on a glaring incongruity and start picking apart the logic.

    It really is largely smoke and mirrors, with a good enough patter to keep the reader's attention from seeing the monofilament and the false panels..
     
  25. Jack Asher

    Jack Asher Banned Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages:
    3,545
    Likes Received:
    2,083
    Location:
    Denver
    If it doesn't have a timer, how does it know the waffles are ready? Is there a wafflometer sensor inside?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice