Conflict so soon?

[Lifelongdagger]

After a serving up the first few hundred words of my wip in SYW, one of the comments was that there was no conflict. That it would be a no sell unless the conflict, or a conflict, was made apparent to a reading agent/publisher in the first three or four paragraphs. Just wondered what the consensus on this was.

Many thanks,

Ian

[IdiotsRUs]

Well, maybe not the main conflict of the book - but I'd say something should occur, conflictwise, pretty sharpish.

If there's nothing happening ( or nothing interesting) why have those paragraphs there? Start where the story starts - where the normal life of your MC starts to go pear-shaped. If you do that, a conflict - even if it's a minor one - will be right there at the opening.

[Misa Buckley]

There needs to be some form of conflict from the start. That doesn't need to be a major bone of contention; your character simply being disaffected with his/her lot is enough.

Conflict in a story is the catalyst for action. After that first conflict, it should be a case of cause and effect. So the conflict results in the character doing something that has a certain outcome. That outcome effects what the charatcer does next. And so on.

I also need to apply this rule to my novels - I'm terribly good at the theory, not so great in practise!

[Lifelongdagger]

Thanks, IRU and misadatas.

The conflict is there, but just a bit too far down. Just need to shift it up a bit further, kill some darlings, and I think I have it.

Cheers,

Ian

[bearilou]

where the normal life of your MC starts to go pear-shaped.

For an unknown reason, this description on how to start a story made everything click into place for me.

Thanks!

[Rolling Thunder]

Tension. At the minimum there should be some sort of tension on each page.

[Cyia]

Well, maybe not the main conflict of the book - but I'd say something should occur, conflictwise, pretty sharpish.

If there's nothing happening ( or nothing interesting) why have those paragraphs there? Start where the story starts - where the normal life of your MC starts to go pear-shaped. If you do that, a conflict - even if it's a minor one - will be right there at the opening.

Exactly.

The only thing that makes a story worth reading is that moment where their normal life diverges from everyone else's. If that moment is a meteorite crashing through the ceiling so the alien inside can crown your MC king of the universe, you don't want to waste three pages on how the MC ate his eggs that morning. Cut it as close to impact as possible.

[Cuppa]

I have a few simple rules, to guide most people who have problems with their ch 1.

1. No more than three paragraphs at the beginning of Ch 1. So pare down all those boring paragraphs after three. After three, I start to lose interest.

2. Start as close to the dialogue as possible. You think the reader needs backstory? Chances are they don't. All backstory looks pretty much the same and gets boring.

3. Kill all repetition in the first chapter. Stop pounding information into the readers head, especially when we have met a character the PoV doesn't like and so on.

One thing I often see in SYW is paragraph after paragraph, repetition after repetition. Usually the dialogue and the beats end up showing what has been driven into the reader's head by the previous telling in the paragraphs above.

Edit:

Course, this may not apply to Contemp. I don't read contemporary at all, so I have no clue what's expected.

[Libbie]

After a serving up the first few hundred words of my wip in SYW, one of the comments was that there was no conflict. That it would be a no sell unless the conflict, or a conflict, was made apparent to a reading agent/publisher in the first three or four paragraphs. Just wondered what the consensus on this was.

Many thanks,

Ian

Without reading the rest of the thread, I'm going to open my big mouth and say that the first page doesn't need to do anything but make the reader want to read the next page. Whether you use conflict, voice, or setting to accomplish that doesn't really matter.

I do agree that SOME conflict -- or at least the promise of a conflict -- needs to come early on in the manuscript, but in the first couple of paragraphs? That seems extreme to me.

[Cuppa]

Without reading the rest of the thread, I'm going to open my big mouth and say that the first page doesn't need to do anything but make the reader want to read the next page. Whether you use conflict, voice, or setting to accomplish that doesn't really matter.

I do agree that SOME conflict -- or at least the promise of a conflict -- needs to come early on in the manuscript, but in the first couple of paragraphs? That seems extreme to me.

Yeah, I agree with that. Writing fiction is not the same as writing a thesis statement. All you have to do is hook them, and you can do that anyway you want to.

[maestrowork]

hs at the beginning of Ch 1. So pare down all those boring paragraphs after three. After three, I start to lose interest.


I think 3 is already too late. If you give me only character descriptions and how beautiful the house is for 3 OPENING paragraphs, if you don't start with some kind of intrigue or tension, I'll put the book down... UNLESS the writing is incredibly exceptional, brilliant.

2. Start as close to the dialogue as possible. You think the reader needs backstory? Chances are they don't. All backstory looks pretty much the same and gets boring.


I don't see what dialogue has to do with it. Narrative doesn't mean it's all backstories. I suggest skip back stories or find a better way to include them (dialogue, for example), but it doesn't mean you have to start with dialogue. The entire first chapter could be action (narrative) only and that would work.

The most common "mistakes" writers make in their first chapter (or even chapters) are:

- that's not the start of the story. Instead, the start of the story is three chapters later. Instead, try to begin the book as close to the inciting incident as possible. Then you can fall back into some flashbacks if you want.

- start with a bunch of "crane" shots -- it's a movie term, meaning the movie starts with a long shot of the town, then zoom in to a house, then zoom in and then you see the characters waking up or having breakfast or whatever "ordinary" world they live in. That could go on for another 10 minutes. It would work for a movie because these scenes are short and also movie-goers are captive. If you do that with a novel, they will put the book down.

- start with a HUGE conflict (explosions, mayhem,, end of the world, whatever) when we don't even know the characters yet. This may work with thrillers when the main characters will show up later to clean up the mess, and the rest of the book is equally or more thrilling. Otherwise, you've set up huge expectations.

- back stories or tons of info dump/exposition/explanations. If you start the book thinking the readers are going to be lost without all that explanations and "why things are," then you've already insulted their intelligence. Plus you've revealed too much already. It's like showing your hand too quickly in a poker game. Also, Explaineverythingitis is a common disease for many writers.

A lot of these problems stem from the fact that it's the start of the story and the writer is trying to get it all together. Character development, settings, background stories, etc. etc. It's the literary equivalent of "clearing one's throat" before speaking or singing. So, write them out in the first draft. Write them so you can get into your groove. But once you did, in your rewrites find the real beginning of the book and start the novel there. Rearrange everything else if you must.

[C.M.C.]

Most will say that you need to have a conflict on the first page, but I would broaden that advice. You don't need to have a conflict, but you need to have something dramatic or interesting that will grip the reader. The style today has conditioned readers into needing a hook on the first page, and I don't see the trend dying out anytime soon. In this age of short attention spans, I consider it solid advice.

[IdiotsRUs]

Whether you use conflict, voice, or setting to accomplish that doesn't really matter.

Of course in a perfect world it'd be all three :D A good voice or a way with description won't get you far though, because the sonflict is why we're reading the book ( usually). A strong voice that waffles on about something unimportant is just as boring as starting with a description of the weather. It'd have to be pretty damn outstanding to keep me reading - without some tension ( I think RT has it right, tension is a better word) or the threat of it, even if it's only the MC worrying about the parking ticket they're about to get, because they're late for a vital interview and then...if there's no tension, it's...how do I put it...flat.

Without tension, I have no urge to read the next page, no matter how pretty the writing, I think 'Aha, book with small plot bulked up with nice writing.' Harsh maybe - but then again agents aren't reading your first page for the good of their health. They - and others - read for the story. And story = tension, worry, even if it's a small worry.

Even a description can have tension, of course.

[Ruth2]

Hmm. I went back to look at my WIP and on one hand I can see cutting the first three paragraphs, but... on the other hand just plopping readers down into the fourth paragraph would be confusing.... hmm... decisions, decisions....

[maestrowork]

Hmm. I went back to look at my WIP and on one hand I can see cutting the first three paragraphs, but... on the other hand just plopping readers down into the fourth paragraph would be confusing.... hmm... decisions, decisions....

Or rewrite the 4th paragraph as 1st so it wouldn't be confusing.

[VChandler]

I think it depends on what kind of book you're writing. If it's a thriller or sci fi, then yeah, you probably need some conflict/action early on. In a character driven genre I think you need some time to get to know the character. At least a little bit. No, we don't need to know how they slept, or what they're eating for breakfast (*deleting that from my novel now...*), but I think we need to have a feel for what they're about before their world comes crashing down around them.
Of course, this is all just my personal opinion. I haven't been around here all that long, so I'm learning right along with you.

[Cuppa]

I think 3 is already too late. If you give me only character descriptions and how beautiful the house is for 3 OPENING paragraphs, if you don't start with some kind of intrigue or tension, I'll put the book down... UNLESS the writing is incredibly exceptional, brilliant.

Should have clarified:

1. I don't believe the 'conflict' has to be introduced in the first chapter, at all. Something needs to be there to hook the reader, and book-wide conflict doesn't have to be it. I personally think you should hook the reader with Character is dialogue first and foremost. The world and situation you created for that character are probably not that unique when you pare it down. Your character though, can be unique!

2. I would like to see action (fighting, running, walking to a fight, mentally preparing for a business meeting, family arriving outside, whatever) in those first three paragraphs. I wasn't saying that the first three should be filled with character descriptions and so on.

I don't see what dialogue has to do with it. Narrative doesn't mean it's all backstories. I suggest skip back stories or find a better way to include them (dialogue, for example), but it doesn't mean you have to start with dialogue. The entire first chapter could be action (narrative) only and that would work.

Why would the first chapter, filled with narrative action, be interesting (unless it's a really short first chapter). It's not like you care about the character, since you just met the guy/gal. Dialogue creates character, while one writer's narrative is all too often no different than another writer's narrative. Sure, some writers have really good and unique narrative, but most do not. Jack did this, then he did that, then he did some more of this. He didn't like this person, cause that person did this, but it's okay, cause that's the type of person Jack was. Sure, you can show some inner monologue, but it's better to find a place to start off at where there is some dialogue. Dialogue creates character best in my opinion.

We all are separate and unique characters. When you think about it, a character in a book is made up of three things. Dialogue (how he presents himself to people), Inner Monologue (what he is really thinking), and Narrative (his actions and how people see him without knowing him).

If I see someone running down the street, diving between cars and being chased after dobermans. What does that tell me about that person's character? I can make guesses, but running from dobermans does not create character. It simply means you don't want your ass bitten. The situation you are in can tell us something about your character, but it's not the best tool.

Inner Monologue can tell us a lot about a character, but it's use should be limited. We don't want their whole detailed history in interior monologue. Right? People don't have running convo's in their head (at least that's what has been said here at AW). They act! and rarely think before they act!

It is dialogue, compared with action-filled narrative, and inner monologue, that is 100% normal and decides how we should treat a person or view a character. We deal with people through dialogue every day. We can guess what people are thinking through their speech, after we have spoken with them for months and years. It is the most important part of characterization in most cases. I am now saying the other two are not important, but dialogue in most cases should be at the center of your character development. And characters create the book (unless we are talking sci-fi here).

And a good story has good characters!

- that's not the start of the story. Instead, the start of the story is three chapters later. Instead, try to begin the book as close to the inciting incident as possible. Then you can fall back into some flashbacks if you want.'

Jack looked at his enemy, who stood on the dais, and spoke down to Jack as if he was a prophet. Jack knew what he had to say, if he wanted to end this all. No way in hell was he going to let the prophet win. So Jack spoke to the prophet, and he knew that the Priest were going to stand up against blackmail.

Jack reached for his gun, but the so-called prophet saw it coming and dived off the dais and into a side door. Jack chased after him. He wouldn't let the man win.


The prophet looked down at Jack. "My plan is in motion. Soon, all of the churches will be under my command."

"You think it'll be so easy?" Jack said. "Even the Priests won't allow you to blackmail them because of a few photos."

Jack reached for his gun, but the prophet saw it coming and dived off the stage and dashed for the door. Jack's shot rang out as the door closed behind the prophet.

"I won't let you win!" Jack yelled, dashing to the door and chasing after the prophet.


Not the best example, but imagine the narrative going on and on. It doesn't matter if it's filled with action. All writers can do a conflict scene and some can do them quite well. But first we must be interested in the character. One writer's chapter filled with some character running for his life in the woods, with hunting dogs on his trail is not much different than another character's stealing of documents from the inside of a business in downtown New York.

Show us some dialogue, build the character, then bring about the inciting incident. You can do all of that in a chapter 1.

- back stories or tons of info dump/exposition/explanations. If you start the book thinking the readers are going to be lost without all that explanations and "why things are," then you've already insulted their intelligence. Plus you've revealed too much already. It's like showing your hand too quickly in a poker game. Also, Explaineverythingitis is a common disease for many writers.

Agreed, and that is why they need to get to the dialogue. Just the other day, in SYW, I saw a piece where the character goes on about how she and this person had conflict. The character, in inner monologue, described the antagonist in detail. What happened a few paragraphs later? They have dialogue, where this conflict comes up. This makes the previous paragraphs quite pointless. As I've said in my first post in this thread, my advice was advice for most writers, not all.

A lot of these problems stem from the fact that it's the start of the story and the writer is trying to get it all together. Character development, settings, background stories, etc. etc. It's the literary equivalent of "clearing one's throat" before speaking or singing. So, write them out in the first draft. Write them so you can get into your groove. But once you did, in your rewrites find the real beginning of the book and start the novel there. Rearrange everything else if you must.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, and the real beginning is often with dialogue, or a few (3 at most) paragraphs before that dialogue.


Now, as I have pointed out, my simple rules are what most writers should probably follow, if they have ch 1 problems. They are certainly not rules for everyone. I am sure there are good as hell writers out there who can write a hooking chapter 1 with just narrative. Also, the books I read have action in them. As I said above, I am not a contemporary or lit reader. So maybe it's done differently there. I have no clue.

It is just that from the stories I often read in the YA SYW, the real story starts with the dialogue, and everything the writer wrote before that ends up being mentioned again or completely forgotten about.

So take my little rules with a grain of salt if you want to.

Edit: Okay, I edited this a bit after posting, but I'm done now! :D

[job]

Hmm. I went back to look at my WIP and on one hand I can see cutting the first three paragraphs, but... on the other hand just plopping readers down into the fourth paragraph would be confusing.... hmm... decisions, decisions....

Actually
<cough>
the advice I give most folks working on their first manuscript is to finish the whole thing, then chop off the first three chapters.

It is surprising how often this is an improvement.

[IdiotsRUs]

1. I don't believe the 'conflict' has to be introduced in the first chapter, at all. Something needs to be there to hook the reader, and book-wide conflict doesn't have to be it.


