starting off with the weather

I see this argument between writers often, whether or not following "the rules" is bad and stupid or just good sense. It's true that there are no iron-clad "rules" for writing, and that skilled authors can deviate from what is accepted and expected with impunity (see Cormac McCarthy). At the same time, there's a reason most of these rules, suggestions, and dictums have become commonly accepted wisdom. That's because, in most cases, they make good sense.

If someone says something like, "Don't start your book with a description of the weather", what they're really saying is "Don't start your book with dry, boring facts and/or description". 95% of the time, discussions about the weather are quite boring, just small talk, filler. Unless there's a tornado raging, an earthquake rattling, or flooding in the streets, the weather just isn't all that interesting. Many writers who begin their books by talking about the weather are not relating something relevant...they are merely starting a "conversation" with the most banal topic available.

Yes, obviously if weather is relevant to the story, by all means, mention it. I think that goes without saying. It's a pitiful author who takes generally accepted rules like "Don't open with the weather" and decides that means he can't mention the tsunami that destroys his main character's village in the first chapter. Talk of the weather can be used in other legitimate ways as well, perhaps to offer a stark contrast or ironic note to the events that open the story, i.e. ominous events occurring on a bright, sunny day, or a joyous moment taking place in the midst of a hurricane.

My advice is to think critically about the "rules" as you perceive them and try to understand what is really being said. I've seen many authors rail against the old adage of "show, don't tell", but you know what? There is more than a kernel of truth in that piece of advice. There is a reason it came into existence. Why? Because generally stories that draw the reader in and immerse them in the action, making them empathize with the characters, are more effective than those that don't. What's the easiest way to draw someone in to a story? Show, don't tell.

How-to books, writing advice, and "rules" do have a purpose. The trick is appreciating why something is a rule, so you'll know when it would be appropriate to discard that rule. Experienced authors should know what makes a story work, when it's compelling, how to create conflict and realistic characters. At that point, there's not a lot of focus or emphasis on "rules": a story either works or it doesn't. Newbies don't have those instincts yet. Sometimes all they have is advice from others, which is being offered from a place of experience. So should we encourage newbies to ignore advice from those who have experience? Not in my opinion.

Are there books that have broken "the rules" and succeeded? Of course. But there are many, many more books out there that fail because they succumbed to common amateur mistakes: boring opening, overwriting, dry recitation of events, cliches, etc. If you are a good enough writer to intimately understand "the rules" and how to successfully break them, do it! But don't tell newbies to ignore all advice and wisdom-born-of-experience. Seriously. Many of them need some kind of guide, when they're just learning how to write.

After all, writing is not simply an art. It is also a craft.

 

I think even starting with relevance can be botched. Something may well be relevant to the story and just be flat. There's really nothing that can't be botched and very little that can't be worked.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting we just discard classic literature.

At the same time, you must recognize that literature, just like language, art, and other cultural practices, changes with time. So do the needs and expectations of the audience. If I took a book written in the 1800's (not a classic) and tried to publish it today, chances are I'd have a hard time finding an audience for it. That doesn't mean it's a bad book. It just means that what appealed to readers in the 1800's is probably not the same thing that appeals to readers today.

Movies are a great example of a medium that has changed over time. Watch a movie from the 1930's and one from today, and compare: acting methods, camera angles, pacing, etc. Does that mean that The Thin Man, released in 1934, is useless or should be discarded? Of course not! I love that movie. But if I looked at that film as a guide to how-to-make-movies-today and presented a similar effort to modern audiences (as something other than a parody or homage to a 1930's film), it would seem incredibly dated and would likely turn many viewers off.

For most readers, The Grapes of Wrath or Of Mice and Men are classics and are appreciated as such. Does that mean that they are perfectly written, or that the writing styles should be emulated as a matter of course? Of Mice and Men is littered with adverbs, which is something nearly every experienced author tries to avoid (yes, another pesky "rule"). One that I think makes sense, personally. Just because something is a classic doesn't mean it's infallible. Even excellent stories can be less than perfectly written.

 

It depends what is said about the weather. If it's "It was a dark and stormy night" then you're out of luck unless it's the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest. And certainly the beginning needs to keep the reader reading. But the point about starting with action is sound advice for genre fiction but not for literary fiction (or for comedy, where the rule would be to start with a gag rather than start with action). As others have pointed out, it's about knowing the reason for the "rule" and working out whether it applies to what you are trying to do. All of the stuff that gets rejected from the slush pile doesn't get rejected because they have started with description or because they haven't started with description, they get rejected because the writer hasn't stopped to think what the effect of the opening is and whether this is the best way to start the book. It's not that they're not thinking "does this follow the rules", it's that they're not thinking "does this work. And if they genuinely can't tell then no amount of rules will help them; they need to read more, and more critically.

