starting off with the weather

I basically agree with this. Though I don't think there's anything wrong with have some irrelevant descriptions [as long as it's not overdone], but just not at the beginning; the beginning should compel the reader to read more, and once you've got them hooked, I don't think it would be bad to describe the weather whether or not it's important. But, as pop said, if it's relevant than there's definitely nothing wrong with it.

Starting off with weather can also help with the mood of the story, but it's a lot easier to be cliche that way ["It was a dark and stormy night" comes to mind =P].

Would you say Tolkien got too wrapped up in descriptions? It's been a while since I've read anything by him, so I don't quite remember how his writing was, but he's the first person that came to mind who is sometimes said to over describe things, yet his works are still good and enjoyable and still compel the reader to read further.

 

I've never heard that before. I suppose if the weather is nice, then it doesn't have a hook. I opened with a violent storm that was the background for a fight scene and it worked beautifully. Perhaps it's all in the nature of the weather?

 

I start a lot of stories with "It was a dark and stormy night" even if it wasn't, when I'm too scared to think up a decent first sentence. Half the time I use the second sentence anyway, once I delete the filler sentence.

 

Would you say Tolkien got too wrapped up in descriptions? It's been a while since I've read anything by him, so I don't quite remember how his writing was, but he's the first person that came to mind who is sometimes said to over describe things, yet his works are still good and enjoyable and still compel the reader to read further. [/QUOTE]

I would say that I can't stand Tolkien, but I haven't tried to read him in a while. What I can't stand is the way that Tolkien and Lewis wrote for children, even though I used to love the Narnia books.

Then again, I can't stand Mcaffrey and Pern, though I still will read the Pegasus books and liked the earlier Peytaby books.

 

In general, you want to get to characters as early as possible. If the weather uis dramatic and presents the character with an immediate challenge, why not? If the weather helps establish the mood for the scene, and does so concisely, why not?

Just make sure weather serves a real purpose and doesn't merely delay the action.

 

In my case, the weather reflects the action in the first chapter. The main character is introduced in the third sentence of the first paragraph, so i think two sentences or so of weather description is fine and a reader wont get bored with it. Thanks everyone.

 

Agreed, if it's relevant. But anything that is not relevant does not belong in a story anyway.

 

It was a dark and stormy night...

This has to be the most cliched opening line of all time. The first line that uses the weather to set the mood of the story. I agree with some of the posters that if the weather is relevant to the story why not use it.

But my point is why use something as banal as the weather when you have so many other options. Your character is the unique thing about your book. So is the situation he/she might be in at the moment. I know that no one sentence should really hold the weight of a book, BUT if there's one sentence that has a greater responsibility than all the others it's the first one. It's the first impression, the invitation, the one-liner that heralds your story's greatness. There's nothing wrong with starting with a description or the weather, but I can't help but feel you've just wasted a prime piece of real estate.

Think about it. You have the creative licence to start your book with anything. Do you really want to choose the weather?

 

It's now what you write about it's how you write it.

Weather is just a topic that will make the task of finding a great start a bit harder.

The opposite is also true. If you find a completely bizarre topic, it will be hard to find a way of creating a great start that makes the reader think about the story instead of the topic itself.


In conclusion, you must make the reader forget about the style, the writing and the text. Starting with weather will make some (many) readers think about why you'd start that way for some paragraphs. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Why not? Contriving something "catchy" could easily create the perception of trying too hard. The weather, IMO, is no less worthy than any other topic. Almost any topic can be used as an interesting opener. It's all how you do it.

 

Of course anything has the potential to be done wrong. So 'contriving something catchy' as you put it could create that above mentioned perception, just as easily as starting with the weather could make for a very bland opening line. But lets ignore all those insipid opening sentences we've seen so often in books like "The frigid rain fell thick and fast..." or "Afternoon sunlight gilded the choppy surface of the bay..." and let's say you've come up with a way to use the weather to create a truly interesting first line. (For very good reason I can't come up with an example), ultimately all you've still done is described the weather.

If all the reader had was one sentence to decide whether to continue the book or not, would your one line description of the weather make them want to read further. I know that's an impractical, completely academic scenario as I would imagine that most readers would at least try the first paragraph before quitting, but I'm exaggerating the circumstances to demonstrate a point. Everything in a novel should make you want to continue. The completion of the book should make you hungry for more books by the author. Chapter one should force you to read chapter two. Page one should entice you to read page two. And it all begins with a first line. The first line should make you want to read line two.

And yes I know countless authors have used slow starts (some even describing the weather) and don't in fact follow the above formula, but I personally have always admired the authors who discard mediocrity from the outset. But I've been wrong before.

