So how do you usually start a story?
I'm currently reading (well, listening to) Dean Koontz's "From the Corner of His Eye." His opening chapter is a narrative prose that only established authors get away with, doesn't move the story forward whatsoever, but is good reading nevertheless. BUT, not enough to get you hooked... until the last paragraph and a particular twist of a phrase that grips you and yanks you into the book. Similarly, by chapter 9 there have been no less than 3 "gut punching" moments in which you sit totally stunned by what just happened. Those moments have refused to let me get up from my chair, and keep me reading.
Generally it is easier to set a hook with a physical conflict than a moral conflict. Moral conflicts make deep stories, but poor hooks. A physical conflict can hook readers with characters they have just met; a moral conflict only works after the reader cares about the character(s).
Movie examples of moral conflict: Dr. Richard Kimbal is a good guy, but decides to risk his life junping from a dam to escape from U.S. Marshal Sam Gerard. Elliot Ness is a stickler for the law, but throws Frank Netty from the roof. Darth Vader is an arch villain, but sacrifices himself to save Luke Skywalker's life.
These moral conflicts are the most important scenes, but they only work after your readers get to know the characters.
The best hook ever was in “Scanners Live in Vain,” Corwainder Smith, 1953 (short story): “Martel was angry. He didn’t even adjust his blood away from anger.”
Well, I was hooked. You?
Robert A. Heinlein (RAH) had another good opener in Starship Troopers (1959): “I always get the shakes before a drop.” (Read it. One of the best 2 or 3 SF books ever.)
This leads into battle scenes:
Starship Troopers is the best piece of military science fiction ever written. Yet there are only, like, 3 battle scenes -- all short. How did RAH accomplish this?
Well, any military fiction will require that you explore the why of the war, the politics, and most important, how it effects your main character.
How to write military SCIENCE fiction? RAH strikes again! He explored how a war in his future, high-tech, space-traveling society would be different. Especially how his future technology would be used for warfare, and how it affects the characters.
Now, I can’t write 1/10 as well as RAH, but I’m using the same technique for a SS I’m planning. My speculation: “ ‘Deflector shields’ are just plain STUPID. They’re impossible.”
So, I worked out how this would change the face of space-warfare (several pages of thermodynamics equations. Ouch.) and what this would mean to the crews and societies that sent them out.
Now for the hard part: how to put plot and characters into my background?
(Aside: the movie Starship Troopers was a reprehensible piece of tripe, nothing like the book.)
[This message has been edited by chad_parish (edited July 11, 2001).]
My point: There is action, as they are talking, but it's not an action-packed scene. And I still think (hope) there is a hook.
OSC had said at the workshop that the first paragraph "makes a promise to the reader," which needs to be fulfilled by the end of the story. You have to give them something at the start that will stay with them throughout - or at least get them involved enough to turn the page.
You can make a hook with two people discussing tips for cleaning grass stains or observing a flower garden, but it will be a weaker hook. Conflict makes a hook stronger.
It's the calm before the storm, and hopefully makes you sympathetic to the characters. I want you to like them before I torture them, and I want the torture to slam you in the face, thus no hinting (outright, anyway) of what's coming.
As for "tricking" people, I don't think that's likely to happen. For one, the title will suggest something, as will any blurb or dust jacket intro. I'm pretty sure people will pick up my story expecting a horror story, and not put it down thinking what a load of wussy crap when they read the first several paragraphs (pages?) and there isn't any violence or monsters. And my hope is the writing is tight enough and good enough to draw you into the characters, and thus into the story, when the real action starts.
Start the story where the story starts.
I'm of the plain-vanilla school of writing, which means that I don't waste time on the formalities of an exposition. I just start writing the story where it starts.
If the *story* starts with a battle, forget some long pointless flowing of words in an exposition, start us out with the battle.
A lot of writers feel they have to have some great "hook". The story itself should be it's own hook. If you've got a good story, characters you care about, and a plot just get right into it.
A lot of authors start their stories out with expositions which are meant to be "hooks", but they're really a turn off to me as a reader. What turns me off about them is that they stall me from getting into the actual story.
Take Ender's Game for instance ('cause I know it's a book you've read). No hook, no big long exposition. Just right into the story. OSC doesn't hold the reader back from the story, in fact he dumps us right into it.
The beginning bits of dialogue aside, the first line in Ender's game is:
"The monitor lady smiled very nicely and touseled his hair and said..."
Hardly profound words, but that's where the story starts, when Ender gets the monitor out.
So take a lesson from that. Forget being all fancy. Just *START* the story.
As for most of your stories beginning with battles, it's not a problem with your beginning that'll fix that. You need a different type of story for that.
-Meg
****
"I'm worried about you losing your house and eatin' macaroni the next 20 years."