In a character driven genre I think you need some time to get to know the character. At least a little bit.

It doesn't have to be THE conflict -- but there should be A conflict.

It could be a book about the effect of magical bison on the ozone levels and the end of the world as we know it - but you could start with MC worried about his job when the boss calls him in unexpectedly.

As for dialogue revealing character -- that's a tricky one. It can do, sure, and it definitely reveals their voice. But the real test of a character is how they react to change and / or conflict. That shows the character rather than telling it.

Because there's plenty of people who talk the talk - how many actually walk the walk when it comes to the crunch?

[job]

What is needed in the opening of the story:

Good writing.
The reader has to be convinced she is in safe hands.

Something interesting.
A reason to turn to the next page. A 'what comes next?'

What is optional, rather than required, at the opening of the story:

The protagonist
Dialog
Active movement
Conflict
Explanation of what's going on

To find out how to start stories, go to the nearest library or brick-and-mortar, pull down fifty authors in a row, and look at the first page. Or you can hunt down first pages on-line. Look at recent and excellent books. There are many lists. An Amazon list is here (http://www.amazon.com/Recommended-modern-authors-mainstream-literary/lm/R12DC1LCRCP6MF). You can find the first pages of most of these on googlebooks. Fr'instance, here (http://books.google.com/books?id=YRxPSGS5eq0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=haruf+plainsong&ei=kIfcSqCoJpOwNdatoYYM#v=onepage&q=&f=false), here (http://books.google.com/books?id=fPpi4XAQ9iQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=irving+garp&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&ei=AIjcSuXcK5nMMNHtiJ4P#v=onepage&q=&f=false), here (http://books.google.com/books?id=Q8zM_BuvaroC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mccarthy+country+old+men&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&ei=RYjcSunZJo3GNeO8sJMP#v=onepage&q=&f=false). here (http://books.google.com/books?id=imkY1LqFwWMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=oates+missing+mom&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&ei=e4jcSrXDNoeuNrzS5YoP#v=onepage&q=&f=false), here (http://books.google.com/books?id=-KqAKQ6_60oC&printsec=frontcover&dq=block+all+the+flowers&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&ei=w4jcSpOnDIfMMKSMoNAF#v=onepage&q=&f=false).

It will soon be obvious that there are no 'rules' about how to start a story, though you'll begin to notice commonalities in technique.

What you will always see is good writing and the ability to create intriguing questions that lure the reader onward.

[Cuppa]

It doesn't have to be THE conflict -- but there should be A conflict.

It could be a book about the effect of magical bison on the ozone levels and the end of the world as we know it - but you could start with MC worried about his job when the boss calls him in unexpectedly.


Did I say there shouldn't be? In both of my first chapters, there is conflict. Not The conflict, but A conflict.

Edit: And I can't stress how important it is when I say "most writers should probably do this". Robert Jordan (if he was still alive) could have wrote a whole book filled with narrative (if it was around 400 pgs :D ), and I would have read the whole damn thing, hating every minute of it. Cause I love his style, even if it breaks the rules. Maybe you all have a fav author who can do that too. One whose writing you just love.

[IdiotsRUs]

Did I say there shouldn't be? In both of my first chapters, there is conflict. Not The conflict, but A conflict.
.

Er, well it was you I quoted, which seemed a little vague. I was using that and expanding in my answer to illustrate my point - that it doesn't have to be book wide conflict.

[Cuppa]

As for dialogue revealing character -- that's a tricky one. It can do, sure, and it definitely reveals their voice. But the real test of a character is how they react to change and / or conflict. That shows the character rather than telling it.

Because there's plenty of people who talk the talk - how many actually walk the walk when it comes to the crunch?

I agree. Maybe I didn't give narrative enough credit. Let me just note I am talking about the first chapter though. I am not saying you should have nothing but dialogue. All three are good to me, which is why I write in 3rd limited and 1st. Ch 1 is tricky and different though, and I would rather see more dialogue than narrative in the first chapter. Then put them in any conflict (which you can do in the first chapter of course). That could just be me though...

Er, well it was you I quoted, which seemed a little vague. I was using that and expanding in my answer to illustrate my point - that it doesn't have to be book wide conflict.

Ah, okay. My fault.

[Ruth2]

Chop the first three chapters? But I only have 8 chapters.... lol!

And of course I LOVE my first three paragraphs.... love 'em love 'em love 'em. Alas.

[job]

Chop the first three chapters? But I only have 8 chapters.... lol!

And of course I LOVE my first three paragraphs.... love 'em love 'em love 'em. Alas.

Finish the other 27 chapters of the manuscript. THEN reconsider the first three chapters. <g>

And, who knows, you may end up keeping those first three paras.

[Ruth2]

Ha ha! If I did more chapters based on my current word count, I'd be over 350K words. I doubt anyone would want to wade through that.

[mhughes]

Can't really add a great deal that hasn't already been said, so I'll leave this tidbit I learned recently that led to a total revision of my first two chapters to increase the conflict/tension:

"The first sentence buys you the first page. The first page buys you the first chapter. The first chapter buys the book."

[MGraybosch]

The way I see it: if you can't show the shit hitting the fan in the first couple of pages of chapter 1, at least show the shit flying towards the fan.

[VChandler]

The way I see it: if you can't show the shit hitting the fan in the first couple of pages of chapter 1, at least show the shit flying towards the fan.

LMAO!! Now that's what I call foreshadowing!

[job]

Ha ha! If I did more chapters based on my current word count, I'd be over 350K words. I doubt anyone would want to wade through that.

Then, when you get to the end of your story, remove the first 15% to 20%.

Is the story perfectly understandable without them?

If so, that first 15% of your manuscript may be 'warming up the engine' and 'explaining why stuff is going to happen', rather than stuff happening.

[Ruth2]

I like the "shit hitting the fan" example. Good one!

Also like the "story perfectly understandable without them" example too. Kewl!

[motormind]

You need conflict on every page.

[ishtar'sgate]

The most common "mistakes" writers make in their first chapter (or even chapters) are:


- start with a bunch of "crane" shots -- it's a movie term, meaning the movie starts with a long shot of the town, then zoom in to a house, then zoom in and then you see the characters waking up or having breakfast or whatever "ordinary" world they live in. That could go on for another 10 minutes. It would work for a movie because these scenes are short and also movie-goers are captive. If you do that with a novel, they will put the book down.


I did that with my last historical novel. For me it seemed quite necessary becuase I wanted to set people in the time period before launching into the story itself. The first paragraph was a brief description of the medieval village in which the story would take place. I zoomed in to watch people following a funeral cart up to the church on the hill then listened in while they discussed their suspicions that the dead had been murdered. The motive seems apparent as the next scene is of the new lord and lady coming to claim their inherited estate. Without the setting, I think the historical would have lacked context.
My current historical WIP follows the same pattern, although abbreviated. There will be a brief description of the ancient city of Babylon and its surroundings and then straight on to a lion hunt in the marshland just beyond the city. I've toyed with reversing it - lion hunt then city description -and I may do that once I'm finished but a description of the city will be made very early on. The number one statistical reason that people read historicals is to lose themselves in another time. To get the full experience they have to feel they are there and IMO description is a necessary component.

[MGraybosch]

LMAO!! Now that's what I call foreshadowing!

I like the "shit hitting the fan" example. Good one!

I just couldn't resist.

[maestrowork]

I personally think you should hook the reader with Character is dialogue first and foremost. The world and situation you created for that character are probably not that unique when you pare it down. Your character though, can be unique!


That's one way to write, but not the only way. And without some kind of tension or conflict, why should we care about these characters and what they say? Dialogue doesn't just develop characters, but they also should move the plot along and make us wonder, "what happened to these people next?" If you just have a bunch of people talking about their lives without any kind of tension or conflict between them, I'll lose interest soon no matter how "interesting" these personalities are. In fact, I hate stories with quirky characters just for quirky's sake without any kind of plot moving them forward.



2. I would like to see action (fighting, running, walking to a fight, mentally preparing for a business meeting, family arriving outside, whatever) in those first three paragraphs. I wasn't saying that the first three should be filled with character descriptions and so on.

Those are tension and conflict. Why should we care if the MC's mother-in-law is outside on the driveway? UNLESS we get to see conflict: the MIL is a bitch and the MC wants to strangle her. ;) But without any kind of conflict or tension, then it's just another day when a family member visits. Ho-hum. Why should we care if the MC is running to a meeting? Unless we can feel the tension and conflict: what's at stake? If she misses the meeting, she'd be fired! Now that's interesting. Otherwise, it'd be like: oh well, so she's running... why should I care?


Why would the first chapter, filled with narrative action, be interesting (unless it's a really short first chapter). It's not like you care about the character, since you just met the guy/gal. Dialogue creates character

Dialogue is only one way to develop characters and make us care about them. There are other ways, including action-only scenes with nary a line of dialogue. It could work.

The point is to make things interesting, and to give us interesting characters. We may not even care about them, but we want to go along because they have to be at least interesting. That I agree. But to say we can only do that with dialogue and thus we must start the first chapter with dialogue is restrictive. There are stories I've read that did not start with any dialogue, and the characters were just as riveting because of what they DO. Dialogue is only one way to reveal character.

[maestrowork]

I did that with my last historical novel. For me it seemed quite necessary becuase I wanted to set people in the time period before launching into the story itself. The first paragraph was a brief description of the medieval village in which the story would take place. I zoomed in to watch people following a funeral cart up to the church on the hill then listened in while they discussed their suspicions that the dead had been murdered. The motive seems apparent as the next scene is of the new lord and lady coming to claim their inherited estate. Without the setting, I think the historical would have lacked context.

Does it? Certainly you need to set your scenes and tell the readers where and when they are. But can't you do all that within the context of the plot movement? The "crane shot" is that there's no plot movement. We have the "establishing shots" -- that's all. In novel terms, you've just stopped the story to describe the town, the townsfolk, etc. Do we really need all that to understand "yes, we're in a medieval village"?

Why not start with the discussion (with a hint of where they are), then back away and show us the funeral progression? I think that'd be more interesting...

[Cyia]

You need conflict on every page.

Only if never want to reach a resolution.

[motormind]

Only if never want to reach a resolution.

Nope. You need conflict all the time, large scale as well as small.

[maestrowork]

Nope. You need conflict all the time, large scale as well as small.


No, you don't.

Tension and conflict are not the same thing, by the way.

You need tension in every scene, but not necessarily conflict. Tension could be something as simple as "does he, does he not?" or "trying to get somewhere" to "the world is going to end in 24 hours" or "can I learn this magic trick and impress my whole class?"

Conflicts require one thing/person against something else -- that is not necessary to be present on every page.

[JanDarby]

Just a quick note -- dialogue done right usually IS a form of conflict.

Also, character in conflict tells us much more about who that character is than any amount of introspection or non-conflicted dialogue. The conflict establishes what the character wants and the degree to which she'll go to get it; conflict tests the character and brings out the character's true traits in a way that the reader will believe more readily than the narrator's description of them, whether that narrator is an omniscient one or the character's own thoughts.

JD

[Cyia]

No, you don't.

Tension and conflict are not the same thing, by the way.

You need tension in every scene, but not necessarily conflict. Tension could be something as simple as "does he, does he not?" or "trying to get somewhere" to "the world is going to end in 24 hours" or "can I learn this magic trick and impress my whole class?"

Conflicts require one thing/person against something else -- that is not necessary to be present on every page.

Yep.

Conflicts are supposed to be resolved over the course of the story. Tension gives the reader hope for more stories down the line.

Think of it like a TV-series. Each story arc has a completion by the end of a season, but things like UST (unresolved sexual tension) keep people tuning in even after that conflict has been dealt with.

One is a pressure cooker, the other is simmer. You can't keep the pressure on indefinitely.

[backslashbaby]

I have to agree with Maestro on the dialogue front. Maybe I read too much of Ian Flemming's James Bond in my formative years ;)

My character doesn't have a conversation in the first chapter. She sees supernatural things, gets lost in a Transilvanian marsh and has a run-in with angry wild boars, though. Hopefully that'll do. The narrative commentary is supposed to carry it, actually(it's black humour). It's still my 1st draft, so it's fine if it won't. Tell me what you think, if you like.

[lucidzfl]

I hate to bring up Stephen King and the Gunslinger but check out his opener:

------------------
The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.

The desert was the apotheosis of all deserts, huge, standing to the sky for what looked like eternity in all directions. It was white and blinding and waterless and without feature save for the faint, cloudy haze of the mountains which sketched themselves on the horizon and the devil-grass which brought sweet dreams, nightmares, death. An occasional tombstone sign pointed the way, for once the drifted track that cut its way through the thick crust of alkali had been a highway. Coaches and buckas had followed it. The world had moved on since then. The world had emptied.
------------------

The very first line establishes the action/conflict, even though the majority of the rest of the first few pages is description. But he DID get the conflict out there right away.

[maestrowork]

Think of it like a TV-series. Each story arc has a completion by the end of a season, but things like UST (unresolved sexual tension) keep people tuning in even after that conflict has been dealt with.

I can pick out all kinds of scenes in the Harry Potter books/movies where there is plenty of tension, but no conflicts. And dare we say Rowling is wrong?

[maestrowork]

The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.



The very first line establishes the action/conflict, even though the majority of the rest of the first few pages is description. But he DID get the conflict out there right away.

Again, I would draw the distinction between tension and conflict.

The first line has tension -- the gunslinger is following the man in black. However, the conflict is only implied. There may not be any conflict at all. The gunslinger may only be following the man in black to give him a ride and a pint of whiskey for all we know.

But it has tension: the readers don't know what the gunslinger wants, or who the man in black is, or what he has done...

But if King had opened the story with the second paragraph (the descriptions) instead, then the tension is gone.

As is, the second paragraph CARRIES the tension forward.

[Cranky]

You can put me firmly in the "it's gotta be interesting" camp. Now, whether that interest takes the form of conflict, or tension, or what-have-you is something that I judge on a case by case basis. The main thing is that I, the reader, must be interested enough to read on to the next sentence, paragraph, and page. How that is accomplished really doesn't matter to me. The only rule is, "Don't bore me!"

[Lady Ice]

I think that in the first few paragraphs, you need to establish why the story, the conflict, happened at that particular time. It could have happened at any time, but it didn't- and why?

[maestrowork]

I think that in the first few paragraphs, you need to establish why the story, the conflict, happened at that particular time. It could have happened at any time, but it didn't- and why?

