Because I see his point--the modern reader likes to have the action happen sooner, won't sit around to wait for the story to develop. Look at how keen we are with the first 13 lines, scrutinizing them for a sign of conflict or tension. But to start it where he suggests would lop off a lot of the psychological and emotional drama which is what excites me about the story.

Maybe this simply reveals the kind of story teller I am (fated to be unpopular in this day and age?) but some of my favorite books take a long time to wind up (Mary Renault) even though the opening sequences are pretty catchy, the story isn't necessarily evident in the first 13.

I know that sounds trite, however, in my opinion, when I read a story that has been put together skillfully WITH great love... they are the best stories.

Edit: I don't know you yet, but I can tell you got heart

Lord of the Rings started with a birthday party and in Harry Potter he was a baby and not even in it until the end of the chapter.

If Frodo had started in peril we would not have felt we were back in the good old Shire, and if the first chapter of Harry Potter had been Voldemort attacking his parents kids probably would have stopped in the first few pages and most of us would never have heard of Harry Potter.

Just my two cents worth,

However, if you don't engage them with some good action, you need to engage them with something else. This could consist of a number of things, but--as James Scott Bell in Plot & Structure will tell you--it should give the impression of motion even if things are relatively still.

Things that might be engaging are:

[*]A very compelling setting (but get the person and the "impression" of motion in the setting quickly)

[*]A very compelling character (establish sympathy and tone right away)

[*]Humor or attitude

[*]An interesting problem

[*]Fear/danger/tension

[*]Raw emotion

There are probably a number of other things that can help, and they will be challenging to accomplish without significant action, but not impossible. (Actually--I like the idea of a writing challenge with no action.)

You should also consider the possibility that you are holding on to stuff that you don't really need. I'd ask yourself *why* it changes the nature of the story by cutting off the first section, and see if you can focus on just the elements needed to retain the story you wanted. Chances are, you will do well to cut most of it out.

If you would like, you could send me an e-mail telling what you believe the first section accomplishes and why you think it is important for the integrity of your story, and I can give you another perspective on it. (Of course, you can do that here, if you want.) Being just a dude trying to become a writer like you, you can easily brush me off, too.

So - seems to me like the things you find compelling about this story are the psychological and emotional drama, which presumably change her or make the main character decide to change...

The point of where it start is where the character's life changes from routine. If the character spends their days going to work, eating dinner, and the things many people do all the time...then you will bore everyone to death. But what happens when the character doesn't go to work? Finds themselves tossed out of the everyday and facing a situation that is not normal?

Start the story where the main character's life is about to deviate from the dull and repetitive. We didn't start lord of the rings with Frodo's birth, no, we started when his uncle up and leaves him to go live with the elves. Instant change. Harry Pooter's story starts (discounting the chapter 1 prolog) when he is close to turning eleven, and he is going to find out what he is.

Stories start where the change is, or a bit before, or even a bit after. Action stories will start close to the action, some stories start close to the changes that might not seem a change, but really are a change. Mental and situational changes can be just as valid as the action.

The question you should ask yourself is if you are writing a story or a biography of a fictional person. A story will go well, but a biography wont interest most of us. (not for fictional characters at least.)

One does not have to start the story in a full blown sword battle for the survival of the universe (that might be an excellent start if one is writing the story about the aftermath, especially if it failed) to have a good start.
the main thing is to have something happening, something interesting, that leads up to the real action.

quote:

---

Instant change. Harry Pooter's story starts (discounting the chapter 1 prolog) when he is close to turning eleven, and he is going to find out what he is.

---

You can't discount the first chapter. It is there and it is a chapter.

There is some good advice in this thread. Basically, you start the story where it actually starts, not before and not after.

Thanks for reminding me that yes, movement doesn't necessitate action--there are plenty of other kinds of movement, some more compelling.