If someone can write a first line describing the weather, that would make the average reader want to read the next line then maybe I am wrong. And don't write something like, "The rain pelted the tin roof of the shack, the water seeping through the cracks and dripping onto the naked body below."

It's not the way the rain pelts the roof that makes you want to continue reading.

 

I am not interested in a debate, simply a statement of fact. A good beginning enlists dramatic tension. Based on the over-use and/or abuse of the “weather report opening” in amateur fiction , if the intent is to separate one’s self from the pack avoiding this cliché is probably a good idea unless weather being reported delivers an element of drama. To verify the over use and/or abuse of the weather opening, simply browse the writer’s workshop submissions here.


I am sure Grapes of Wrath opened with a weather report however the subject matter included an Oklahoma drought. As soon as you are Steinbeck-like, you can disregard my statement of the cliche trend.

Until this winter I never read a paragraph of unpublished writing in my life, I was never guru-ed by a junior college creative writing professor, fearful becoming a student of the 'rules' will censor the creative out of me I am an untrained virgin. That being said, I read an amatuer weather report opening it becomes very hard for me to keep reading cuz my mind is yelling cliche so loud, a similar thing happens when I waltz across an opening with a character just waking up.

 

The problem I have is that just about ANY line taken out of context is likely boring. A story is the lines flowing together. But alone, lines don't mean much. (Heck, even the best lines don't really mean much without everything that came before or after) If all the first line accomplishes is describing the weather, I don't find it a problem if the writing has shown itself to be worthy. Personally, I'm more drawn in from a uniting bond, such as weather, than I am by starting off in the middle of something that makes me feel like I am playing catchup. (And is making me also feel that the author decided that the story's beginning wasn't interesting enough to start me off with so they instead plopped me off in the middle somewhere.)

I am hardly saying that starting with weather is essential. But it's hardly always "wrong" either. I myself tend to play around with a lot of different openings. The book I feel is the strongest is ironically the one that starts with weather. lol

 

I think it can work if well-written, like anything. It can be overdone though.

The opening of what I'm working on right now describes a place, but weather doesn't get a look-in. It didn't seem important.

 

Consider the reader in Joker's point of the quick hook being the reader that decides if the work makes it to the next level.He or she must see the weather intro a buzz-zillion and a half times a week. Will their mind yell "next" before your true brillance is exposed ? Unless a work gets past that reader discussion about 'readers' lack humility and are pre-mature at best. Any comparison to a published authors slow start does not equate the same latitude being offered to an unknown, that point is very moot.Any discussions should compare the apples of a debut that broke thru to the apples of a debut trying to break thru.

 

This.

Starting in the middle of an action scene is a good way to disorientate the reader right from the start. While I can name a handful of great books that started off right in the middle of things, I've noticed that low-quality books do so more often, in fact so often that I have begun to associate action scene beginnings with poorly-written books that are the literary equivalents of B-movies. I prefer the time-proven method of starting out fairly slow, but with plenty of hinting at what's to come, and gradually building up the suspense. Harry Potter and Twilight are good examples of these. There's a very good reason why these books are so popular.

 

Not to be pedantic, but starting with action (or something happening) and starting with an action scene aren't necessarily the same. I agree that starting with an action scene that is irrelevant is bad, and is often a staple of b-movie type of pulp writing.

Also, in this regard, one thing I credit Twilight with is that it did start with action. The story started right where it should have, and in the hands of a lesser writer would have started as a history lesson on the character or a few chapters of her just being normal back in whatever town it was she moved from. Twilight was good to let us learn about the character and world in the context of the story, and started with action, with something happening, that was relevant. That first paragraph is pretty solid.

Harry Potter starts more with a traditional fairy tale style explanation of the world from a distant sort of point of view (read as: not action, in either sense of the word). Still engaging to readers? I dunno, obviously, I guess, I was personally like 'okay, I'll keep reading because everyone wants me to give it a chance and it's a kids book anyway so I don't expect it to sound like anything but a dated fairy tale'

Harry Potter sort of has slow build-up that is a bit more old fashioned. And Twilight starts with action, starts with the story, in the moment, and even that first paragraph is already relevant and building the story directly, not indirectly with background or exposition (in narrative design terms, Twilight starts with a microcosm of the story, which is often how a story is built, by little moments telling the same story as big moments, and them building to an overall story).

I guess I just wanted to point out there ARE reasons these books are so popular, but it's got to be a bit deeper than this current discussion, as these two openings are stylistically and technically about as different as they come.

Which is why adages like 'start with action' are pointless and do little more than sound good. Even 'start out fairly slowly' is vague at best, and at worst will completely cripple a story. But there's literally no way you can mess up if you start with relevance, and in the cases of both of these openings, they're nothing if not relevant.