Because the character lives in that time?

[lucidzfl]

Again, I would draw the distinction between tension and conflict.

The first line has tension -- the gunslinger is following the man in black. However, the conflict is only implied. There may not be any conflict at all. The gunslinger may only be following the man in black to give him a ride and a pint of whiskey for all we know.

But it has tension: the readers don't know what the gunslinger wants, or who the man in black is, or what he has done...

But if King had opened the story with the second paragraph (the descriptions) instead, then the tension is gone.

As is, the second paragraph CARRIES the tension forward.

Good point about the difference between conflict and tension, and you're right, paragraph two builds off of the tension.

[MGraybosch]

I think that in the first few paragraphs, you need to establish why the story, the conflict, happened at that particular time. It could have happened at any time, but it didn't- and why?

Doesn't that require exposition, backstory, and a lot of other stuff you should probably leave until after you've hooked the reader? :)

[Cyia]

I think that in the first few paragraphs, you need to establish why the story, the conflict, happened at that particular time. It could have happened at any time, but it didn't- and why?

Back to my meteor -

No one needs to know WHY the thing fell through Joe Characterman's roof into his scrambled eggs. Only that it DID. They why is part of the journey of the story.

[Samantha's_Song]

I don't, I want believable characters; characters that interest me and whom I can either love or hate. A novel with conflict on every page would remind me of action films, which are mostly boring, once you've seen one car chase, you've seen them all, so long as that one car chase if from Ronin. :D
You need conflict on every page.

[Cuppa]

That's one way to write, but not the only way. And without some kind of tension or conflict, why should we care about these characters and what they say? Dialogue doesn't just develop characters, but they also should move the plot along and make us wonder, "what happened to these people next?" If you just have a bunch of people talking about their lives without any kind of tension or conflict between them, I'll lose interest soon no matter how "interesting" these personalities are. In fact, I hate stories with quirky characters just for quirky's sake without any kind of plot moving them forward.

Who said there could be no narrative? Or plot? Or 'tension'? I didn't. My point was that a chapter full of nothing but narrative (unless it was well written and distinctive or or had an interesting character (or both) ) would probably be boring. If I see a first chapter filled with paragraph after paragraph, the first thing I think of is that I don't want to read that. My other point was that if the writing is topnotch, or if it hints that it will get good, I will keep reading to the chapter two. Tension is great and it should be there. Note that I said you didn't need conflict. I have no problem if you throw in the conflict of the book in the first chapter, but it's not needed.


Those are tension and conflict. Why should we care if the MC's mother-in-law is outside on the driveway? UNLESS we get to see conflict: the MIL is a bitch and the MC wants to strangle her. ;) But without any kind of conflict or tension, then it's just another day when a family member visits. Ho-hum. Why should we care if the MC is running to a meeting? Unless we can feel the tension and conflict: what's at stake? If she misses the meeting, she'd be fired! Now that's interesting. Otherwise, it'd be like: oh well, so she's running... why should I care?

Yes, they are. I use 'action' cause it implies both (to me at least). How do you get to see the conflict? Have the mother-in-law walk and throw some dialogue into the mix.

I sit down for breakfast, and before I take a bite of bacon, I hear the honking of my mother-in-law's Oldsmobile. I sigh and look at my wife. Why she wants to torture me with her mother once a month, I have no clue.

I get up, open the door and find myself face-to-face with the woman. "Luggage in the trunk, and Charlie in the back seat" she says, handing me a key and pushing me out of the way. "Lock the door when done!"

Dialogue is only one way to develop characters and make us care about them. There are other ways, including action-only scenes with nary a line of dialogue. It could work.

I agree and I mentioned that earlier. It's why I write in 1st and 3rd limited/close. I use all three in good measure. But to sprang nothing but narrative in the first chapter?

The point is to make things interesting, and to give us interesting characters. We may not even care about them, but we want to go along because they have to be at least interesting. That I agree. But to say we can only do that with dialogue and thus we must start the first chapter with dialogue is restrictive. There are stories I've read that did not start with any dialogue, and the characters were just as riveting because of what they DO. Dialogue is only one way to reveal character.

I did not say you must start the first chapter with dialogue. I said you want to get to the dialogue as fast as possible. That is why I use the 3 paragraph limit.

I have read books with 'action-only' narrative. Acacia comes to mind. It was a first chapter with an assassin making his way to kill the king (which he does, many chapters later and trust me, that's not a spoiler). It was boring and nothing hooked! Anybody can write that! Some amazon reviews compare this book with A Game of Thrones. A Game of Thrones starts with dialogue in the prologue.

Acacia- amazon look inside (http://www.amazon.com/Acacia-War-Mein-Book/dp/0385722524/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255973603&sr=8-1)
A Game of Thrones Ch 1 (http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780553103540&view=excerpt)

Couldn't find the prologue online, but it's still a good enough comparison. I'm sure someone who has read ASoIaF and can read that bit of Acacia can tell you that ASoIaF starts off better (and it's not just because GRRM is a better writer).

Examples - 109 words each - hopefully under fair use:

Acacia Ch 1-

The assassin left the stronghold of Mein Tahalian by the great front gate, riding through a crack in the armored pine beams just wide enough to let him slip out. He departed at sunrise, dressed much as any soldier of the Mein. He wore a cloak of elk fur that wrapped his body completely. It even covered his legs and gave warmth to the large-hoofed mount beneath him. Over his torso he wore a breastplate of double thickness: two sheaves of iron pounded to the contours of his body, with a layer of otter fur pressed beneath him. He moved south through a snow land frozen into gelid brillance.

It^ goes on like that for the whole chapter.

ASoIaF prologue-

We should start back,” Gared urged as the woods began to grow dark around them. “The wildlings are dead.”

“Do the dead frighten you?” Ser Waymar Royce asked with just the hint of a smile.

Gared did not rise to the bait. He was an old man, past fifty, and he had seen the lordlings come and go. “Dead is dead,” he said. “We have no business with the dead.”

“Are they dead?” Royce asked softly. “What proof have we?”

“Will saw them,” Gared said. “If he says they are dead, that’s proof enough for me.”

Will had known they would drag him into the quarrel sooner or later.

I assume that posting this comes under fair use, since it is for 'review' and 'scholarship'. Tell me if I'm wrong.

Which one do you think is better? ;)

[lucidzfl]

I have absolutely no dialog in my book until chapter 3, CupOfDice.

[Cuppa]

I have absolutely no dialog in my book until chapter 3, CupOfDice.

And that's your problem to fix. Or not. Up to your readers to decide. Or you. And maybe your genre is different. No clue.

One thing I still need to make clear is that the little rules I set out on the first page are for most writers! Maybe you need the rules, maybe you don't. I haven't read anything you wrote, so I wouldn't know. I do know that I would rather see dialogue in the first chapter instead of just one long narrative fest, and seeing three chapters like that would make me drop the book and look for another one.

9 times out of 10 (I am totally pulling this number out of my *** btw), when a writer posts the first chapter in the YA and Sci-fi/Fantasy SYW and it has paragraph after paragraph at the beginning, usually there will be repetition and loads of telling (the bad type and they usually end up showing it later, which ends up being repetition: You told us a certain character is bad, now we see that character being bad). The three paragraph rule can work great for that.

[lucidzfl]

And that's your problem to fix. Or not. Up to your readers to decide. Or you. And maybe your genre is different. No clue.

One thing I still need to make clear is that the little rules I set out on the first page are for most writers! Maybe you need the rules, maybe you don't. I haven't read anything you wrote, so I wouldn't know. I do know that I would rather see dialogue in the first chapter instead of just one long narrative fest, and seeing three chapters like that would make me drop the book and look for another one.

9 times out of 10 (I am totally pulling this number out of my *** btw), when a writer posts the first chapter in the YA and Sci-fi/Fantasy SYW and it has paragraph after paragraph at the beginning, usually there will be repetition and loads of telling (the bad type and they usually end up showing it later, which ends up being repetition: You told us a certain character is bad, now we see that character being bad). The three paragraph rule can work great for that.

Wow.... Its not a problem to fix. I did it that way on purpose. And I rather like it.

[Cyia]

Considering mine starts in the middle of a math class, and there's no talking allowed, it's light on dialogue for a while, too.

CoD, this might surprise you, but starting with dialogue is considered one of the major rookie snares. You're banking on the reader sticking with the words of a bunch of people they don't know and don't yet care about. It's usually best to leave the dialogue until there's a bit of context, not the other way around.

[jodiodi]

Of those two selections posted by CupofDice, I like the first one better. It's a matter of taste, I suppose. I like a cinematic book. One I can picture as a movie playing through my mind. In the second selection, I don't care about the people yet, don't know who they are so their opinions mean nothing to me.

That's just IMHO, of course.

ETA: Cyia said it better than I did.

[lucidzfl]

Considering mine starts in the middle of a math class, and there's no talking allowed, it's light on dialogue for a while, too.

CoD, this might surprise you, but starting with dialogue is considered one of the major rookie snares. You're banking on the reader sticking with the words of a bunch of people they don't know and don't yet care about. It's usually best to leave the dialogue until there's a bit of context, not the other way around.

That was my original problem. My previous attempt started with my MC talking to his wife. The primary feedback was that no one gave a shit what they were talking about and using the dialog to provide context was heavy handed.

In the current version, (which, coincidentally and for other reasons takes place about 1 year after my first version) the main character has been tracking his kidnapped wife for months when he finally catches up to the slavers who took her. The entire first chapter is him breaking into the camp, finding out she's already been executed and cremated. He breaks down and goes berzerk on the few surviving slavers and dismembers them.

The second chapter is him returning to his home which he can't stand now, since its empty, and as he looks around and realizes how painful it is to be there (alone and in silence) he decides to leave.

Chapter 3 he finally has dialog when he tells everyone he's leaving.

[backslashbaby]

I agree. I'm also really big on loving an author's voice, which is not as evident in a lot of dialogue usually.

[IdiotsRUs]

It's usually best to leave the dialogue until there's a bit of context, not the other way around.


But the first line never has any context anyway - dialogue or not.

As with everything, it's all in the reflexes, er execution. A good first line of dialogue is as good, in a different way, as a good first line of narrative. As long as they get you to read more - they've done their job.

ETA: and it can hardly be a 'rookie mistake' when so many writers - ones with many published books, or very popular books - do it.

A long stretch of dialogue with not much else probably wouldn't work, but a couple of snappy lines and then some narrative to ground us where the characters are can work very well.

[Cuppa]

Considering mine starts in the middle of a math class, and there's no talking allowed, it's light on dialogue for a while, too.

CoD, this might surprise you, but starting with dialogue is considered one of the major rookie snares. You're banking on the reader sticking with the words of a bunch of people they don't know and don't yet care about. It's usually best to leave the dialogue until there's a bit of context, not the other way around.

1. I did not say the first chapter, in any way, had to be filled with dialogue. Nor did I say it had to start with dialogue. I said 'get to the dialogue as fast as possible' more or less. If it takes you to the end of the chapter to do that, and it works, then no problem. Chapter ones full of narration as in that Acacia excerpt do not affect me.

2. I did not say that you couldn't start off with paragraphs. I said that most (or alot or some) people tend to make mistakes and they should use my little 3 paragraph rule to keep things steady. If you checked out that ch 1 of ASoIaF, you will see GRRM used a good bit of paragraphs. But his writing is topnotch. Maybe yours is too. I am a strong believer in 'if it works, it works'.

3. Where did I say anything about a 'bunch of people'? My MT starts off with four paragraphs, then very little dialogue interspersed along with some more narration. I don't really have a problem with repetition or exposition though (my problems lie elsewhere...).

4. What had the better hook? The Acacia chapter with the Assassin, or the ASoIaF chapter? :D Really would like an opinion on that, since the comparison between both interest me (for other reasons than this convo).

5. Every story requires different beginnings, and sometimes what works for one doesn't work for the other. Whether the PoV is alone and trapped, or whether they are around other people. So the idea that my little rule would apply to every situation is ridiculous, and I never said that. From my third post on the front page, "Now, as I have pointed out, my simple rules are what most writers should probably follow, if they have certain ch 1 problems." And I keep repeating that.

Lastly, What works works! And don't let any rule get in the way of that.

[VChandler]

As far as when to introduce dialogue...

I remember reading somewhere (in one of the gazillion "how to write" books) that an agent or publisher will scan your first few pages just for the layout. If there are big chunks of text, with no dialogue to lighten it up, they will jump to the conclusion that your book is going to be boring.

Now I'm not saying that it's a hard and fast rule to introduce dialogue early on. As a matter of fact, in my book the MC is alone for the first several pages. But I'm curious what everyone's thoughts are on that.

And no, I don't think agents are so robotic that they run true to form. But I do think they are very busy people, and probably have their own little tricks for spotting a good read.

[Wired]

I also prefer the excerpt from Acacia over the other. Those first few sentences put me right into the world, which is what I prefer. The second example had two people I know nothing about, talking about something I don’t care about, in a world I don’t know.

I’m in agreement with Cyia and others in that context is often needed before dialogue. I need to know who these people are and where they are before I can really care much about what they have to say.

But that’s just my opinion. I don’t think there’s any rule for how to open the first chapter other than make sure there is tension.

[ishtar'sgate]

Does it? Certainly you need to set your scenes and tell the readers where and when they are. But can't you do all that within the context of the plot movement?
Why not start with the discussion (with a hint of where they are), then back away and show us the funeral progression? I think that'd be more interesting...
Well, my editor liked it so I guess it worked okay.

[backslashbaby]

As far as when to introduce dialogue...

I remember reading somewhere (in one of the gazillion "how to write" books) that an agent or publisher will scan your first few pages just for the layout. If there are big chunks of text, with no dialogue to lighten it up, they will jump to the conclusion that your book is going to be boring.

Now I'm not saying that it's a hard and fast rule to introduce dialogue early on. As a matter of fact, in my book the MC is alone for the first several pages. But I'm curious what everyone's thoughts are on that.

And no, I don't think agents are so robotic that they run true to form. But I do think they are very busy people, and probably have their own little tricks for spotting a good read.

That's interesting. I'd like to hear more thoughts on this, too.

My MC actually does speak briefly to someone on the train before she gets lost; I just don't think it enhances her character. I use it for plot/hints at what's really going on.