 

I also quoted the opening of Garrison Keilor's "Lake Wobegon Days", much more recent and a breakthrough novel. But one that's not really story-driven, but is much more about description and a sense of time and place. There are plenty of new works that start with description. They succeed because it's the best way for those particular books to start.

 

Sadly time is money, the window of opportunity is very v small, I doubt an unknown is given any latitude whatsoever. Maybe a prior published author will be allotted a slow start, otherwise it is NEXT.....Apples to oranges Garrison Keilor was a semi- famous as a talk radio host...A Prairie Home Companion debuted as an old-style variety show before a live audience on July 6, 1974 ,Lake Wobegon Days was also a performance arts piece

 

Isn't that ironic.... dontcha think?

And it's ironic because nothing in that song was ironic, but it was dreck, so now by you writing similarly irony has been created (take note, Alanis!)

 

Starting fast for the sake of starting fast sounds like another good way to get to that "Next" button. A story should start as it's supposed to start and no other way. If that's a slow start, so be it. Make it good like anything else. Absolutes tend to breed mediocrity.

 

I don't believe I suggested it was perfectly written, did I? However, I think you kind of made my point for me, right here:

Classics are classics for a reason and you can learn something from them. That's the point I was making.

Also, the rules should not be taken from EVERYONE who ever published a book or had their name up in lights, so to speak, and before you can gain the right to throw around all the truisms of the so-called tried and tested rules I think you first have to figure out (and be able to explain to the newbie writers you're blathering them out to) why they work. Then you have to figure out when they don't work (because sometimes they just don't) and be able to explain that. Essentially before you should, IMO, go around throwing rules from this fave author, and this editor, etc. at everyones feet I think you first have to find a way to teach your newbie writers the common sense they need to use those little gems well. Otherwise they're just words and useless because they don't know what they mean. You can explain rocket science and fuel combustion to a dog all day long. Doesn't mean he'll be a professor or build a rocket ship. Just my opinion.

 

Don't confuse a slow start with a bring start. Slow can be interesting.

I know. As far as I can see, you pretty much have to have made your name already before you have a chance with a novel. Although there are very rare exceptions, such as J K Rowling (who, as has already been pointed out, started the Harry Potter series with description.)

 

If you'll recall from my first post I never said there was anything wrong with starting with the weather, I just said it's better not to. Nobody is saying that you should begin with something irrelevant. Everything in the book should have a purpose. Typing an irrelevant line in your first page is an absolute rookie mistake and far behind the scope of this discussion. I think you're misinterpreting what I said. You're implying the bay and sea gull line I've cited only becomes relevant if the story is about seagulls and bait.

That would be incorrect. The description of the bay and the seagulls is very much relevant even if the novel does not revolve around them and should definitely be included in the first page. In fact, a common error is to start your book with much action and not bother to dedicate a few lines to describing the setting. The floating heads problem.

All I'm saying and again you have to return to the OP because this thread has diverted a bit, is that why not give us a taste of what's at stake, or at least a glimpse of the character, or anything other than a static picture like how the sun was shining on the bay.

Consider this:


The woman tottered along the edge of the yacht, her velvet dress ripped at the shoulder. From this distance she looked battered and confused, but still very much alive. Something was wrong.

Jack dropped the binoculars. It was getting late. The afternoon sun gilded the choppy surface of the bay as seagulls scuffled and squawked over the last scraps of bait on the sandy planks of the pier. Jack kicked a stone at one of the birds and they flapped away. At that moment he regretted choosing this cover. Whoever said fishing was fun obviously had a blocked nose.

Notice how quickly the pivotal element of the scene was worked in ie. the woman who is in fact the target of an assassin. It's instantaneous. The reader immediately knows what's at stake and what to expect. Then the main character is introduced. Now the reader is invested. Only then is the scene described and now the description has more significance because it's filtered through the eyes of a character.

I could have written the same scene and started with a description of the sun-gilded bay. Yes the description is relevant because it's where the scene is taking place, but can you honestly tell me it's just as effective putting it in the first line as it is when incorporated in the manner above?

And that's the point. We're getting sidetracked with what's relevant when the truth is any decent writer won't include something that's irrelevant. It's how you introduce your scene that creates the dramatic tension most readers are looking for.