Mfreivald thanks for your thoughts and support. Here's the premise of my story in a nutshell--an ambitious courtesan is driven by her ambition to kill the emperor and help a usurper take the throne so she can marry him and become empress. Only she discovers the usurper is evil, and her conscience begins to bug her for the part she's had in this regime, and ultimately she decides she has to get rid of him.

The professor I referred to suggests I lop off the killing of the first emperor and just start where she decides she has to kill the usurper. The majority of the book would be taken up by her increasingly desperate attempts to get rid of him. This would make an interesting story of a person driven by guilt to make things right. But the story I want to tell is of a character driven by ambition, and the cost of her single-mindedness. That's why I think I need the first bit, to show what she's willing to do for her ambition (i.e. kill somebody), and would make her turn around that much more powerful, when she realizes what she's done (i.e. helped this tyrant). I suppose I could show all this in back story and context, but I'm afraid it won't be so powerful. Furthermore the concept of these "successive attempts" rather bores me.

I think the driving factor is simply going to be my passion. Because I can't justify spending months and months working on something that I can't get excited about. So I think I'll write the story as I see it. If it doesn't sell, so be it. I will at least have been happy writing it!

quote:

---

The MICE quotient from OSC's Characters and Viewpoint offers a "C" type of story - a character story. You start the story from the moment the character realizes he/she has got to change, and you end it when that change is realized and/or they determine the change wasn't a good idea in the first place (I'm quoting from memory, someone pls correct me if I've misstated.)

---

I don't recall if you said it was a character story or not, but this seems to be applicable to your case.

My novella doesn't have a lot of action - in fact I'm half-way done with it, at just over 7,000 words, and arguably nothing at all has happened so far aside from a lot of character and setting development/establishment. I tried to hint at tension and conflict in the first 13 lines, but if you were to make an impression based on those 13 lines on the rest of the novella, you'd be very far off.

I've been drawn to a couple of notions. First, start late in the story, as late as you can manage. If anything has to be said about what happened before the story opens, use backfill or have a flashback or something. But start late.

I see alot of this in TV and movies right now, you start in the middle of the action or conflict and then fill in the back story as it progresses.

In the world of the sound bite this can be very effective, you grab the reader/viewer by dropping them right in the middle of it, and hopefully the situation is compelling enough that they want to know how it came to be. Then you can unfold the story and fill in the events leading up to the start.

Damages on FX is taking this approach at the moment and it is keeping me watching.

Good luck...

quote:

---

I see alot of this in TV and movies right now, you start in the middle of the action or conflict and then fill in the back story as it progresses.

---

Must we encourage others to emulate cheap entertainment that lacks the basic understanding of what makes a story? TV and Movies don't feel they can keep a viewers interest if they don't do something drastic in the first scene. I would suggest reading a few good books as guides to writing over tv...I watch less and less tv, not because I dislike tv, but because there is little worth bothering with. Cheap melodrama with a few flashy effects then we go into flashback hell to try and make sense of it all.

Here is OSC's take on the start in the action then try and justify it with flashbacks.

I would suggest starting before the emperor is killed. Start close to the point where she has made up her own mind to go along with the murder. Let her show her doubt, but as well as her conviction of what she is doing. Make the reader believe the emperor is all the evil her lover claims....then pull it all apart after and let her see how wrong she was.

You could create a very good story if you play off the emotional side of what she goes through and how it drives her motivations and actions.

I think the answer has to do with the type of story. (See the appropriate ref to OSC's book above.)

If it's about the action, then start with action.

If its about the universe somebody lives in (milieu), it's OK to have more setup - as in Tolkien.

If it's a murder mystery, then start with "blood on the floor."

I think you have to make choices (degree of initial setup, amount of characterization, amount of setting, etc.) to fit the facet(s) of the story you want to focus on. If you want to write about the characters changing you probably need to establish who the character is before launching them into a life changing event, even if the story is think with plot. In many cases this can be done is a few short entertaining pages.

Also, you should be true to the story type - don't write 80 pages of character background then 400 pages of action.