Still, nice to know it would look less navel-gazey than without it :)

[maestrowork]

Who said there could be no narrative? Or plot? Or 'tension'? I didn't. My point was that a chapter full of nothing but narrative (unless it was well written and distinctive or or had an interesting character (or both) ) would probably be boring.


No. I've read chapters with nothing but narrative that is absolutely not boring. To think that something without dialogue is boring or has no character development is simply not true.


If I see a first chapter filled with paragraph after paragraph, the first thing I think of is that I don't want to read that.


Don't mistake prose without dialogue for "bad writing." Good writing is just good writing, dialogue or not.


Yes, they are. I use 'action' cause it implies both (to me at least). How do you get to see the conflict? Have the mother-in-law walk and throw some dialogue into the mix.


You DO NOT need dialogue to add conflict. Not direct conflict anyway.


I did not say you must start the first chapter with dialogue. I said you want to get to the dialogue as fast as possible. That is why I use the 3 paragraph limit.


Again, you're wrong. You want to get to dialogue when the dialogue is needed. You can go for a whole chapter without dialogue as long as it's riveting.

IIRC, the first chapter of The Kite Runner has no dialogue, and it's riveting enough to make me want to turn to Chapter 2.


I have read books with 'action-only' narrative. Acacia comes to mind. ... It was boring and nothing hooked! Anybody can write that!


It's your opinion. It's also your opinion that one should get to dialogue as quickly as possible.

Which is better? It's a matter of opinion. To me, as long as it keeps me reading, I don't really give a crap how it starts, or if there's any dialogue.

[Cyia]

But the first line never has any context anyway - dialogue or not.

As with everything, it's all in the reflexes, er execution. A good first line of dialogue is as good, in a different way, as a good first line of narrative. As long as they get you to read more - they've done their job.

ETA: and it can hardly be a 'rookie mistake' when so many writers - ones with many published books, or very popular books - do it.

A long stretch of dialogue with not much else probably wouldn't work, but a couple of snappy lines and then some narrative to ground us where the characters are can work very well.

Snare, not mistake. A lot of new writers see mentions of "voice" and think that means dialogue is the "easy" way to do it, when it's not - just like many think 1st person is the "easy" way to write a character, when it's not.

[IdiotsRUs]

Well, still a snare that many experienced writers fall into then, and one that works for many readers too, by their sales.

A good first line is a good first line - dialogue, narrative, whatever. As long as it pulls you in and makes you read on, it's done its job.

Personally I like both - either snappy dialogue or a really meaty, evocative chunk of prose can pull me into the story. As a reader I don't care which it is - I care only for the effect.

[Cuppa]

No. I've read chapters with nothing but narrative that is absolutely not boring. To think that something without dialogue is boring or has no character development is simply not true.

Difference of opinion then.

Don't mistake prose without dialogue for "bad writing." Good writing is just good writing, dialogue or not.

Agreed. Doesn't change the fact that if I am in the story, and I see the chapter is filled with nothing but narrative, I am putting it down. Should've followed that personal rule with Acacia. It's been a boring read, filled with telling, very little dialogue, loads of world building that you just stop caring about, so on...

You DO NOT need dialogue to add conflict. Not direct conflict anyway.

Who said you needed to? I was showing that it works just fine with dialogue.

Again, you're wrong. You want to get to dialogue when the dialogue is needed. You can go for a whole chapter without dialogue as long as it's riveting.

Wrong? Where above have you proven me wrong? You seem to find hidden meanings in my words, then attack them instead of what I'm actually saying. Which is, if I see someone facing problems with repetition and exposition in their first chapter, I find that they can often kill the paragraphs above the dialogue and lose nothing. Somehow this convo got into whether nothing but narration for the first chapter can hook. I don't think it can, but as i've said, 'what works works'. Subjective is subjective.

Personally, I find nothing riveting when we can't get to know the character and they are simply going through the rotes of some action scene. Maybe I'm lacking in empathy.

IIRC, the first chapter of The Kite Runner has no dialogue, and it's riveting enough to make me want to turn to Chapter 2.

If it works it works. Said that quite clearly. Course I don't read lit, and my views tend to stick with fantasy for the most part.


It's your opinion. It's also your opinion that one should get to dialogue as quickly as possible.

Which is better? It's a matter of opinion. To me, as long as it keeps me reading, I don't really give a crap how it starts, or if there's any dialogue.

Agreed. I like dialogue and narration and some inner monologue. If either of the first two are missing, then I'll probably stop reading. Blocks of text with any dialogue, and skinny lines of dialogue without any blocks, both turn me off. Obviously, that's just me.

[bearilou]

A good first line is a good first line - dialogue, narrative, whatever. As long as it pulls you in and makes you read on, it's done its job.

Personally I like both - either snappy dialogue or a really meaty, evocative chunk of prose can pull me into the story. As a reader I don't care which it is - I care only for the effect.



Agreed. For a while there, in reading this thread, I was worrying about my WiP and how it was starting out. Not enough dialogue, too much text, not jumping right to the action, etc.

Then it occurred to me as I reached this quote. For the reader, there is no hard and fast rule (and it's evident in this discussion as people talk back and forth about what works for them). In the end, what will get the reader to read more, turn the page, finish the chapter, buy the book?

In every case, for every author, it will be different. It just depends on the story and how best to kick off that story. Best for that story, being key here. None of the suggestions will work if the reader isn't hooked.

The techniques and tricks we use will vary to accomplish that.

tl;dr for I agree.

[Cuppa]

Agreed. For a while there, in reading this thread, I was worrying about my WiP and how it was starting out. Not enough dialogue, too much text, not jumping right to the action, etc.

Then it occurred to me as I reached this quote. For the reader, there is no hard and fast rule (and it's evident in this discussion as people talk back and forth about what works for them). In the end, what will get the reader to read more, turn the page, finish the chapter, buy the book?

In every case, for every author, it will be different. It just depends on the story and how best to kick off that story. Best for that story, being key here. None of the suggestions will work if the reader isn't hooked.

The techniques and tricks we use will vary to accomplish that.

tl;dr for I agree.

Wow, logical and good advice! The reader decides! And every reader is different. Maybe I've just read some really crappy narrative...

[lucidzfl]

Agreed. Doesn't change the fact that if I am in the story, and I see the chapter is filled with nothing but narrative, I am putting it down. Should've followed that personal rule with Acacia. It's been a boring read, filled with telling, very little dialogue, loads of world building that you just stop caring about, so on...

Uh, so you have a book thats filled with telling, not showing... So how does that at all translate to "dialog is important to get to"?

Sounds to me like showing, not telling is important.

[maestrowork]

Agreed. Doesn't change the fact that if I am in the story, and I see the chapter is filled with nothing but narrative, I am putting it down.


That's your own prerogative. I happen to not like long prologues, but I'm not going to say to a writer: "if you write prologues, you're going to fail."

Who said you needed to? I was showing that it works just fine with dialogue.


You did. You said, "get as close to dialogue as possible" -- you said so in multiple posts. Don't try to back-paddle now.

And you said just a few posts above that "you need to develop characters by way of dialogue" and "if it's just narrative [without dialogue], I'll put the book down." I'm saying you don't have to use dialogue to develop character. I'm not saying "you don't have to develop characters" just that dialogue is not necessary.

Of course it can be done with dialogue; nobody said otherwise. Lots of book has dialogue in first chapters. But I'm challenging your assertion, as repeated in multiple posts, to get to dialogue as soon as possible, or else "if I see the chapter is filled with nothing but narrative, I am putting it down." (quoted directly from your post).

In the same post you made the assertion that getting to dialogue soon is important, and then back-paddled and said, "whatever works."

So which is which?

Must we start as close to the first dialogue or not?

Personally, I find nothing riveting when we can't get to know the character and they are simply going through the rotes of some action scene. Maybe I'm lacking in empathy.


Again, it's your opinion and taste. The fact is there are books, including best-sellers, that do not match that opinion, that many people love despite the fact that they have no dialogue in the first chapter.

If it works it works. Said that quite clearly. Course I don't read lit, and my views tend to stick with fantasy for the most part.

Then why do you insist that "one must have dialogue as soon as possible"? Why do you make it seem like it's the only way to make it work? That "if there's nothing but narrative, readers are going to put the book down"?

[lucidzfl]

That's your own prerogative. I happen to not like long prologues, but I'm not going to say to a writer: "if you write prologues, you're going to fail."



You did. You said, "get as close to dialogue as possible" -- you said so in multiple posts. Don't try to back-paddle now.

And you said just a few posts above that "you need to develop characters by way of dialogue" and "if it's just narrative [without dialogue], I'll put the book down." I'm saying you don't have to use dialogue to develop character. I'm not saying "you don't have to develop characters" just that dialogue is not necessary.

Of course it can be done with dialogue; nobody said otherwise. Lots of book has dialogue in first chapters. But I'm challenging your assertion, as repeated in multiple posts, to get to dialogue as soon as possible, or else "if I see the chapter is filled with nothing but narrative, I am putting it down." (quoted directly from your post).

In the same post you made the assertion that getting to dialogue soon is important, and then back-paddled and said, "whatever works."

So which is which?

Must we start as close to the first dialogue or not?



Again, it's your opinion and taste. The fact is there are books, including best-sellers, that do not match that opinion, that many people love despite the fact that they have no dialogue in the first chapter.



Then why do you insist that "one must have dialogue as soon as possible"? Why do you make it seem like it's the only way to make it work? That "if there's nothing but narrative, readers are going to put the book down"?

If the catalyzing moment of CoD's book was a man coming home to find his wife dead in the bathtub, the first thing CoD's MC after seeing her lifeless body in the tub would be to go downstairs and use the phone so he could have dialog with someone :D

[Cuppa]

That's your own prerogative. I happen to not like long prologues, but I'm not going to say to a writer: "if you write prologues, you're going to fail."

Where did I say "if you write a narrative filled chapter, you're going to fail"? I said that I don't like a chapter full of narrative and that I would probably find it boring cause I like a mix of the three tools. I did not say that anyone will fail. So please do not put words into my mouth. If I did say that, then I apologize, but looking at the previous pages, I cannot find where I said that. I think I also said that there are good writers out there who can probably make a really good ch 1 filled with narrative.

You did. You said, "get as close to dialogue as possible" -- you said so in multiple posts. Don't try to back-paddle now.

Yes, get close to the dialogue as possible! Not that the dialogue should come first and foremost! I am not back-paddling. And note the 'possible'. That means if you need to mention stuff before that, then do so. I like to start my stories out to the dialogue as close as possible. And that advice was for new writers, who fill their ch 1 with exposition and repetition.

And you said just a few posts above that "you need to develop characters by way of dialogue" and "if it's just narrative [without dialogue], I'll put the book down." I'm saying you don't have to use dialogue to develop character. I'm not saying "you don't have to develop characters" just that dialogue is not necessary.

Did I say you can only use dialogue to develop character? No. On page 1, in my second or third post, I am quite sure I said that all three can be used. I believe that dialogue best develops a character and I am sticking to that belief.

Of course it can be done with dialogue; nobody said otherwise. Lots of book has dialogue in first chapters. But I'm challenging your assertion, as repeated in multiple posts, to get to dialogue as soon as possible, or else "if I see the chapter is filled with nothing but narrative, I am putting it down." (quoted directly from your post).

In the same post you made the assertion that getting to dialogue soon is important, and then back-paddled and said, "whatever works."

So which is which?

Must we start as close to the first dialogue or not?

My assertion of what exactly? There are books I like and there are books that sale. Do I like every book that sales? No. Do you? I am guessing no. It is my rule that I will put down a book if ch 1 doesn't have dialogue. Just cause I have an opinion on what's good or not, doesn't mean everyone else agrees with me. I never said that. I don't like narrative filled prologues or chapter ones with no dialogue, but I never said it wouldn't sell. And if it does sell, than that proves 'what works works' or 'whatever works'.

Once again, I don't like the beginning chapter of a book to be nothing but narrative, but whatever works works (for other readers) and I am not every reader in the world.


Again, it's your opinion and taste. The fact is there are books, including best-sellers, that do not match that opinion, that many people love despite the fact that they have no dialogue in the first chapter.

Whatever works works, just not for me.



Then why do you insist that "one must have dialogue as soon as possible"? Why do you make it seem like it's the only way to make it work? That "if there's nothing but narrative, readers are going to put the book down"?

Because I don't like a narrative filled chapter, and I think that it hurts the story. I like dialogue and beats and narrative, but all in good measure. I was giving my opinion on what works best in my opinion and in my opinion the ch 1 from Acacia above does not work. Is it readable? Yes! Can it work for others? Yes! Does it work for me? No!

If I did say that your narrative filled ch 1 will never work, I am sorry. What I meant to say was your narrative filled ch 1 will never work for me. But whatever works works is a general statement that there are many readers and most may not agree with me. And if you have people saying it works, then go with it.

[lucidzfl]

Because I don't like a narrative filled chapter, and I think that it hurts the story. I like dialogue and beats and narrative, but all in good measure. I was giving my opinion on what works best in my opinion and in my opinion the ch 1 from Acacia above does not work. Is it readable? Yes! Can it work for others? Yes! Does it work for me? No!


I tend to write loners, and people who go on journeys or are left alone for periods of time. I don't know if this means I've gotten good at writing internalization from the practice, or if I write it this way, because I like internalizing.

I think theres a difference between bulk narrative and spending 10 pages talking about the mountains and having someone actually walk over the mountains, or see them and have a reaction to them.

Here again though it sounds like a fundamental difference between showing and telling, which it seems as though you've associated "telling" with narrative.

[The Lonely One]

After a serving up the first few hundred words of my wip in SYW, one of the comments was that there was no conflict. That it would be a no sell unless the conflict, or a conflict, was made apparent to a reading agent/publisher in the first three or four paragraphs. Just wondered what the consensus on this was.

Many thanks,

Ian

There are exceptions, though everything after a first draft should be intentionally crafted (IMO) and using no conflict as a device is dangerous.

An example might be Larry Fondation's "Deportation at Breakfast," a short story in which a man overtakes a restaurant when its owner is deported in the middle of cooking his meal. The first half of the story is very boring and factual, matter-of-course, leading to the payoff at the end,making us accept that suddenly this man takes over and owns the restaurant himself.

But the beginning of the story is written in such a way that those of us trained to need conflict immediately may walk away before we ever reach the payoff.

I think it's okay but awareness of your own writing is key.

[Cuppa]

I will simplify everything I posted.