"I lost 2 houses already, and I like macaroni."
- Kriegen and Briscoe
"Manhood"
Law & Order
With a short story, though, you have far less time to develop the story, and you don't have the reader's commitment (generally, you're just one story in a larger work, and easily skipped over).
With the first page thing, I was thinking about getting a short story published. If you send a story to a science fiction publisher, and he sees no element of science fiction on the first page or two, he very well might not get to the third. Most short stories live or die in the first page.
And I agree with Megara 100% - begin where the story starts, and you don't need a hook. The beginning of the story, if it's a good one, will keep a reader reading, IMHO.
As for genre determining the story, that is crucial, I think. If an SF story can just as easily be mainstream, or fantasy, why make it SF? SF stories should exist because of the SF element, as fantasy should. If you just have flying cars, and robot dogs, and holographic screens, what's to stop your story from being set in the 1950's, only with altered names? To me the genre element must drive the story, or it's just pseudo-genre, able to be retold in any form.
And usually, I don't include elements of the genre right away. The reason being is that the genre isn't the main part of the story. If it is sci-fi I try to make all the sci-fi elements seems natural, like a world that can acctually exist. As such, I just drop in sci-fi elements like they are nothing amazing. Same with fantasy. The trademarks are there, but I just don't play them up. And I've only had one person ever have trouble with that approach'
Just a random
Thought
As for starting my stories, I try to find some 'Hook' sort of conflict. Action usually works for me. (I feel in order to truly write combat/conflict one should experience it... but there ARE exeptions...)
Arron
One of the things that I've picked up from reading "Characters and ViewPoint" as well as from OSC's Writing classes on this website, is that the opening is the most important part of the book, because it gives the audience the first of the warm fuzzies. It should make the reader ask the first of the questions that keeps them interested in the book so that they can get the answers. IMHO, your opening should have enough material to make the reader go to the next part of the story, which essentially means creating a situation that will make the reader care about what happens, and wonder why it is happening (or whatever other questions you want the reader to ask upon reading your opening).
To address combat/action: To me, combat and action are all well and good, in the <i>appropriate</i> places. Too much action makes the action become trivial: "Oh, they're fighting a band of orcs - again!" Whileas not enough action could lead to frustration: "Why don't they just kick his ass??" There has to be enough action, I think, to make the audience feel that something exciting can and will happen, but not so much that they become blaise. Action enhance the story - not the other way around.
Kelvin,
Ok, now Im being silly, but really I agree with kelvin...Thats all
Arron
Although I enjoy reading (and writing) more action/military/etc. based material, Uncle Sam didn't want me (thick glasses and complete lack of athletic ability).
After reading Heinlein, Haldeman, et al., I realized I can't really touch what they've done. So I try to keep my combat scenes short. If possible, I put them offstage.
Alternatively, I try to emphasize the weird technologies I've developed, and how that will effect the people, rather than the simple bullets flying. I can't write about huddling behind a tree under artillery fire the way a marine could. But I could probably make almost (but not quite) as good a guess about what getting bombarded by antimatter bombs would be like.
----
Quote: I diagree with IonFish, I felt that Starship Troopers was less about a Fashist society...
Heinlein was basically a libertarian -- quite the OPPOSITE of fascist/communist/socialist totalitarianisms.
quote:
After reading Heinlein, Haldeman, et al., I realized I can't really touch what they've done. So I try to keep my combat scenes short. If possible, I put them offstage.
) enough as a writer to feel that you cannot match what has been done by others, that is no reason to leave out scenes that may be vital to the development of the story. If it a story about war or warriors, surely they are essential, integral parts of the story! Don't avoid doing something just because (you feel) it's been done better before. Write your story your way -- don't feel restricted by others: that way lies insecurity, doubt and ultimate failure as you lose any confidence you had in your writing.Why, I might as well say I shouldn't bother writing about crime (because James Ellroy does it so much better than me) or create complicated plots (because Dashiell Hammet and Raymond Chandler are far superior to me in this respect), or that I shouldn't bother trying to write with poetic eloquence about the darkness in the human soul (because, let's face it, I'm never going to be as good at it as Conrad).
If you're not too good at writing some specific thing, try writing it a lot! You'll improve, I guarentee it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Heinlein was basically a libertarian -- quite the OPPOSITE of fascist/communist/socialist totalitarianisms.
For example:
- clearly defined roles for men and women
- 'rights' not to everyone, but to those who have earnt them -- much like the medals given to women who gave birth to large numbers of children in Nazi Germany (they were rewarded with a higher class of citizenship for their actions)
- a society where the government and the military wields great power (not very libertarian 
)
[This message has been edited by IonFish (edited July 24, 2001).]
