And yet, I still believe that the concept of a hook is sound. Not because it's good marketing, but because I feel it's important to develop an early momentum to the narrative. Some classics have very memorable beginnings: This immediately heralds a story of contrasts and conflict. Many other classics begin very slowly, and as nearly anyone who has studied literature of earlier times can attest, it takes an effort to become immersed in the story. Narrative styles have evolved, so it is valid to argue that not every aspect of great literature should be emulated just because a piece is notewrorthy from its time. Both Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Bram Stoker's Dracula begin with epistles, but I would not recommend such a beginning foe a modern novel (some mays desagree though). Whether or not you call it a hook, I say "Start strong!"
We're all talking about books here, but prose can mean short story or novel, ne? In a short story, I think you need a hook. This is something I'm planning on giving fifteen minutes to that i could otherwise use to cook some ramen noodles or youtube some Ask A Ninja. If you don't grab me right off, I'm turning the page. I have nothing invested in a short story - so you need to make me invest from the first sentence. Books, I think, are different. There is a distinct possibility that you've already purchased the book based on a friend's recommendation, a review, or the hook from the back cover. So then I think you're more likely to give the book a chapter or two to drag you into it. However, I doubt I'm the only one here that's given a new book about thirty pages, felt bored, and tossed it aside. Actually, I've gotten to where I sit down and read about thirty pages in the store, because I know the book will sit on my shelf (or more likely, floor) forever if it can't grab me early on. I'm not saying a book needs to start with explosions, absolutely not. "Hook" does not mean "en media res". But sometime within the first chapter or two you need to give me a reason to keep going - questions without answers, answers without questions, or some sense of the world the story is in. The "Best of times, worst of times" example is perfect, because it really draws you into the story, explains the world, and shows you what's what from the first line. Similarly, although I think most readers were already invested by the third book, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban starts with "Harry Potter was a highly unusual boy in many ways. For one thing, he hated the summer holidays more than any other time of the year. For another, he really wanted to do his homework but was forced to do it in secret, in the dead of night. And he also happened to be a wizard." (excuse me if i misquoted. I typed that from memory. That's how memorable it was to me!)
The Prisoner of Azkaban was the first Harry Potter book I read (yes, I'm odd, most of you should be used to it by now), and actually, that did make me chuckle and keep reading.
You're not that odd! PoA was the first one of the series that I read as well. I loved that beginning. I find it strange that some of you think starting with a hook is the quality of an amateur. A good hook is essential for me to keep reading. I want to know what's different or special about the characters/plot/concepts/etc. pretty much right away. I do get what some of you mean by overdoing things, though. So yeah, a story/novel doesn't necessarily have to start with massive explosions or the apocalypse or whatever, but it does have to start with something that makes you wonder.
Ha! Third in a row, read PoA first. Anyways, completely derailing the thread from the last page, I think one of the worst things anyone can do in a book is: She looked in the mirror. Her long, elegant hair dipped down just beneath her neck. They matched very well with her green eyes, which were, in turn, complimented by her lime green sweater. Yea... basically looking in a mirror and describing the main character/POV character.
To me, the internal "hook" is nothing more than a literary tool. It behaves much like antibiotics. Sometimes they are an absolute necessity, but in today's medicine, they tend to be over-prescibed to the point where they are becoming ineffective. My wife is an avid reader; 3-5 books a week. She and her reading group told me their emphasis is shifting away from stories starting with drama. They tend to distrust writers who depend on early hype. Instead, they look for writers who spend more early time building layered characters and complex plot. Perhaps, the "hook" question relates more to the literary maturity of the reader(s) than to any "rules" of writing. To hook, or not to hook! It depends on your readers' preference! .....NaCl
I think the main point of a hook is to attract the publishing company's attention. Once they recognize a famous writer, they'll be more willing to read a couple chapters into the story before they make a choice.
On the hook I agree with Vayda on this. A lot of the stuff I read (and here I'm thinking of the fiction in the New Yorker) thinks it's too cool for school and doesn't need to entertain. I beg to differ on that one. If something is boring me to tears and doesn't give me any reason to look forward to what's coming, then I will stop reading. After all, reading is still entertainment to me (unless I'm reading a non-fiction book that is teaching me something new about history or something). I think some people think of "a hook" as a generic cliffhanger. What Dan Brown does in every one of his books. And it may feel cheap and "unfair" but guess what? It works. I don't like the suspense genre but DaVinci Code had me paging through it like a maniac. I was entertained and that's the bottom line. It doesn't have to be a cliffhanger, it can just be good writing or a memorable scene, but I definitely think it's imperative to get off to a start that grabs the reader and promises something good to come. Otherwise I will quit, there are too many good books out there to be messing around with bad ones.