1. Some authors in SYW (the parts I haunt) often have chapter after chapter of repetition and exposition. They should probably adopt a 3 paragraph rule to control themselves from that. Or they should start as close to the dialogue as possible, since I often see they can delete the above. It has a better effect if they show it, instead of telling it in the above chapters. That is my opinion, no different than an opinion that 'said' tags should stay simple. It is simply my opinion.

2. I don't like narrative chapters with no dialogue. I really don't like them. I believe my opinion is right, but anyone is welcomed to disagree with it. It is a subjective opinion that I have, just like everyone who is reading this has their own subjective opinion on what they like.

3. I do try to start as close to the dialogue as possible, and I encourage others to do so. But if you think it works, then it works, and go with that. I am not the decision maker for anyone, and I've never tried to be. I have no clue what agents like, only what I like as a reader.

4. To my best understanding, I never said a narrative only beginning can't work for publishers, agents, readers. Only for myself.

*sighs*

Lucid, I have not associated telling with narrative. I like dialogue. I need dialogue. Sure, there are special cases. If it's a story about someone in a desert reaching nirvana, then I would expect a narrative only story. I wouldn't read it. That doesn't mean it don't work for someone else. Just not for me. How hard is this to explain?

[Cuppa]

If the catalyzing moment of CoD's book was a man coming home to find his wife dead in the bathtub, the first thing CoD's MC after seeing her lifeless body in the tub would be to go downstairs and use the phone so he could have dialog with someone :D

No Lucid. I would start the story before that, so the reader has some sympathy for the MC and his wife. Or I would use dialogue of him speaking to his dead wife, telling her to wake, as people are oft to do in such situations. Or I would start with the MC drunk in a hotel room with a prostitute (handling grief badly) and have some dialogue there. Or maybe I will have it from the perspective of the MC's son, and have him discover his mom's body with a friend and he later gets suspicious of his father. Or maybe I will do it from the PoV of a Cop.

Then again, I've never done mystery or lit, so it could turn into a situation where the man's old enemies from his hoodlum days kill his wife in front of him. Or maybe a werewolf did it. Ah, a revenge tale. More up my alley.

PS: I think I made my part clear, so I'm out. Arguing over and over isn't my thing. If you want to PM me about anything I've said, feel free.

[Samantha's_Song]

Or he could always talk to himself. "Mabel, are you playing about in there?" He nudged her arm and watched in horror as she slid under the water. "Fuck me, she's dead, I'd better call someone!" :D
If the catalyzing moment of CoD's book was a man coming home to find his wife dead in the bathtub, the first thing CoD's MC after seeing her lifeless body in the tub would be to go downstairs and use the phone so he could have dialog with someone :D


Just pulling your pisser CoD.

[john barnes on toast]

I have to say that I find the notion of having any fixed rules (like somebody's aforementioned 3 paragraph dialogue limit) for your writing as daft. You can have preferences by all means, guidelines even, but rules? Balls to that, and even bigger balls to promoting them as things that others should adopt.

What's more, in this specific instance I fundamentally disagree anyway. Dialogue should be used sparingly. An over-reliance on it is often indicative of weak writing.
In all honesty I've never countenenced the thought of looking at the physical layout of a page and assessing whether it 'looked' good. The very idea seems bizarre, but if I ever were to do so, I'd be more likely to be put off by an abundance of dialogue, especially early on.

[john barnes on toast]

CoD, this might surprise you, but starting with dialogue is considered one of the major rookie snares.

Bang on. I thought most people were aware of this (even though it still doesn't make not opening with dialogue a rule, just a consideration to bear in mind)

[IdiotsRUs]

Bang on. I thought most people were aware of this (even though it still doesn't make not opening with dialogue a rule, just a consideration to bear in mind)

Hmm. I never realised Neil Gaiman, Agatha Christie, Ruth Rendell, GRRM, Michael Moorcock, Reginald Hill...( to name but a few on my shelves) were rookies :D

Yes, I know - pointing out published authors that break the rules to make your point. But it's not a rule. It may be a 'guideline', but not one I've seen anywhere but here. Oh and Nathan Bransford (http://blog.nathanbransford.com/2008/10/can-i-get-ruling-beginning-book-with.html) touched on it :Same goes for difficult authorial tricks like starting with dialogue and/or breaking other "rules." If you can pull it off, fantastic, if not, an agent will be able to tell very quickly. In the linked poll more loved it than hated it, and most said 'it depends', including Nathan.
I haven't searched for it mind, but I've read quite a lot on writing fiction, and never read this particular one except here and that quote. Dialogue as the first line is hard to get right, certainly - but so is any first line.

If it works, it works. And obviously, going by the sales of the above authors, it works quite well for some readers. Myself included.

Trick is, to make it a good line.

[Akuma]

I have to say that I find the notion of having any fixed rules (like somebody's aforementioned 3 paragraph dialogue limit) for your writing as daft. You can have preferences by all means, guidelines even, but rules? Balls to that, and even bigger balls to promoting them as things that others should adopt.

What's more, in this specific instance I fundamentally disagree anyway. Dialogue should be used sparingly. An over-reliance on it is often indicative of weak writing.
In all honesty I've never countenenced the thought of looking at the physical layout of a page and assessing whether it 'looked' good. The very idea seems bizarre, but if I ever were to do so, I'd be more likely to be put off by an abundance of dialogue, especially early on.

What do you mean by use dialogue sparingly mean? Although I agree an over-abundance is a mistake, I've never thought that dialogue should be stamped down to make room for narrative. Characters can interact through actions and body language, of course, but dialogue can bring out subtle facets of their personality in a short amount of time.

Thinking out loud, here. Just trying to figure out if you equate "sparingly" to a healthy dose or that if you think a book should be largely narrative.

[Pepper]

I want believable characters; characters that interest me and whom I can either love or hate. A novel with conflict on every page would remind me of action films, which are mostly boring, once you've seen one car chase, you've seen them all, so long as that one car chase if from Ronin. :D

Often when we tell writers that there should be conflict/action/tension, people very often believe that we mean literal action (ie. car chase scenes, running from a killer, etc). We don't. If you're writing an action thriller, that might be fine, but if you're writing a romance, it probably wouldn't be fine. A romance novel's opening "action" might be the MC's husband telling her he's leaving to join the war effort. Or maybe the MC is rushing home, late from work again, to a wife who's just had enough of him putting family second.

The opening to any story, no matter how the writer chooses to do it, should make the reader want to read more.

There should be tension (the shit is about to hit the fan, as was so gracefully illustrated earlier) or conflict (the shit has hit the fan).
The opening conflict doesn't have to be (and perhaps shouldn't be) the main conflict of the story.

The reader should care about the tension or conflict.
Don't dilly dally with this. If the opening to your story contains no tension or conflict, readers may not want to read it. Unless you're positively awesome when it comes to setting the scene, several pages of scene setting can be risky. Tension, conflict. ASAP. Then move on with the other stuff.

The best way to tell whether your opening works is to get people to read it. Post in SYW if you don't have reliable beta readers.



Examples - 109 words each - hopefully under fair use:

Acacia Ch 1-

The assassin left the stronghold of Mein Tahalian by the great front gate, riding through a crack in the armored pine beams just wide enough to let him slip out. He departed at sunrise, dressed much as any soldier of the Mein. He wore a cloak of elk fur that wrapped his body completely. It even covered his legs and gave warmth to the large-hoofed mount beneath him. Over his torso he wore a breastplate of double thickness: two sheaves of iron pounded to the contours of his body, with a layer of otter fur pressed beneath him. He moved south through a snow land frozen into gelid brillance.

It^ goes on like that for the whole chapter.

ASoIaF prologue-

We should start back,” Gared urged as the woods began to grow dark around them. “The wildlings are dead.”

“Do the dead frighten you?” Ser Waymar Royce asked with just the hint of a smile.

Gared did not rise to the bait. He was an old man, past fifty, and he had seen the lordlings come and go. “Dead is dead,” he said. “We have no business with the dead.”

“Are they dead?” Royce asked softly. “What proof have we?”

“Will saw them,” Gared said. “If he says they are dead, that’s proof enough for me.”

Will had known they would drag him into the quarrel sooner or later.

I assume that posting this comes under fair use, since it is for 'review' and 'scholarship'. Tell me if I'm wrong.

Which one do you think is better? ;)

Actually, to be honest, I think both excerpts are pretty shitty. :D That is to say, neither are my personal cup-of-tea. ;) And that's the beauty about the writing business. What might not work for some, might very well work for others.

If I really have to choose one, I'd say the first is better. The story opens with:

"The assassin left the stronghold of Mein Tahalian by the great front gate, riding through a crack in the armored pine beams just wide enough to let him slip out."

Right away, this sets up tension. We know immediately that there is an assassin sneaking away from a stronghold. Strongholds hold important people, like kings, and this assassin is getting away undetected.

In the second one, the only source of potential tension or conflict, the wildlings, are dead and no longer a threat. There's a teeny tiny hint of tension later when- hang on!- are they really dead? Oh, yup, they're dead alright.
It's humourless banter that neither draws me to the characters or the story.

[lucidzfl]

No Lucid. I would start the story before that, so the reader has some sympathy for the MC and his wife. Or I would use dialogue of him speaking to his dead wife, telling her to wake, as people are oft to do in such situations. Or I would start with the MC drunk in a hotel room with a prostitute (handling grief badly) and have some dialogue there. Or maybe I will have it from the perspective of the MC's son, and have him discover his mom's body with a friend and he later gets suspicious of his father. Or maybe I will do it from the PoV of a Cop.

Then again, I've never done mystery or lit, so it could turn into a situation where the man's old enemies from his hoodlum days kill his wife in front of him. Or maybe a werewolf did it. Ah, a revenge tale. More up my alley.

PS: I think I made my part clear, so I'm out. Arguing over and over isn't my thing. If you want to PM me about anything I've said, feel free.

What is so funny is I made that EXACT same choice. I started my story with my MC and his wife leaving the hotel the day that the apocalypse happened. I had them engaged in dialog and witty banter on the way to the park, and then in chapter 3, the apocalypse happened and they survived. I felt it was integral that we know who mitch and ellie were. Why should we care about these two people and what happens to them.

Wanna know what every single person who read my book said? Lose chapters 1-3.

The truth is, the opening of your book should be so visceral, so global, so widely identifiable, that you shouldn't need pages of back story or dialog to know these characters. And to be honest, in a 300-400 page book, 2-3 pages of dialog will NOT give you any more insight into WHO these people are or WHAT they know and want in life. In point of fact, that is precisely what you will spend 300-400 pages establishing. Don't short change them by trying to force the issue.

Let the event speak for itself and let the characters reveal themselves.

Wether its dialog, exposition, showing, flashbacks, dream sequences, any thing meant to force feed the reader information about the character in the opening chapter(s) WILL come across as heavy handed.

[lucidzfl]

Or he could always talk to himself. "Mabel, are you playing about in there?" He nudged her arm and watched in horror as she slid under the water. "Fuck me, she's dead, I'd better call someone!" :D



Just pulling your pisser CoD.

MY WORD! She's fucking KICKED IT! I shall go downstairs and immediately order a pizza, then perhaps call my mum and see if she thinks I should go to therapy to discuss my loss.

If at all possible I might wish to call a depression hotline, because my word, I do feel a bit of the old depression coming on.

And after that I should probably discuss funeral arrangements and discuss options with my bank manager, all worthy points of interest and I do so like talking to people after all.

And... Oh bloody fucking hell the body is still in the bathtub.

...

I should go downstairs and call someone about cleaning up this mess.

[lucidzfl]

Often when we tell writers that there should be conflict/action/tension, people very often believe that we mean literal action (ie. car chase scenes, running from a killer, etc). We don't. If you're writing an action thriller, that might be fine, but if you're writing a romance, it probably wouldn't be fine. A romance novel's opening "action" might be the MC's husband telling her he's leaving to join the war effort. Or maybe the MC is rushing home, late from work again, to a wife who's just had enough of him putting family second.

The opening to any story, no matter how the writer chooses to do it, should make the reader want to read more.

There should be tension (the shit is about to hit the fan, as was so gracefully illustrated earlier) or conflict (the shit has hit the fan).
The opening conflict doesn't have to be (and perhaps shouldn't be) the main conflict of the story.

The reader should care about the tension or conflict.
Don't dilly dally with this. If the opening to your story contains no tension or conflict, readers may not want to read it. Unless you're positively awesome when it comes to setting the scene, several pages of scene setting can be risky. Tension, conflict. ASAP. Then move on with the other stuff.

The best way to tell whether your opening works is to get people to read it. Post in SYW if you don't have reliable beta readers.




Actually, to be honest, I think both excerpts are pretty shitty. :D That is to say, neither are my personal cup-of-tea. ;) And that's the beauty about the writing business. What might not work for some, might very well work for others.

If I really have to choose one, I'd say the first is better. The story opens with:

"The assassin left the stronghold of Mein Tahalian by the great front gate, riding through a crack in the armored pine beams just wide enough to let him slip out."

Right away, this sets up tension. We know immediately that there is an assassin sneaking away from a stronghold. Strongholds hold important people, like kings, and this assassin is getting away undetected.

In the second one, the only source of potential tension or conflict, the wildlings, are dead and no longer a threat. There's a teeny tiny hint of tension later when- hang on!- are they really dead? Oh, yup, they're dead alright.
It's humourless banter that neither draws me to the characters or the story.

I'm with you and thus decided not to comment, I think they're both rubbish.

That said, the second excerpt smells mildly more like Louisiana swamp ass than the first...

[lkp]

Go to the bookstore. Browse the front tables. Pick up every novel that looks interesting to you and read only the first paragraph.

I did this the first time a few years ago when Miss Snark was running one of her "first paragraph" contests and I learned an enormous amount about what works and what doesn't. After about ten novels, I saw right away what was wrong with how my book was starting. I still do it from time to time.

[Samantha's_Song]

I don't know about you, Lucid, but I'd be filing this book under B.1.N. if I saw something like this lot there. :D
MY WORD! She's fucking KICKED IT! I shall go downstairs and immediately order a pizza, then perhaps call my mum and see if she thinks I should go to therapy to discuss my loss.

If at all possible I might wish to call a depression hotline, because my word, I do feel a bit of the old depression coming on.

And after that I should probably discuss funeral arrangements and discuss options with my bank manager, all worthy points of interest and I do so like talking to people after all.

And... Oh bloody fucking hell the body is still in the bathtub.

...

I should go downstairs and call someone about cleaning up this mess.