And to get back to the original post, dedicating your first line to the weather by it's nature is not giving the reader anything worth investing in, because the weather only becomes significant in the context of the scene. And if it is raining you absolutely must state this early. You just don't have to make it the first thing you say.

 

In fact when a writer goes into 'show' mode, taking off on a 50 word run to paint me a it was hot picture. I uninvest, but of course those who are paid to read are prolly more open minded than me (cough, cough) They could not possibly go on amatuer alert after that, I am sure one minor slip up will not keep them from soildering on thru the next 90 thousand words

 

Well, the opening lines largely depend on where you start.

True, but that's very rare. In fact, I've never seen it done. I suppose it would go something like:

"A spatter of rain began to descend from the dark clouds overhead. The drops ran down the sides of the blade the bloodied knight held high above the young man pinned below, splashing onto his flinching neck."

A dramatic, eye-catching hook, but when the reader reads on and finds that the book started off with the best material (what really should have come at the end of the chapter or perhaps the book itself after the characters had been introduced - so that we actually care about them - and after the tension and suspense had been properly built up), he or she will learn (like I did) that there is no point in reading further.

Err . . . no. I didn't make any point about weather descriptions, which I probably should have seeing as this thread is about whether or not it's wise to start off describing the weather. I'm pretty indifferent in that regard, actually. If the weather is relevant, then add it in. If not, then don't.

As others have pointed out, that's the first line of the preface. I always skip over those to chapter 1 when I'm first looking at a book, so for me at least, they don't count as hooks. And, from a thread I opened on this subject a while back, I learned that I'm far from the only person to skip prefaces and prologues.

The first line of Twilight is: "My mother drove me to the airport with the windows rolled down."

Good, we got some action going. Just enough to get a reader curious, but not too much to cause disorientation.

These are the ensuing lines: "It was seventy-five degrees in Phoenix, the sky a perfect, cloudless blue. I was wearing my favorite shirt - sleeveless, white eyelet lace; I was wearing it as a farewell gesture. My carry-on item is a parka."

Yes, but if you read the ensuing lines, you'll see that the action does indeed begin at the start of a new scene. Snape and Yaxley have just met, and when they recognize each other, they begin a conversation. JK Rowling did not plop us readers right in the middle of an action scene - she started by building suspense. Let me clarify: I did not say that beginning with action is bad; I said that beginning in the middle of an action scene is often unwise.

These basically begin with character building, which is perhaps my favorite way to start a novel. I've always been rather fond of the humorous way the very first Harry Potter book began by describing the Dursleys. Now, would it have been as good if it had started like this -

"Sirius Black screamed in outrage, whipped out his wand, and fired a curse at Pettigrew." And this followed by pages of battle descriptions and tactical maneuvers/retreats about a bunch of characters we don't know yet and which the author hasn't bothered to describe well enough for us to be able to pick a side or feel anything one way or the other for. Such is the case with many "B-movie" fantasy novels.

 

Vacuum eater you make good points but I still don't think we're on the same page. You're talking about something removed from the the OPs question. He asked whether it is fine to start with the description of the weather. That has nothing to do with what type of scene your first chapter explores. Every outdoor scene has some sort of weather, anything from a raging battle to a stroll on the beach. Should you start the book with a description of the weather. I'm saying in most cases, unless the weather in itself is very intriguing (a core element in the scene), then no. I'll even extend that to a description of the setting, unless the setting in itself is interesting. These things can all fit into the second paragraph.

So again I agree with what you say, but you are discussing something very different to the topic.

 

Almost. It's not editing out the irrelevant line that is the rookie mistake.

To be honest, I'd be more likely to read on with the original version. The new version immediately seems formulaic and therefore dull to me and I probably wouldn't be inclined to read further.

 

It's always frustrating when my point is that rules you have to spend so much time excusing and explaining and defending and rationalizing aren't worth having, as we could instead be discussing the craft of fiction... yet discussions on the craft of fiction just become endless excusing, explaining, defending and rationalizing of rules that, by my perspective and experience, just proves they aren't worth the time in even acknowledging except to point out that if you have to spend so much time excusing, explaining, defending and rationalizing a rule then it isn't worth having, as you could instead be discussing the craft of fiction, yet instead discussions on the craft of fiction just become endless excusing, explaining, defending and rationalizing of rules... that, etc... and so on, like that Lambchop song.

Discussing the rules related to a subject is not the same as discussing the actual subject, much less informing how to master that subject, and instead only brings about a mastery of discussing rules.

 

Well said!!