There is also a self-contradictory main character--which is something I find quite tasty. (Note: Contradicting herself is not the same thing as acting contrary to her nature.)

She is unaware of the evil of murdering the king, and surprised by the evil inherent in the dude who enables and assists her evil schemes. Her ambition blinds her, but she finds remorse in the consequences of her ambition. You could do all kinds of tortuous things to and with her--she's good for a sit in the ol' crucible.

quote:

---

But the story I want to tell is of a character driven by ambition, and the cost of her single-mindedness.

---

If this is the real core theme, I think you could go either way. You could come in at the death of the king with her thinking she's the cat with the cream--then start making her suffer right away by observing the consequences. I think you could write an interesting story about that without the repeated attempts to dispose of the new king. She could go through denial, horror, remorse, resolve, and a bunch of other things before she attempts to get rid of him. All of these things could be focused around your objective quoted above.

But I think you could write just as compelling a story about her ambition building up to the murder of the king. (You could even end it there--realizing the horror she had caused.)

What I *might* do--and I'm not sure how this fits for you--is separate it into two stories to be knitted into one. Have you figured out the story elements of your piece? (Catalyst, 1st turning point, complication/mid-turning point, second turning point, climax, resolution) You might find three sets of these--One set for the entire story, another for the first half, and a third for the second half.

For example:

Entire story
Catalyst: Mother of MC gets murdered placing MC in political position of access and results in alliance with dude (who secretly killed her mother.)
Turning point: Attempt to kill the king with help of cadre commits her to secret cadre for the long haul.
Midpoint: The king is killed. MC and dude jockey for power with others using brutality. Dude starts reign of evil.
Second turning point: MC discovers he murdered her mother and attempts to dispose of dude, but fails.
Climax: While evading dude who wants her head, she finds remorse for her methods and finds a way to depose him without violence.
Resolution: Herbie the doorman is made king due to his recognized humility and justice. (It is discovered that he was a secret trusted advisor of the previous king.)

First half
Catalyst: The humiliation of her brother by the king makes MC determined never to allow it to happen to her and drives her toward seeking power.
Turning point: Mother dies placing her in the political arena. (Avarice drives her political climb.)
Midpoint: Dude captivates her imagination and is credible ally for the throne. Turns her methods subtly to the more sinister side. (Coaxing and smoothly easing her into the rationalizations that seduce her.)
Second turning point: The king is murdered.
Climax: Battle to the death among the contenders with dude winning.
Resolution: MC becomes queen with dude as king.

Second Half
Catalyst: Dude and MC become king and queen.
Turning point: Dude kills the entire parliament--many of them MC's allies.
Midpoint: Dude threatens MC and forces her to help him root out "enemies"--one of which is MC's childhood friend. Action gears up as she tries to simultaneously appease the king, yet protect her friend. This culminates with MC learning dude killed momma.
Second turning point: She attempts to or arranges for dude's disposal.
Climax: By way of him pursuing her, she leads dude into a trap where he is overpowered and imprisoned.
Resolution: MC and her best friend open a flower shop in front of the moat.

Those are just bleary-eyed wacks at it, but there's a lot of rich potential in all three of those, and weaving them together would make a pretty involved novel with lots of action. I would say go for it regardless of what piece of it you emphasize most.

If you can handle it, here’s another 2 cents worth: I wouldn’t put trust in any prof who encourages scrapping all 80 pages, the very heart of your creation. Maybe he’s after full control; virgin students with blank slates. Or he may be leaning toward a more dynamic beginning that leads into the story you’ve already written. I’d work on that before beginning anew; it's a less painful choice.

quote:

---

I wouldn’t put trust in any prof who encourages scrapping all 80 pages, the very heart of your creation.

---

I would probably take the professor seriously--but I would still engage my own judgment.

You will have a hard time making a murderous, ambitious person sympathetic. That isn't to say it can't be done. After all the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant was about a rapist. But I think you might run into some difficulties with it.