[Samantha's_Song]

I write character-driven novels and all beta-readers I've used, who are readers but not writers, have all told me that I write page turners. My most trusted beta reader will sit up all night just to finish one of my first draft novels, one of them was my very first attempt at writing a story and it was written awfully, all tell and no show, but she still loved that one and exclaimed that it was fast-paced and great. Btw, she's an ex-teacher, retired, who reads a novel a day, so methinks she knows what makes a good story, by her standards at least, by now. :)
Often when we tell writers that there should be conflict/action/tension, people very often believe that we mean literal action (ie. car chase scenes, running from a killer, etc). We don't. If you're writing an action thriller, that might be fine, but if you're writing a romance, it probably wouldn't be fine. A romance novel's opening "action" might be the MC's husband telling her he's leaving to join the war effort. Or maybe the MC is rushing home, late from work again, to a wife who's just had enough of him putting family second.

The opening to any story, no matter how the writer chooses to do it, should make the reader want to read more.

There should be tension (the shit is about to hit the fan, as was so gracefully illustrated earlier) or conflict (the shit has hit the fan).
The opening conflict doesn't have to be (and perhaps shouldn't be) the main conflict of the story.

The reader should care about the tension or conflict.
Don't dilly dally with this. If the opening to your story contains no tension or conflict, readers may not want to read it. Unless you're positively awesome when it comes to setting the scene, several pages of scene setting can be risky. Tension, conflict. ASAP. Then move on with the other stuff.

The best way to tell whether your opening works is to get people to read it. Post in SYW if you don't have reliable beta readers.




Actually, to be honest, I think both excerpts are pretty shitty. :D That is to say, neither are my personal cup-of-tea. ;) And that's the beauty about the writing business. What might not work for some, might very well work for others.

If I really have to choose one, I'd say the first is better. The story opens with:

"The assassin left the stronghold of Mein Tahalian by the great front gate, riding through a crack in the armored pine beams just wide enough to let him slip out."

Right away, this sets up tension. We know immediately that there is an assassin sneaking away from a stronghold. Strongholds hold important people, like kings, and this assassin is getting away undetected.

In the second one, the only source of potential tension or conflict, the wildlings, are dead and no longer a threat. There's a teeny tiny hint of tension later when- hang on!- are they really dead? Oh, yup, they're dead alright.
It's humourless banter that neither draws me to the characters or the story.

[Izz]

I will simplify everything I posted.

1. Some authors in SYW (the parts I haunt) often have chapter after chapter of repetition and exposition. They should probably adopt a 3 paragraph rule to control themselves from that. Or they should start as close to the dialogue as possible, since I often see they can delete the above. It has a better effect if they show it, instead of telling it in the above chapters. That is my opinion, no different than an opinion that 'said' tags should stay simple. It is simply my opinion. Seeing as you've been talking in absolutes for most of this discussion i'm going to talk in absolutes in response.

*Don't* set rules. *Never* set rules.

Rules are absolute. Writing is not. To write an engaging and intriguing story one needs to understand the principles of telling a good story. Setting rules hampers that learning process because it makes things a list that can be ticked off--do this, do that, don't do this, don't do that--without requiring understanding.

And just because something doesn't work in one situation doesn't mean it won't work in another situation. And just because something works in one situation doesn't mean it'll work in another situation. Setting rules makes it harder for someone to understand this.

If i were to set writing rules--which i don't have the authority to do for anybody--i would only set one. That would be: learn and understand your craft. And i would hazard to say that isn't really a rule, just commonsense.

2. I don't like narrative chapters with no dialogue. I really don't like them. I believe my opinion is right, but anyone is welcomed to disagree with it. It is a subjective opinion that I have, just like everyone who is reading this has their own subjective opinion on what they like.You're contradicting yourself here. You say 'i believe my opinion is right,' then you say 'everyone has their own subjective opinion.' Subjective being key to understanding what an opinion is. An opinion is just that. An opinion. It can't really be right.

3. I do try to start as close to the dialogue as possible, and I encourage others to do so. But if you think it works, then it works, and go with that. I am not the decision maker for anyone, and I've never tried to be. I have no clue what agents like, only what I like as a reader.Herein lies the issue. If you set rules for people then you are putting yourself forward as a 'decision maker.'

4. To my best understanding, I never said a narrative only beginning can't work for publishers, agents, readers. Only for myself.

*sighs*

Lucid, I have not associated telling with narrative. I like dialogue. I need dialogue. Sure, there are special cases. If it's a story about someone in a desert reaching nirvana, then I would expect a narrative only story. I wouldn't read it. That doesn't mean it don't work for someone else. Just not for me. How hard is this to explain?Again, the whole setting rules thing (and then arguing your point when other people disagree, even though you know it's all subjective) hasn't helped you here.

And, personally, i find it disturbing that someone would reject a book just because they see a page without dialogue (and this is coming from someone who doesn't finish 90% of the books he starts). Like Ray said up the page: good writing is good writing, dialogue or narrative. And bad writing is bad writing, dialogue or narrative. Rejecting something out of hand based on preconceived notions is not an open-minded attitude, and i feel it would do a writer much harm to think like that.

Well, still a snare that many experienced writers fall into then, and one that works for many readers too, by their sales. I always thought it was called a rookie snare/mistake/whatever not because it shouldn't be done, but if one doesn't have a good understanding of their art and craft (and the term rookie tends to imply that) it is easy not to do well. Just like many writing-related things. Doesn't mean it can't be done well, though.

[motormind]

Tension and conflict are not the same thing, by the way.


Yes, they are, in so far that tension arises from conflict, and conflict alone. You need a lot of conflict in your story, on lots of levels.

I don't, I want believable characters; characters that interest me and whom I can either love or hate. A novel with conflict on every page would remind me of action films, which are mostly boring, once you've seen one car chase, you've seen them all, so long as that one car chase if from Ronin. :D

I am not talking about blatant stuff like car chases. Conflict can be something very mundane, like someone trying to keep the sun out of her eyes, or a talk between well-meaning people who have a slight misunderstanding, or someone stepping out of bed, only to find that she got tangled up in the sheets. Conflicts can be internal, between characters or between characters and their environment. Without conflict, there is no tension. And without tension, there is not much urge to read on.

[katiemac]

The first line has tension -- the gunslinger is following the man in black. However, the conflict is only implied. There may not be any conflict at all.

If the conflict is implied, then there's conflict. Whether it truly "exists" or not. You're reading a story through someone else's perspective, always, so if the conflict is implied, somebody thinks it's real.

The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.

The desert was the apotheosis of all deserts, huge, standing to the sky for what looked like eternity in all directions. It was white and blinding and waterless and without feature save for the faint, cloudy haze of the mountains which sketched themselves on the horizon and the devil-grass which brought sweet dreams, nightmares, death. An occasional tombstone sign pointed the way, for once the drifted track that cut its way through the thick crust of alkali had been a highway. Coaches and buckas had followed it. The world had moved on since then. The world had emptied.
------------------

The very first line establishes the action/conflict, even though the majority of the rest of the first few pages is description. But he DID get the conflict out there right away.

This whole section actually seems chock full of conflict. "Fled" illustrates conflict by the very definition of the word, and so does the passage depicting the setting: "The world had moved on since then," "the drifted track had once been a highway," "devil-grass which brought sweet dreams, nightmares and death," "white and blinding and waterless."

Conflict: Opposition, antagonistic state, divergent interests or ideas, etc.

[IdiotsRUs]

I always thought it was called a rookie snare/mistake/whatever not because it shouldn't be done, but if one doesn't have a good understanding of their art and craft (and the term rookie tends to imply that) it is easy not to do well. Just like many writing-related things. Doesn't mean it can't be done well, though.

Everything's easy not to do well if you don't understand your craft;)

Taking a 'consider thee well before you do this' is very different from 'bah, only amateurs do that' or 'NEVER do this', especially when it's done ( and done well) so often.



Setting rules hampers that learning process because it makes things a list that can be ticked off--do this, do that, don't do this, don't do that--without requiring understanding.

This - exactly. The supposed 'rule is show don't tell,' which far too many beginning writers think means they have to show everything when, several times in any novel, a tell is precisely what you need.

There are a lot of supposed rules bandied about here, and stated with such conviction some people come to believe that they must be followed, at all costs.


There is no spoon, are no rules ( except maybe don't be confusing), there are only considerations.

Everything you write should be considered. The craft is learning how and when to consider it.

[john barnes on toast]

Yes, I know - pointing out published authors that break the rules to make your point. But it's not a rule. It may be a 'guideline', but not one I've seen anywhere but here.


Which is exactly what I said:

'even though it still doesn't make not opening with dialogue a rule, just a consideration to bear in mind'

[IdiotsRUs]

Which is exactly what I said:

'even though it still doesn't make not opening with dialogue a rule, just a consideration to bear in mind'


I am aware of that.

But I've seen it bandied about as a big fat 'don't do it ever' often enough ( not in this thread, or not quite so ardently) I thought it was worth reiterating the point.

For some people labelling it as a 'rookie snare' is enough for them to think it's something they should never do, when that isn't the case.

It's as much a rookie snare as anything else - if it's done badly, it's going to suck. That goes for pretty much every aspect of writing I'd have thought - so why pull this one out in particular, especially one that is quite popular in published fiction?

ETA: for instance, I've beta read for more than one person who insisted they had to keep a scene ( or longer) of stuff where nothing much happens because everyone says 'You have to show, don't tell' You try explaining that it means 'Show the interesting stuff' and 'tell the boring stuff in a quick summary to link scenes' - as in 'three days later they arrived' or whatever and they still want to show every second of a three week journey where nothing fecking happens except they get saddle sore. Because the 'rule' is 'show don't tell'. I've seen people in SYW once or twice insist that a perfectly good starting piece of dialogue shouldn't be there because you 'never start with dialogue' - yet moving it robs the beginning of its interest.

It's kinda depressing really

[Cyia]

For some people labelling it as a 'rookie snare' is enough for them to think it's something they should never do, when that isn't the case.

It's as much a rookie snare as anything else - if it's done badly, it's going to suck.

This is exactly what I was trying to say.

The "rookie snare" comes in when people think it's the "easy" way to create voice (Aha! If they're talking, it's got to have voice!) and they don't take the time to make sure it actually works.

Just like the 1st person POV I mentioned. It can work well, so long as the writer doesn't use it as a shortcut to character development and filter everything through the narrator's ears, eyes and feelings in every sentence. (I saw, I felt, I heard)

[maestrowork]

Yes, they are, in so far that tension arises from conflict, and conflict alone. You need a lot of conflict in your story, on lots of levels.

It's like saying food and poop are the same thing.

No one says anything about not having conflict. Of course you need conflict in fiction, at least if you want it to be dramatic and interesting. But we're challenging your assertion that there has to be actual conflict on every page.

You really don't. Unless your definition of conflict is so minute to include "feeling hungry."

If the conflict is implied, then there's conflict. Whether it truly "exists" or not. You're reading a story through someone else's perspective, always, so if the conflict is implied, somebody thinks it's real.

But whose perspective is this? Seems like it's written in omniscient, so does the omniscient narrator thinks there's a conflict? Or does the man in black, or the gunslinger?

I agree in this case there's implied conflict and it probably turns out true. That's how King wrote it. He used specific words to string you on, to push you in that direction. It's not just "a man ran, and another man followed" but "man in black and gunslinger." My point is, though, there is a difference between tension and conflict. You may say there is implied conflict in tension but they're still not the same thing. To say every page has to have conflict may reduce fiction to a series of formula and artificiality. However, if we think in terms of what the characters want and how they must get to it, it's a better approach because that will naturally lead to tension or conflict, and both are great for fiction.

Sexual tension, for example, does not necessarily stem from conflict -- attraction and the desire, yes -- although some people would try to define conflict that way -- if that's the case, then life itself is already choke full of conflicts (where to have lunch? Do you want to see a movie tonight? Oh, I need my latte and there is a line...) If that's the kind of things we're talking about, then there's really no point of worrying about writing conflicts, since there's conflict everywhere in life at any given moment (I just woke up and I'm hungry -- conflict!) We might as well close this thread.

[katiemac]

But whose perspective is this? Seems like it's written in omniscient, so does the omniscient narrator thinks there's a conflict? Or does the man in black, or the gunslinger?

Well, for this particular example, since it's short, there are a few options and honestly I don't think it's anything we must peg down now. But even if it's an omniscient narrator, that narrator still has voice and opinions, evident by specific word choice. This narrator is introducing conflict via those word choices.


Sexual tension, for example, does not necessarily stem from conflict -- attraction and the desire, yes -- although some people would try to define conflict that way -- if that's the case, then life itself is already choke full of conflicts (where to have lunch? Do you want to see a movie tonight? Oh, I need my latte and there is a line...)

This is what I'm saying, and I think what motormind was saying as well. Sexual tension does build from conflict. Sure, attraction and desire are there, but if that's all there was your characters would be making out within seconds. Instead, there's internal conflict with your characters that is keeping them from each other.

If that's the kind of things we're talking about, then there's really no point of worrying about writing conflicts, since there's conflict everywhere in life at any given moment (I just woke up and I'm hungry -- conflict!) We might as well close this thread.

It's something to be aware of, definitely. I don't believe conflict is automatically always there. Perhaps a writer originally wrote a straight description of a house. But if he thinks about it more, maybe he'll realize he's not tapping into the narrator. Maybe the narrator hates the house, therefore his opinion of that house should be reflected in the description (again, via word choice). Maybe he loves it, but it's about to be torn down. There's conflict in both of those options and we, as writers, need to challenge ourselves to think about conflict. Maybe you don't need it on every page. Maybe you don't need it in every description. But our narrators should not be viewing the world blandly (unless your novel really requires they do so); we all have opinions and voice and perhaps more often than we really think about it does that lead to conflict.

[SarahMacManus]

You can usually tuck some backstory in after the first conflict, which really does need to be up front for commercial fiction.

For example, in film, the director has about 5-10 seconds to establish setting and tone. Writers don't have a lot more.

[john barnes on toast]

I am aware of that.

But I've seen it bandied about as a big fat 'don't do it ever' often enough ( not in this thread, or not quite so ardently) I thought it was worth reiterating the point.

For some people labelling it as a 'rookie snare' is enough for them to think it's something they should never do, when that isn't the case.

It's as much a rookie snare as anything else - if it's done badly, it's going to suck. That goes for pretty much every aspect of writing I'd have thought - so why pull this one out in particular, especially one that is quite popular in published fiction?