The thread has galloped on since I last checked it and apparently hooks are a hot discussion topic. Pardon if I'm repeating: I think hooks are a necessity in novels now as opposed to in the past. The world is different today communications-wise than it was twenty years ago, fifty years ago, two hundred years ago. Even twenty-thirty years ago the internet was only in its infancy, people didn't carry cellphones as prevalently as chapstick, and nobody had thought of the plasma tv. Computer games and gaming consoles were fairly simple and the games were also. The communications and information age was bursting onto the scene but we didn't see it coming. So when Moby Dick, Tale of Two Cities, or Jane Eyre (just pulling titles out of my head at random) were written the audience saw books as fine entertainment! People even read aloud to each other in place of tv in the home. Now, in 2008 the climate is so different we might as well be on another planet. Your book will jostle for attention between phone calls, the lure of text messages, email, IM, Internet surfing, Internet forum addiction , Ebay, work (often in an information capacity), commercials, tv in general, sporting events, a plethora of magazines, games, etc. Have you seen Minority Report? Advertising-wise we aren't so far off. Add to this the effect that the information age has on us. My mother, who teaches ninth grade, conducts a VERY informal poll of new classes now and then. She asks, "Who, when you are reading a book, has a 'movie' of what you are reading playing in your head?" She always finds that only a few students out of the class can imagine or image what they are reading. Movies, computer games, and television give you the images for the story...you don't have to imagine a thing. So many of these kids have never developed that ability. These are potential readers who won't read your book. Even for those who like to read the 'noise level' from society is high. Our writing needs to break through these barriers, starting strong and interesting, raising irresistible questions to pull the reader into the story. You can call it crass commercialism, you can call it a literary device, you can thumb your nose at it. But however you construct a hook (no, it does not always have to be action) in today's world if you want readers to pick up (and pay for) your novel you'd better catch their interest.
What hooks me in on first opening a book is good writing, and an air of mystery. Paticia McKillip's (I might have butchered her name, sorry) 'Song for the Basilisk' begins by describing a burned house. There's no immidiate action, but the description pulls me in becasue I want to know what happened to this house and why. So you don't have to begin with action to hook in a reader--just let them know something good is coming. And make it come realtively soon.
Yes, I would far rather germinate questions in the reader's mind in the first paragraphs than set off a bunch of explosions. I'm coming to the conclusion that calling it a "hook" engenders a connotation of cheap stunts. Another error that screams inexperience is mixing up objective and subjective pronouns, most often seen in compound subjects or objects:
Aggh! I'm getting so tired of correcting people on that last one Cogito pointed out. We're being trained to write "Person and I", as it is as a subject, that some people do so with the object as well instead of "and me"... and when I point this out, they always tell me I'm wrong and stupid or something.
Another is writing in second person to be different. Second person is simply an awful way to tell a story. Although you want to put the reader into your story, the worst way possible is to treat the reader like a hand puppet and reach your hand - well, you get the picture.
I may just be incredibly picky, but little mistakes do it for me. Things like "should of" and "in behind" and spelling 'masturbation' wrong. Those things really show me that, no matter how hard the writer has tried to sound sophisticated, it's all a facade.
"Krazyklassykat thinks this is a good idea. She likes the idea very much. When she talks like this, she gives the impression of having the intelligence of a three-year old." You get the picture.
Second person present tense: Second person past tense: A number of books in the 1970s were written in this style, but with decision points that told you what page to turn to for each of your possible choices. But even without the gimmick of "pick your path" second person narration quickly becomes excruciating to read.
Cog: Not amused at what...royal purple? Or, the joke about so many K's in the guy's pseudonym? Emily: "I" or "We" (plural) = first person (I drove to the store. We drove to the store.) "You" (can be singular or plural) = second person (You drove to the store today. - Of course, in Tennesee the plural might be "Y'all drove to the store. LOL) "He, She or They" (plural) = Third person (They drove to the store today.) Like Cogito said, excessive writing in the second person ("you") can get really boring for the reader. .....NaCl
So...It's "Person and Me" for: "A crazy man abducted Parson and me from the grocery store parking lot." And "Person and I" for "Parson and I were abducted by a crazy man at the grocery store." Right?
Simple test - remove the second party and read the statement. "A crazy man abducted ('I' or 'me') from the grocery store." Pretty clear. The obvious exception is in dialog where the speaker can pretty much say anything that fits the character. Gomer stopped his 1953 Chevy next to the refrigerator in my front yard. "Hey Suzie-Jo, me and BillyBob is goin ta see that there new movie, Deliverance. Y'all wanna go?" .....NaCl
Emily: Technically, it is correct. "You all" is the proper plural and "y'all" would be a contraction thereof. To say otherwise would be akin to saying "can't" or "I'm" is inappropriate But I'm from Georgia, so I suppose I have an excuse for my liberal use of the you-plural form I'd think the problem with y'all comes when people use it in the singular sense - which I do every single day at work, telling one person, "Y'all have a good day!"
