Although I wouldn't exactly say that how my story starts but...it's close enough

Here's the first 13 lines (that's all I'm allowed right? =/) of my chapter 1.

quote:

---

The thunder rumbled through the trees. A muscular figure trudged steadily up a quiet forest road, little more than a trail that would fit two riders abreast. From the way he walked he was not used to traveling in such a way. The slightly bow-legged stride of a man long used to a good horse beneath him and a sword at his side. But this man had neither. His build suggested a knight or soldier of some sort, but his face gave away the marks of noble or even royal lineage. Grayish blue eyes were dark and moody as he glanced up at the heavily overcast sky.

“Rain, it had to rain,” Nathan muttered to himself. Indeed, it was raining, pouring in fact. He pulled the hood of his cloak over his thick, Sandy hair and continued walking down the dampening forest road. The path soon turned into a thin, slippery mud and he was forced to walk in the trees and bushes on either side, in order to keep his footing. Showing up at the nearest Inn covered in mud and filth was not on his priority list.

---

It then goes on to a couple paragraphs that introduce the character with a pinch of background and how he got into his predicament. Then I jump into an action hook before you reach page 2.

So here's my Question: Is it flat out bad to start out a story this way or can it be worked with? Like perhaps saving background descriptions for later? Maybe through dialouge to another character?
 

I don't think you've started with a flashback here, tho I'm confused. Is Nathan the man you describe in paragraph 1? Because that's the real problem here. I don't imediately see a connection. I *thinkI* you start with a camera view and then jummp into someone's head, it's very disjointing.

As for saving background description for later...yeah, it can be woven in, I'm not sure I understand that question, to be honest.
 

And Yes, Nathan is the character in paragraph one.

*thinks*

Okay how about this instead?

“Rain, it had to rain. Fine predicament you’ve gotten yourself into isn’t it Nathan?” The man muttered to himself. He pulled the hood of his cloak....

Still disjointed?
 

Also, if you slip into a flashback in paragraph 3 it is absolutely too soon. I know you've read OSC's book, but let me see if I can clarify what he said.

The thing about a flashback at this point in the story is that we're not rooted into anything. You go on for two paragraphs about the rain, then go back in time to the events leading up to the rain, and by the time we get back to the rain we forget we ever started there. More to the point, in order for flashback to be meaningful, we have to care. I don't care about Nathan yet, I don't nkow him.

You have started in the wrong place. Period. If you go into a flashback in paragraph 3 then paragraph 3 is where your story starts. Of all the rules I've heard about writing, this is one of the few I'd never advise breaking.

As a general rule of thumb I've heard that if you do put a flashback in a story, however long the flashback is you should have twice that length of leadup. That is, if you have a one page flashback, you should have at least 2 pages of material before getting into the flashback.

It is tempting to do a flashback, to provide some interest right away. If you are writing a novel, just start at the begining or somewhere close to it and let the story tell itself. Save the flash back for another time when they are all sitting around a fire or something like that.

I used to do things like this and thought it was OK, and defended my position to the bitter end. I found after a while that I was wrong, or at least not correct.

Try it again and start before this scene and just let the story flow from there. Something I use occasionally is to write it with the flash back, until the past meets the present and then go back and edit it in reverse.

It may sound cumbersome, but I have gotten alot of good stuff from creating in that fashion. Stuff that I don't think would have come to mind any other way. It just gets your creative juices flowing, especially if you aren't sure of the ending just yet.

And I agree you should name your character first thing. You want your reader to start building a relationship right away.

First, POV. If you're a novice writer, stick to a simple POV. When you've got a lot of experience, then you can try funny tricks with objective POV and so forth.

Second, a flashback should only occur where it is a narration of the POV character's present thoughts. And as such it must remain a narration of the POV character's present thoughts. In OSC's bad example, the thing that ruins the story is that once the flashback begins, the writer doesn't write it from the POV of the character driving her car through the snow and remembering the events of the past, but from the POV of the character in the past who doesn't know that she'll end up crying while driving in the snow in a few days.

A flashback that follows the rule of remainging in the POV of the present character--the one doing the remembering--reveals much about that character. A flashback that doesn't follow the rule only reveals that the writer is incompetent.

But that would be a discussion for when we'd actually read the flashback. Right now, what we've read is a very disjointed POV opening.

For the purposes of simplicity, I almost always open a POV segment with the name of the POV character, then a verb which indicates a perceptive action, then an object which is percieved.

Thus:

quote:

---

Nathan ignored the thunder rumbling through the trees.

---

Without changing too much, here's how it should read if you opening paragraph is written in an omniscient POV and your second paragraph is written in a limited 3rd-person POV.

quote:

---

The thunder rumbled through the trees. Nathan trudged steadily up a quiet forest road, little more than a trail that would fit two riders abreast. From the way he walked he was not used to traveling in such a way. The slightly bow-legged stride of a man long used to a good horse beneath him and a sword at his side. But this man had neither. His build suggested a knight or soldier of some sort, but his face gave away the marks of noble or even royal lineage. Grayish blue eyes were dark and moody as he glanced up at the heavily overcast sky.

“Rain, it had to rain,” Nathan muttered to himself. He pulled the hood of his cloak and continued walking down the dampening forest road. The path soon turned into a thin, slippery mud and he was forced to walk in the trees and bushes on either side, in order to keep his footing. Showing up at the nearest Inn covered in mud and filth was not on his priority list.