ETA: for instance, I've beta read for more than one person who insisted they had to keep a scene ( or longer) of stuff where nothing much happens because everyone says 'You have to show, don't tell' You try explaining that it means 'Show the interesting stuff' and 'tell the boring stuff in a quick summary to link scenes' - as in 'three days later they arrived' or whatever and they still want to show every second of a three week journey where nothing fecking happens except they get saddle sore. Because the 'rule' is 'show don't tell'. I've seen people in SYW once or twice insist that a perfectly good starting piece of dialogue shouldn't be there because you 'never start with dialogue' - yet moving it robs the beginning of its interest.

It's kinda depressing really

I think this question comes in two parts really.

Firstly, what is the technical reason for the stated caution over opening with dialogue (and I'd say this rationale is far more widespread than just this forum)?

I think there are valid craft reason as why it can be problematic. Primarily it's because it often denies the reader the first thing they expect from a story: location.

By location I don't mean purely the physical location. By opening with dialogue, a reader is denied any knowledge of time, place, even gender. There is no context, other than that we can glean from the dialogue itself, which brings me on to my next point:

The dreaded expositional dialogue. Using dialogue to overtly reveal or clarify facts is often a sign of weaknesses in other areas of a writer's armoury. By its definition it is difficult for an opening line of dialogue to not be expositional. There is nothing for it to augment. Nothing for it to modulate. It exists in isolation.
If that's not problematic enough itself, it also carries the risk of prejudicing a reader against a writer who is unfamiliar/unkown to them (eg. a writer querying an agent) in that it could offer the suggestion that they are a writer who will be over reliant on dialogue to get them out of a clinch.

This notion of prejudice is really the second part of the debate. Like it or not, agree with it or not, this prejudice against opening with dialogue exists. We're talking about it. The agent you quote was talking about (and far be it from Mr Bransford to ever sit anywhere other than on the fence, but I don't think you have to read too far between the lines to see that he has an internal alarm that sounds every time he encounters it)
ergo, even if you disagree, you can't ignore its existence.
Be aware of it and decide whether it's the (small) risk you need to take.

[maestrowork]

It's something to be aware of, definitely. I don't believe conflict is automatically always there. Perhaps a writer originally wrote a straight description of a house. But if he thinks about it more, maybe he'll realize he's not tapping into the narrator. Maybe the narrator hates the house, therefore his opinion of that house should be reflected in the description (again, via word choice). Maybe he loves it, but it's about to be torn down. There's conflict in both of those options and we, as writers, need to challenge ourselves to think about conflict. Maybe you don't need it on every page. Maybe you don't need it in every description. But our narrators should not be viewing the world blandly (unless your novel really requires they do so); we all have opinions and voice and perhaps more often than we really think about it does that lead to conflict.


I agree. Effective drama is built on conflict, whether it's man vs. self or man vs. god.

(how, that only speaks for drama. There is fiction that is not dependent on drama at all -- slice of life, for example, that may or may not have any conflicts)

But the bolded part is my point.

[motormind]

It's like saying food and poop are the same thing.


Ouch. Analogy-breakdown.


No one says anything about not having conflict. Of course you need conflict in fiction, at least if you want it to be dramatic and interesting. But we're challenging your assertion that there has to be actual conflict on every page.


The way to get to tension is through conflict. That conflict can be internal or eternal, big or small, immediate or spanning a whole story.


You really don't. Unless your definition of conflict is so minute to include "feeling hungry."


Feeling hungry by itself isn't conflict and thus no source of tension, but can be if you frustrate a character's attempts to do something bout it.


Sexual tension, for example, does not necessarily stem from conflict -- attraction and the desire, yes -- although some people would try to define conflict that way --


The tension in sexual attraction does not come from the attraction itself, but from the conflict that arises when characters try to do something about it. The game between two (potential) lovers can result in a push-pull dynamic, which is a form of conflict. They may also be insecure about their chances (internal conflict), or maybe one of the parties plays hard to get, or it's dangerous to be together.


if that's the case, then life itself is already choke full of conflicts (where to have lunch? Do you want to see a movie tonight? Oh, I need my latte and there is a line...)


All of these can be sources of conflict. If you want your latte, and the girl behind the counter is withholding it for some reason, or the line is so huge that you can't get it before your lunch break is over, then there is conflict--and thus tension


If that's the kind of things we're talking about, then there's really no point of worrying about writing conflicts, since there's conflict everywhere in life at any given moment (I just woke up and I'm hungry -- conflict!) We might as well close this thread.

You might want to read up on micro-tension in Donald Maass' book "The Fire In Fiction", which largely states what I say as well, but better worded, of course ;)

[ccarver30]

Mine is in the first paragraph... at least one of the conflicts...

[bearilou]

All of these can be sources of conflict. If you want your latte, and the girl behind the counter is withholding it for some reason, or the line is so huge that you can't get it before your lunch break is over, then there is conflict--and thus tension

Someone once told me something quite similar (or I read it, I can't remember right off). Each character should want something in every scene, even if it's just a glass of water.

Then make them work for it.

[john barnes on toast]

I do think people are splitting hairs over the definitions of conflict as opposed tension here.

Semantics aside, it seem like people are in general agreement, and just arguing for arguments sake (unless you're just generating conflict on every page for the good of the thread).

Conflict is what arises when you have two forces in opposition. That can be anything from the meeting of sworn enemies, or just one good friend trying to glean gossip out of another. In that regard, I don't think the person stating it should exist on every page was far off the mark.

[john barnes on toast]

Someone once told me something quite similar (or I read it, I can't remember right off). Each character should want something in every scene, even if it's just a glass of water.

Then make them work for it.

you must have been talking to Kurt Vonnegut.

[motormind]

Someone once told me something quite similar (or I read it, I can't remember right off). Each character should want something in every scene, even if it's just a glass of water.

Then make them work for it.

Yes, that is also of course a source of conflict, but there is also the kind that is not related to the plot or even a scene. It's the small stuff that is dispersed throughout every page, in dialogue, internal monologue or bits of action, however minute it may be. That is what I mean when I say you need conflict all the time.

[katiemac]

Yes, that is also of course a source of conflict, but there is also the kind that is not related to the plot or even a scene. It's the small stuff that is dispersed throughout every page, in dialogue, internal monologue or bits of action, however minute it may be. That is what I mean when I say you need conflict all the time.

I agree.

[maestrowork]

Every scene, yes. Every page, no.

[bearilou]

you must have been talking to Kurt Vonnegut.

Could be. I'm only on my second cup of coffee for the day.

[bearilou]

Every scene, yes. Every page, no.

I may be reading into what motormind is saying, but that's the impression I'm believing she's trying to get across.


I do think people are splitting hairs over the definitions of conflict as opposed tension here.

It's looking like that is what's happening.

[maestrowork]

I may be reading into what motormind is saying, but that's the impression I'm believing she's trying to get across.

She said "every page."

[bearilou]

She said "every page."

:D Well, then I'll chalk it up to my apparent conversation with who claimed he was Kurt Vonnegut this morning over my first cup of coffee and go with what he said because it rings true to me.

[IdiotsRUs]

I think this question comes in two parts really.

Firstly, what is the technical reason for the stated caution over opening with dialogue (and I'd say this rationale is far more widespread than just this forum)?

Well having searched I can say there's as many people advising to start with it as not...provided it's done well.

I think there are valid craft reason as why it can be problematic. Primarily it's because it often denies the reader the first thing they expect from a story: location.
By location I don't mean purely the physical location. By opening with dialogue, a reader is denied any knowledge of time, place, even gender. There is no context, other than that we can glean from the dialogue itself,

Actually, all I expect is the start of a story. :D I do not expect the first line to give me location, gender, time, place all in one. Even half of them. I expect to be intrigued enough to carry on. If I am all else goes by the wayside.

But no first line has context - this my point. Context is the text which surrounds a line - in any first line, one side will be missing, and therefore your job as a writer is to provide the reason to carry on so as to get that context. A first line exists on its own, before leading on to the next, whether it's narrative or dialogue.


Last night I dreamed I went to Manderley again -- where's the context in that? What and where is Manderley? Africa? A town? What is the gender of the narrator? What time are we in? What place - a bed possibly?



which brings me on to my next point:

The dreaded expositional dialogue. Using dialogue to overtly reveal or clarify facts is often a sign of weaknesses in other areas of a writer's armoury. By its definition it is difficult for an opening line of dialogue to not be expositional.

Really? In that case, it must be difficult for an opening narrative line not to be expositional - point is any opening line is difficult. Saying dialogue is extra difficult is like saying football is more difficult than rugby - it isn't, but they require different talents. Both are difficult to do well.

There is nothing for it to augment. Nothing for it to modulate. It exists in isolation.

So does an opening line of narrative. It is a lonely and special snowflake, until the next sentence comes along.

If that's not problematic enough itself, it also carries the risk of prejudicing a reader against a writer who is unfamiliar/unkown to them (eg. a writer querying an agent) in that it could offer the suggestion that they are a writer who will be over reliant on dialogue to get them out of a clinch.

I don't think most readers ( not agents, readers) read that much into it...but if you like.

This notion of prejudice is really the second part of the debate. Like it or not, agree with it or not, this prejudice against opening with dialogue exists. We're talking about it. The agent you quote was talking about (and far be it from Mr Bransford to ever sit anywhere other than on the fence, but I don't think you have to read too far between the lines to see that he has an internal alarm that sounds every time he encounters it)
ergo, even if you disagree, you can't ignore its existence.

Oh there is prejudice, but whether it is founded on anything other than bias I've yet to see. In the poll I linked more people loved dialogue openers than hated them. *shrugs* Infer from that what you will. From the 'it depends' majority - I suspect most don't care as long as it hooks them.
Be aware of it and decide whether it's the (small) risk you need to take.

This is the thing - many people just state 'Oh, opening with dialogue is Bad m'kay' without realising why it could be bad - or why a particular line of narrative could be bad.


When first starting out writing, many people flounder, and grab hold of 'rules' to anchor themselves till they can work out how it all works. It's people ( not in this thread, but I've seen it elsewhere on AW, and the results in my beta reading) rigidly adhering to guidlines and insisting they are rules.

Now I know you haven't - but it warrents being discussed, even if just because people say they don't like it, without knowing why. Just because they've been told it's bad.

Like all aspects of writing, of course it's bad if it's not done well - no one can dispute that. Same as any dialgoue can be bad if done badly, or any narrative can be bad if done clumsily. Just saying it's bad doesn't really help unless you can say why though.

All aspects of writing are 'rookie snares'. The purpose of these forums is to show why, to those who want to know, so they can develop ways to avoid doing something badly.

[maestrowork]

BTW, maybe I am splitting hair about definitions, but I do see that sometimes writers struggle with this "conflict" thing to a point that they're manufacturing conflicts (a vs. b) that are not natural to the inner worlds of the characters. Like I said upthread, if you focus on what the characters want and desire, the obstacles that lie before them, and how they would do to get what they want and desire, then the conflicts will come naturally, and you don't need to stress about quota such as having conflict on every page.

Also, conflict and tension can have a longer span than just a single scene. Sexual tension (a wants b, and tries to get b -- which fits perfectly with the above about "wants and desires"), for example, could exist throughout the entire book and you don't need to create more conflicts just to convey that tension. Conflicts do heighten the drama, but the point is you don't need that on every page to keep the readers turning the pages.

Also, conflict is only one ingredient. Plot is about action and reaction and consequences. Conflicts heighten the drama of plot, but it's not plot itself.

Plot is what drives people to turn the pages.

Conflict is what makes the plot dramatic.

And characters are what makes us care about these plot and conflicts.

[Lady Ice]

Characters are the conflicts. If you look at strong characters, the reason they are strong is because they have a strong conflict at their heart. Shakespeare doesn't just work because of the language- there are great conflicts.

[lucidzfl]

I may get blasted, but I despise shakespeare.

[motormind]

She said "every page."

That's right. Okay, you may skip it on a page so now and then, but watch for long slews of text where nothing much happens.


Plot is what drives people to turn the pages.


No, it's the conflict on every page that makes readers turn pages, and it doesn't have anything to do with the plot or even the scene at hand. It would be easy if all we needed is some big plot-based conflict so the reader will flip the pages until it gets resolved. But it doesn't quite work that way.


Conflict is what makes the plot dramatic.


Conflict adds drama to every level, not only the plot.


And characters are what makes us care about these plot and conflicts.

But we don't care about the characters when they're not in some form of conflict.

[motormind]

I may get blasted, but I despise shakespeare.

That's nice, dear.

[lucidzfl]

That's nice, dear.

Just sayin'...

I think he's overrated.

[maestrowork]

That's right. Okay, you may skip it on a page so now and then, but watch for long slews of text where nothing much happens.



No, it's the conflict on every page that makes readers turn pages, and it doesn't have anything to do with the plot or even the scene at hand. It would be easy if all we needed is some big plot-based conflict so the reader will flip the pages until it gets resolved. But it doesn't quite work that way.



Conflict adds drama to every level, not only the plot.



But we don't care about the characters when they're not in some form of conflict.


We'll have to agree to disagree. It seems like we both think we know what we're talking about.

I'll just keep writing my way. It seems to have worked so far.

[john barnes on toast]

Like I said upthread, if you focus on what the characters want and desire, the obstacles that lie before them, and how they would do to get what they want and desire, then the conflicts will come naturally


those are the conflicts

[lucidzfl]

How do you ever learn why you're supposed to care about the conflict if you're faced with conflict on every page?

I'm not in favor of expository passages, but "CONFLICT EVERY PAGE" sounds an awful lot like transformers 2. They had conflict on probably every page. (Except for the retarded middle section where NOTHING happened)

[Slushie]

I may get blasted, but I despise shakespeare.

You just shat yourself.:tongue

On topic:
This issue of conflict on every page applies differently at different parts of the story. Getting some conflict rolling early on is crucial, so in that sense the argument for conflict on every page can be valid. However, further into the story it's more than acceptable to give the reader some breathing room. Now, don't misconstrue this as me encouraging pages and pages of random blabbering, but pacing is important and slowing the pace for a little bit can lay the foundation for the tension of the upcoming scene.

Of course, I must include this disclaimer:
Algebra has rules, writing has guidelines. There's more than one way to write a good story blah blah blah IMO blah blah blah sorry if someone already said this but I didn't read every 100+ post blah blah blah

[lucidzfl]

I have a few chapters where my MC gets to settle in with some children before all hell breaks loose. I specifically think its this lack of conflict that makes it that much worse when he has to leave them.