*sings* This is the song that never ends... It goes on and on my friend

 

Actually, most things in that song were ironic, but some people are not aware that there is more than one sort of irony.

 

Yeah, you're right. She does ask 'isn't it ironic?' And if you assume she's just pretending to not know what the hell irony means, then it could be argued to all be Socratic irony, I suppose.

Or, perhaps it's dramatic irony, as there is a segment of her audience that did know she was making a mistake, and when a person becomes a pop star, they do sort of adopt a fictional role. Or, even more interesting, maybe she informed a group of fan she was going to play a prank on everyone else, effectively creating dramatic irony, though I haven't heard of such a conspiracy.

Most of her examples, though, fail to provide evidence showing the parties involved were actively working against an outcome (even the small burden of proof to claim cosmic irony). For instance, rain on your wedding day is just bad luck. Now, had there been an additional line in that song about how the groom was weatherman, or the bride the day before had flipped off mother nature, then we'd be on to something.

A house burning down, even the day after it was built, isn't so much ironic as just bad luck. A fire station burning down, however... Irony often requires intent, even if only implied in the case of a fire station and the implication they're intending to fight and prevent fires.

And that, my friends, is how you should start a story.... err wait, nm.

edit: oh, and want to add it's perhaps a continental or nationality thing. Maybe that's the difference, as I've met a few from Britain who have different ideas on what is an isn't ironic, though I've never researched the official or academic stance of England when it comes to irony... is that ironic?

 

I so agree.

 

not always, so it's better not to make that such a blanket statement, imo...

there are times when starting off with weather is highly effective, such as if the plot revolves around a weather phenomenon...

or if the opening scene's hook is weather-based...

and so on... admittedly, these 'off the top of my head' examples aren't great literature, but they do show that there's lots of ways one can use a weather opening effectively...

 

I'm interested in how you believe a discussion about the craft of writing would go, if the sorts of topics that tend to inform "the rules" aren't to be discussed. These "rules" that you perceive to be obscuring discussion of the craft of writing are actually a result of many years of discussions about writing. And I'd say that much of this thread, inspired by a question about a rule, has been devoted to discussing the actual meaning of the "rule", the intent behind it, and how exceptions can and should be made.

Seems instructive to me...

While there may be people whose only contribution to a discussion about writing is to chirp "Show don't tell!" or "Don't open with the weather!" without any further explanation, I don't perceive that to be endemic. I have been involved in many, many wonderful conversations and debates about writing that go far beyond unthinking recitation of perceived rules and regulations.

If you find that discussions on this forum are too shallow, I'd suggest expanding your horizons, as there are many places to have good and lively debates about writing.

You know, I said it before: writing is a craft, not simply an art. In art there are literally no "best practices", but the same can't really be said about a craft. If I spit out a bunch of random words, let's say 80,000 of them, and they don't string together to form coherent thoughts or ideas, that's not a novel. So as much as you may hate it, yeah, there are basic rules when it comes to writing. On the next level, there are "suggested best practices". You can deviate from best practices, but generally they've been widely accepted for a reason...because that's what readers respond to. If you deviate from them, you need to make sure that the choices you're making work for your story. Usually this means you should understand the "rules"--and the meaning behind them--before breaking them.

As in any craft, there will be more effective methods than others to achieve the desired result. Rail against it all you want, but it's sort of the truth. If you're really damn good, you can make up your own rules (again, see Cormac McCarthy), but there's nothing wrong with telling a new writer that conflict (internal or external) is key to creating a compelling story, or that it's generally better to draw your reader into the story by showing how a character feels rather than simply telling the reader they feel that way. I'm not going to get into a dissertation about those topics in this thread, since it's way, way OT, but trust me, I can engage you in a deep discussion about why I believe those things without simply regurgitating something I read in a book somewhere.

 

I did say "most". "Like rain on your wedding day" is, as you say, just bad luck, but "a free ride when you've already paid" does qualify for situational irony.

 

Realistically, don't you all think that there are MUCH better ways on how to begin depending on what the story is about? I think we should all forget the saying, because it is basically telling people to put more thought into how they start writing. It has to be good, it has to be smart, it has to be as unique as possible. IF you think the weather is a VERY good way to start the story, then do it and see how it turns out. Personally, I think if a writer sat in his/her chair for a few moments, they could come up with something better. . .

 

I think mamma's examples show your last point is wrong: the weather can be just the right way to start. But your point about putting thought into it is spot on (although not necessarily as they start writing. On the first pass it might pay not to put too much thought into it, but sort it out in the editing).