I have always heard that a writer should 'write what you know'. This would lead me to believe that one who has not experienced combat could not write it as well as someone who has. This is not ALWAYS true (you cant take anything I say to extremes) but if a person admits they are weak in one area so they focus on another are, that does not make them any less secure.
Anyhow...
Arron
[This message has been edited by A_Bear (edited July 24, 2001).]
Let's continue to use OSC as an example with this regard: How much personal experience do you think OSC has in Zero-G combat? Let's take it one level higher - how much experience does /anyone/ have on Zero-G combat?
I would daresay that anyone can write about anything, but how well received it is by an audience would depend on the amount of research and thought one put into the writing. I think it's unfair to say that you can't write about combat without having been in combat yourself. While the person who has experienced real combat may have more data at hand to write about it, it does not mean we can't simply imagine what combat /might/ be like and how we might react to it. I think it would be silly to limit yourself to writing only what you know - because if that's the case, then you'd have no incentive to do research and learn about new things to write about them.
Kelvin,
Arron
I wouldn't say execption. The reason is that, I think most fictional/fantasy stories are about things that we don't really personally know or have necessarily experienced. Research into a subject matter is one thing, but knowing the subject matter is different. People who have been in combat would very likely have very different views on what combat is like, as opposed to someone who has merely studied it.Basically, I'm saying that writing about things you don't know or haven't first-hand experienced should be more of a norm, as opposed to an exception.
Kelvin,
I also realized that since 'Starship Troopers' was mentioned, this thread has gone completely off track. Before I get back on track, I ask, is this normal?
I am wondering how long into the story should I wait before 'naming' my characters. I have one short piece where he is not named at all. (its all right, not great... yet.) I have others where I start right in with their name. I am sure the answers are bound to be diverse, but I am curious as to what others do...
Arron
That said, I find it can also be a good idea to have a situation in which your character's name is introduced; I find it 'flows' more naturally if you do things like this, but it's all a matter of personal preference.
quote:
I am wondering how long into the story should I wait before 'naming' my characters. I have one short piece where he is not named at all. (its all right, not great... yet.) I have others where I start right in with their name. I am sure the answers are bound to be diverse, but I am curious as to what others do...
In the book Fight Club by Chuck Palahnuik, the first person narrator is never named. It was interesting, and I think it may have related to the narrator's issues of identity.
If I'm going to name a character, I do it as soon as possible, unless there is some specific reason for delaying, possibly describing the soon-to-be-named character prior to the naming.
"Yah, she looks like a Jen"
or
"Yep, he sounds like a Steve"
Doesn't seem to make sense, but for me it works. Also, the name you choose can show race, religion and ethnic/cultural background, which may help factor in when you start developing character.
Kelvin,
(his name's Karl)I have a bad tendency to write entire stories with no names whatsoever. I've found that, at least for the stories I write, (which are very short - 4 typed pages max) the names I do give always seem foreign to me - they don't match the characters somehow. That's why I occasionally use names I made up using Latin or Spanish roots that match the character's personality.
The only problem with this approach is it comes up with some very odd names such as:
Pieta Famula
Risa Amparada
Peritia Perdisca
However, making up names does have the advantage of not having any prior associations with your character's name.
[This message has been edited by Hermionerhija (edited July 25, 2001).]
quote:
I am wondering how long into the story should I wait before 'naming' my characters. I have one short piece where he is not named at all. (its all right, not great... yet.) I have others where I start right in with their name. I am sure the answers are bound to be diverse, but I am curious as to what others do...
Getting back to his question, which I only answered before by offering an example of another writer's work, I'm now answering with an example from my own.
I recently went back and re-read about twenty or so short stories I wrote over a four year period, ending about seven years ago. In only one story did I not name the main character, who was the first-person narrator of a story I wrote in 1992. I was actually surprised by this, since it was not a conscious decision on my part to do this.
In all of the other stories, the main character is named within the first page.
"Hey, Bob, what's up?"
"Hey, John, not much. How about you?"
There, you have their names. I just like that way better. And once their names are introduced, you can start describing.
"Hey, Bob, what's up?" Bob was a man who liked to collect dead pigeons.
OR, you could mix it up a bit.
"Hey, Bob, what's up?" asked John.
There you have both characters in one sentence. And then Bob won't have to say John's name.
But I think the sooner you do it, the better.
And Kelvin, I know exactly what you mean about the names. You hear a name and then a new image immediately pops in your head. But it's hard when the author thinks differently than you. I just read this book, and there was a character named Shar. I immediately pictured a woman in my head. It sounds like a woman's name. But the next chapter the author comes out and you find out that Shar is actually a man (because the sex was never mentioned before, so I just assumed). It took a while to get used to