---

The only real change was in the second paragraph, where I cut out the bit about his thick, sandy hair--something he wouldn't be thinking about. And yes, for the sake of clairty, don't keep us in the dark about the character's name (which I included in the opening paragraph).

If all of this stuff about POV is confusing, there are two books you should get your hands on. The first is OSC's CHARACTERS AND VIEWPOINTS. I didn't find the stuff on characters very helpful, but the 50 or so pages on viewpoint is pure gold.

But don't read that on by itself. Pick up Damon Knight's CREATING SHORT FICTION and read his few pages on viewpoint. Make sure you compare the two. What you'll get in the end are two solid yet different approaches to viewpoint. You should have enough to set you on the right course.

[This message has been edited by Jerome Vall (edited February 12, 2004).]
 

If anyone would like to read the rest of the chapter and critique it feel free to email me. I'd appreciate it!
 

Send on chapter 1, just give me a few days, I'm actually in the middleof moving to a whole new city.

My e-mail's listed on the little e-mail tab above.
 

quote:

---

From the way he walked he was not used to traveling in such a way. The slightly bow-legged stride of a man long used to a good horse beneath him and a sword at his side. But this man had neither.

---

The second "sentence," which is actually a fragment, threw me off so that when I read "But this man had neither" I thought, "Neither? Neither what?" and had to reread it. The first thing that crossed my mind is that he didn't have a bow-legged stride, which is obviously not right.

I think it might flow better like this:

"... in such a way. His slightly bow-legged stride should belong to a man long used to a good horse beneath him and a sword at his side, but Nathan had neither."

Or something like that.
Apologies if this is not the sort of thing I'm supposed to be doing here....
 

I cringe when I read an up front physical description of the POV character, because it breaks POV and I'm very sensitive to that (I can't stand unmarked POV shifts, such as JV suggests, for the same reason). But I also cringe for another reason, because as an experienced reader I've learned to expect a lot of foolishness from any writer who opens with such description.

Take Robert Jordan. Yes, we all wish we could be such fools as he, but his physical description is full and overfull of such nonsensical foolishness about bosems and chins and waists and sweaty musculature, along with the ridiculous costumes...but you know what? It happens to not interfere with his very enjoyable prose style. But it is plainly foolish, and any reader will admit it with a laugh.

Foolishness isn't necessarily bad for your story or for your career...but be wary of it. Eye of Argon (or whatever it's called) is wildly popular...but not in the good way. I wish I were at my own computer and had some time to just bust a gut or two (painful, but such sick pleasure) .
 

Most readers DON'T like a physical description of the POV character? This can't be true.

If you're talking about the detailed descriptions we get of characters in Victorian novels, then I'd agree. But if you mean a rough sketch of the important details of the character -- the kind of details that would give us a first impression of the character -- I'm inclined to think that most readers, while perhaps not demanding that kind of detail, would enjoy it. At the very least, they certianly wouldn't say, "I don't like this?"

In all of this, I'm assuming that we're both talking about the POV character being the main character -- the protagonist of the story. If, on the other hand, the POV character is only the POV character, then a sketch of their appearance isn't necessary. It may even take away from the story.

The problem is -- it isn't. It is describing the character as somebody else in the scene might think of him, but as far as we can tell from this short section there is no other character who would be thinking these things.

If you're going to have an omniscient opening, that's fine, but you can't give opinions in omniscient, and stating that "His build suggested a knight or soldier of some sort" requires that there be somebody else who does think he might be one of these things.

Essentially, what I'm saying is, if his build suggested he was a knight, who was it suggested to?

Does that make sense?

BTW - in the usual sense, a knight is a noble. Concise Oxford Dictionary: "2 hist. a a man, usu. noble, raised esp. by a sovereign to honourable military rank after service as a page and squire." (meaning 1 is the present day usage, as in what Bill Gates is now...)
 

Here's a revised version.

quote:

---

The thunder rumbled through the trees. Nathan trudged steadily up a quiet forest road, little more than a trail that would fit two riders abreast. From the way he walked he was not used to traveling in such a way. The slightly bow-legged stride of a man long used to a good horse beneath him and a sword at his side. But this man had neither. His build suggested a knight or soldier of some sort, but his face gave away the marks of noble or even royal lineage. Grayish blue eyes were dark and moody as he glanced up at the heavily overcast sky.

“Rain, it had to rain,” Nathan muttered to himself as he tugged the hood of his cloak over his head and continued walking down the dampening forest road. The path soon turned into a thin, slippery mud and he was forced to walk in the trees and bushes on either side, in order to keep his footing. He didn’t relish the thought of showing up at the nearest Inn covered in mud and filth.

---

[This message has been edited by RillSoji (edited February 13, 2004).]
 

When you write in the omniscient POV, you, the narrator, have to write authortatively. You can't waver on points because, like God, your omniscienct -- you know everything and your trustworth as well; the omniscient narrator isn't an untrustwrothy narrator.

The more I think about it, the more I see what Survivor was originally getting at, namely, start with an easy POV, which is a 3rd person POV. Omnniscient viewpoint is hard to do.

However, if you really want to write in the omniscient POV -- and there's nothing wrong with it -- then I would suggest you check out John Irving's A WIDOW FOR ONE YEAR from the library and read it. Irving is a master at using the omniscient viewpoint, and you can learn a lot from that book.

[This message has been edited by Jerome Vall (edited February 13, 2004).]
 

*Adds another book to the ever growing list*