The thing is, aspiring writers hate rules like 'be relevant' because it's hard to do, and you have to define it for yourself in some regards, as nobody else knows the story you're trying to tell, and you can't get an easy answer to 'is this relevant' like you can with the other easy rules/answers that permeate forums and writing discussions.

 

This thread isn't about where to start your novel, it's about the opening lines of your novel. You can still start in the middle of an action-packed scene by describing the weather first. And your own examples contradict your point.

The first line of the first Twilight book:
I've never given much thought to how I would die, but dying in the place of someone I love seemed like a good way to go.

Some first lines of the Harry Books:

'The two men appeared out of nowhere, a few yards apart in the narrow, moonlit lane.'

'Harry Potter was a highly unusual boy in many ways.'

'Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much.'

'Not for the first time, an argument had broken out over breakfast at number four, Privet Drive.'

Notice how none of these start with a description or the weather. They all pose story questions from the very first line. 1)Who are the two men? 2)Why is Harry unusual in so many ways? 3) Why are the Dursley's so smug about being normal? 4) What's the latest argument about and why is this a common thing at number 4 Privet Drive?

Take my generic line: The late afternoon sun gilded the choppy surface of the bay as seagulls fought and cawed over the discarded bait on the sandy planks of the east pier.

There's no story question. Who wants to read further?

In fact Stephenie Meyer employs a rather cheap trick. Because she starts off so slow and bland, her opening lines flash forward to an action scene to drum up interest.


Maybe the reason why these books are so popular is because they didn't start with lacklustre opening lines. Okay maybe that and some other factors, but you get my point

 

Exactly, as a new unknown writer you want every advantage you can get. There's a reason why so many agents say they're immediately turned off when a proposed manuscript starts with the weather.

 

Don't want to start an argument about prefaces, but they aren't really the start of a novel. At best, they're simply a quick trailer for people without an attention span to find Chapter 1 and trust a writer will get to the... ooh, something shiny *gets distracted*

But you're right, Twilight's actual opening to the story is really good, and the preface is horrible and people really should avoid them.


And "don't start with description" really is as shallow as most of these adages. I've heard these arguments before, and like how 'show, don't tell' discussions often result in the awkward argument that 'good telling IS showing' these discussions often result in a declaration that good descriptions aren't descriptions, but action! Which is why arguing over these rules is pointless, and the only real argument should be to not adhere to them and look deeper into how and why a text is working.

There are more important things one can find in successful fiction that will inform your own crafting of stories. Like whether what's on the page is relevant, whether you trust the writer (things aren't contrived or agenda driven), whether the writer is pulling you into an experience and not just telling you about stuff, etc. These sorts of concepts don't have easy 'rules' though, because if writing fiction were as easy as follow various adages there'd be a lot more of us a lot better at it.

 

Or inaction. Jane Eyre starts with the weather being so bad that they can't go out. Which establishes a tension between what is desired and what is possible, which is pretty much what the whole book is about.

 

What if the story is about the impending seagull apocalypse, where the sun gets blotted out and the care-free life of scavenging bait on the piers will soon be coming to an end. Uhoh, suddenly this opening is relevant.

Building story momentum doesn't happen with one catchy opening line. Though, this is often what writers try to do, and deliver some grandiose statement on life to start a story, and then the next line is completely out of context as the story actually starts.

If your seagull example follows a logical flow, and doesn't do anything terribly silly like become instantly contrived or ramble on in a way the reader starts to suspect the story isn't about the seagull sun-being-blocked-out-apocalypse, then you have a problem.

 

There are exceptions if your character was trapped in an attic on aug 29 2005 in New Orleans you may wanna touch on the weather, if you novel started outside of B'ham Alabama last week it may be in order...I sadly have a chapter with rain on my MC's wedding day the opening now breaks my heart cuz I fear it is the same old dreck everyone is writing..I want my dreck off the chain syrupy sick like pearl jam on meth!

 

Maybe the classics just aren't relevant anymore? Maybe it's just me. Of Mice and Men (one of my favorite books of all time) starts with a description of the Salinas River and the hills surrounding it. The Grapes Of Wrath starts with not only a description, but (the horror!) it talks about rain. I guess that means they're useless right? There's nothing to learn from them and we should just discard them?

 

But 'Harry Potter was a highly unusual boy in many ways.' is a description.

Or how about "The Salinas Valley is in Northern California." Who wants to read further? Oh, rather a lot of people, actually. Maybe "The town of Lake Wobegon, Minnesota, lies on the shore against Adams Hill, looking east across the blue-green water to the dark woods." Oh, rather a lot again. Setting the scene is a perfectly respectable, and can be very successful, way to start a book.

Your generic opening would tell me to expect literary fiction rather than genre fiction, and, so primed, I would happily read on.