[katiemac]

I'm not in favor of expository passages, but "CONFLICT EVERY PAGE" sounds an awful lot like transformers 2. They had conflict on probably every page. (Except for the retarded middle section where NOTHING happened)

Maybe they should have added some conflict. ;)

[motormind]

We'll have to agree to disagree. It seems like we both think we know what we're talking about.

I'll just keep writing my way. It seems to have worked so far.

Yes, because you add conflict on nearly every page. You may not do it consciously, but it's there nevertheless. I'd even argue that it's something most writers do instinctively, once they get into the routine of writing.

How do you ever learn why you're supposed to care about the conflict if you're faced with conflict on every page?


You don't care unless there is conflict on every page.


I'm not in favor of expository passages, but "CONFLICT EVERY PAGE" sounds an awful lot like transformers 2. They had conflict on probably every page. (Except for the retarded middle section where NOTHING happened)

Note again: with "conflict" I don't mean stuff that is related to the plot--quite the contrary. The main conflict needs a resolve during the course of the story to give a notion of coherency, but it's the little ones that keep you reading. I am a bit amazed that we can have such a long debate about something like this.

[lucidzfl]

Yes, because you add conflict on nearly every page. You may not do it consciously, but it's there nevertheless. I'd even argue that it's something most writers do instinctively, once they get into the routine of writing.



You don't care unless there is conflict on every page.



Note again: with "conflict" I don't mean stuff that is related to the plot--quite the contrary. The main conflict needs a resolve during the course of the story to give a notion of coherency, but it's the little ones that keep you reading. I am a bit amazed that we can have such a long debate about something like this.

Ever heard of "The calm before the storm" ? There have to be points without conflict, or else the conflict loses its meaning. I really do not understand your perspective at all.

EDIT:
Also, what I find mind boggling, is not only that we have one guy in this thread who says you have to have dialog all over the place and just CONSTANTLY. I'm not even shocked that we have another guy who needs conflict on EVERY page.

I'm amazed however, that you guys hold these as RULES, and are so ensconced in these ridiculous concepts that "you can't believe we're debating it"

[ChaosTitan]

Yes, because you add conflict on nearly every page. You may not do it consciously, but it's there nevertheless. I'd even argue that it's something most writers do instinctively, once they get into the routine of writing.
#
You don't care unless there is conflict on every page.
#
Note again: with "conflict" I don't mean stuff that is related to the plot--quite the contrary. The main conflict needs a resolve during the course of the story to give a notion of coherency, but it's the little ones that keep you reading. I am a bit amazed that we can have such a long debate about something like this.

I agree with the spirit of this post, I really do. And it may be others' perception of what the word "conflict" requires that is causing all of the debate.

Last night I started reading NEVER LET ME GO by Kazuo Ishiguro. It's not my typical choice of reading material, but I read a good review recently and stumbled upon a copy in a thrift store.

On the first page, I meet the narrator and learn she is a carer. Well, what's a carer? CONFLICT. It isn't character-related conflict, but it is reader conflict, because I don't know what a carer is. She says she's had an unusually long career as a carer, and that this is rare--again, why? She refers to herself as Kathy H. She never uses last names. Reader conflict--why? She refers to "my donors." What are donors? What does that mean? Reader conflict.

This is the first page--two paragraphs. None of it is what most people would think of as Conflict, because...well, it's all narrative. It's the narrator telling me about herself, without any actual action going on. But it's still conflict, because it makes me keep reading.

[motormind]

Ever heard of "The calm before the storm" ? There have to be points without conflict, or else the conflict loses its meaning. I really do not understand your perspective at all.


You can have conflict in the calm before the storm of the main conflict. It usually involves conflicting emotions, either within one character or between characters. It's minor stuff, but still important.


Also, what I find mind boggling, is not only that we have one guy in this thread who says you have to have dialog all over the place and just CONSTANTLY. I'm not even shocked that we have another guy who needs conflict on EVERY page.


Apples and oranges. Dialogue is a specific writing technique, conflict is a way to keep tension within any kind of text, dialogue or otherwise.


I'm amazed however, that you guys hold these as RULES, and are so ensconced in these ridiculous concepts that "you can't believe we're debating it"

It amounts to the same as discussing whether or not you need wheels under a car to make it move.

In any case, and as I said before, Donald Maass also has a chapter about it in his book "The Fire In Fiction". There he calls it "micro-tension". I find it a bit of a silly name and it's of course not all a novel needs, but it's pretty much what I'm talking about. I am als not saying I am so great at it myself, but I do agree that it is highly necessary: at least I see it applied in any novel or movie I like.

[lucidzfl]

It amounts to the same as discussing whether or not you need wheels under a car to make it move.


I think it amounts to saying you need 245 40r18 wheels under your car to make it move.

[john barnes on toast]

this is getting absolutely stupid.

I think people are being pedantic over the definition of 'conflict' just for arguments sake (and possibly carrying grudges over from other threads, which is poor form.)

I think enough effort has been made to explain that conflict doesn't mean fighting, it doesn't mean war, it doesn't mean car chases, it doesn't mean explosions. It means, in the context of this debate, any desire for a change in the status quo.
As has been stated, that desire can be for something as simple as a glass of water when a character doesn't have a glass of water.
Without conflict a story will not move. Therefore you need conflict throughout your story. People are welcome to argue the toss over whether that means every page, every scene, every sentence, or every seventeen words, but I can't see great value in it.

[Lady Ice]

What I think motormind means is that the story has no reason to go on, unless there is a conflict. This conflict may be explored over many pages or a bit of a page, but the stakes have to be raised.

If nothing changes, no one will read for very long.

[motormind]

What I think motormind means is that the story has no reason to go on, unless there is a conflict. This conflict may be explored over many pages or a bit of a page, but the stakes have to be raised.

No, that is not what I mean. It's not about raising stakes. I have no idea how I can put it any clearer than I did, really.

I think it amounts to saying you need 245 40r18 wheels under your car to make it move.

Ah, well, whatever. I give up. Bye bye.

[Samantha's_Song]

Ya know, when I began writing seriously, I bought many books on writing. But. I never read any of them, I don't visit any site, besides AW, that gives us advice. Know why? Because I've read enough books in my life to know what makes a story and its characters tick. :Shrug: That's all.

[maestrowork]

Yes, because you add conflict on nearly every page. You may not do it consciously, but it's there nevertheless. I'd even argue that it's something most writers do instinctively, once they get into the routine of writing.

Please don't presume to know what I write and how I write. It's obnoxious and condescending.

In fact, every post of yours seems condescending: "Conflict on every page, that's the only way to write."

I can tell you for sure that there are plenty of conflicts in my books -- don't worry about getting bored -- but not on every page. Constant conflict is exhausting, and artificial.

[Samantha's_Song]

Here, here. I also like to relax with my characters, get to know them, them get to know one another, have a laugh, be friends. No conflict there, but it puts meat onto the bones of the story's characters.
Constant conflict is exhausting, and artificial.

[maestrowork]

No, that is not what I mean. It's not about raising stakes. I have no idea how I can put it any clearer than I did, really.

Ah, well, whatever. I give up. Bye bye.


It is about raising stakes. As long as you have sustainable stakes and tension that result from them, you'd be fine -- but that doesn't translate to "conflict on every page" even though the stakes are always there.

And yeah, buh-bye.


Here, here. I also like to relax with my characters, get to know them, them get to know one another, have a laugh, be friends. No conflict there, but it puts meat onto the bones of the story's characters.

As a reader/audience, I love those scenes in novels or movies. There are usually enough conflicts to go around, and it's often refreshing to have "breather" scenes when the characters are just having a good time/at peace with one another, without drama. It's not to say the stakes and overall conflicts/tension go away, but in that particular scene, it's good to see a scene where the characters just kiss.

[blacbird]

The use of the term "conflict" in this thread has been pretty vague, and methinks may be the source of some of the disagreements. I've always taken the term in a rather broad context, not as meaning fistfights and explosions and the like. Anything that irritates the protag, or generates anxiety, is a form of "conflict". And, for the reader, can provide the necessary interest to impel the story forward.

caw

[Cassiopeia]

Tension. At the minimum there should be some sort of tension on each page.Tension is good and I'd like to add that tension doesn't mean conflict necessarily but it could mean that someone has posed a question. Something to pull at the reader to make them want to read more.

I have a few simple rules, to guide most people who have problems with their ch 1.

1. No more than three paragraphs at the beginning of Ch 1. (wow, you so won't want to read any of my novels. My beginning chapters are at least 7 pages. ;) )

2. Start as close to the dialogue as possible. You think the reader needs backstory? Chances are they don't. All backstory looks pretty much the same and gets boring. (I've read plenty of stories that give a back story in the beginning and I didn't put them down. What I think I object to is info dumping. Back story can be told through dialogue too, let's keep that in mind)

3. Kill all repetition in the first chapter. Stop pounding information into the readers head, especially when we have met a character the PoV doesn't like and so on. (redundancy doesn't belong in any chapter. EVER)


I've come to the conclusion that in writing, there ARE no absolute do's and don't with the exception to the mechanics of writing.

To the OP's question, do you have to have conflict. No you don't but it can be a must depending on the genre.

[motormind]

Please don't presume to know what I write and how I write. It's obnoxious and condescending.

In fact, every post of yours seems condescending: "Conflict on every page, that's the only way to write."


Please, don't start with personal attacks. I may be bitchy, but I didn't get personal myself.


I can tell you for sure that there are plenty of conflicts in my books -- don't worry about getting bored -- but not on every page.


I get bored pretty quickly and don't finish most books I start, no matter what name is on the cover. I can't say anything about your books though, since I haven't read them. Sorry.


Constant conflict is exhausting, and artificial.

Okay, as a last resort I will hand you this link (http://www.floggingthequill.com/flogging_the_quill/2009/04/microtension-an-excerpt-from-the-new-donald-maass-book.html).

(It's the part about micro-tension. I'd put the quote here, but it's pretty long).

Maass simply states what I have noticed myself in most popular works. Make of it what you wish. That's all.

[lucidzfl]

The use of the term "conflict" in this thread has been pretty vague, and methinks may be the source of some of the disagreements. I've always taken the term in a rather broad context, not as meaning fistfights and explosions and the like. Anything that irritates the protag, or generates anxiety, is a form of "conflict". And, for the reader, can provide the necessary interest to impel the story forward.

caw

I really don't think that the context of conflict has been taken ... well out of context.

I have a chapter, comprised of around 5 pages, where my main character does nothing but enjoy a meal with two children, wake up, find out his clothes have been thrown away so he could have new ones, he teaches the boy how to make cornmeal and the chapter ends with him finding a massive cache of weapons in the basement.

Thats five pages without any conflict or tension (until the very end, where HOPEFULLY, the MASSIVE twist and tensions arisen by the discovery makes the preceding 4.5 pages more jarring.

Also, those 4.5 pages allow us to finally see our character in a light other than slash, maim, destroy, cry about his wife.

The children exist in this chapter solely to give my MC some depth and roundness he'd otherwise lacked.

Maybe my betas will tell me to jettison this chapter, but I don't think so. I think its a welcome reprieve, and like I said, I hope that it lulls the reader into a false sense of security before that huge discovery at the end.

[maestrowork]

I had a chapter in TPB where two characters lay in bed confiding in one another, and then they said goodbye at the end. It was a quiet, solemn, peaceful conclusion/release of what had come before (but not the climax of the book -- that had yet to come). It was just peaceful and lovely to show the truth and love between two people.

It made my readers cry; it was one of the best received chapters of the book.

[motormind]

The children exist in this chapter solely to give my MC some depth and roundness he'd otherwise lacked.


So, there's absolutely no conflict in his interaction with his children? It's all "hi dad" , "hi kid", "nice weather" and so on? There's not even something small, like a kid who doesn't want to go to sleep, or is loud-mouthed, or shy, or simply teasing dad? I mean, stuff that is totally unrelated to the plot, but there nevertheless? If so, how can the children give any depth to the MC? I, as a lowly dabbler in words, would really like to know how you do that without any kind of (mild) conflict or tension.

[Cassiopeia]

I had a chapter in TPB where two characters lay in bed confiding in one another, and then they said goodbye at the end. It was a quiet, solemn, peaceful conclusion/release of what had come before (but not the climax of the book -- that had yet to come). It was just peaceful and lovely to show the truth and love between two people.

It made my readers cry; it was one of the best received chapters of the book.Yes, it made this reader teary eyed. It wasn't conflict but it pulled at my emotions. It drew me in.

[lucidzfl]

I had a chapter in TPB where two characters lay in bed confiding in one another, and then they said goodbye at the end. It was a quiet, solemn, peaceful conclusion/release of what had come before (but not the climax of the book -- that had yet to come). It was just peaceful and lovely to show the truth and love between two people.

It made my readers cry; it was one of the best received chapters of the book.

You FOOL! That was the PERFECT time to "have a man break down the door, preferably waving a gun". Why don't you realize that!

On a side note, I read the link which Motormind posted.

The guy doesn't say ANYTHING about having conflict/tension on every page. He makes a large distinction between "skimming large swaths of books" that have no tension for dozens of pages on end, and having microtension.

I agree that on a general basis, when keeping the plot moving forward, you should have tension that gives people something to resolve or understand pretty often. He still didn't specify every page.

But to someone elses point above, too much tension is exhausting. The reader has to catch their breath at some point. And FYI, i hate to tell you this, but LACK of defined tension can be JUST as tense as OVERT tension.

If you're writing a story where all hell breaks loose just constantly, and suddenly everythings fine.... Every single page where nothing bad happens is going to increase the tension that the shit is REALLY going to hit the fan soon.

[maestrowork]

I think some people here are equating "lack of conflict" to "nothing happens: no emotions, no depth, no plot, no forward movement, flat writing" etc.

[Cassiopeia]

So, there's absolutely no conflict in his interaction with his children? It's all "hi dad" , "hi kid", "nice weather" and so on? There's not even something small, like a kid who doesn't want to go to sleep, or is loud-mouthed, or shy, or simply teasing dad? I mean, stuff that is totally unrelated to the plot, but there nevertheless? If so, how can the children give any depth to the MC? I, as a lowly dabbler in words, would really like to know how you do that without any kind of (mild) conflict or tension.
I can tell you as a reader and a writer, if every single page is filled with conflict and tension, I'm going to drop the book. I'm told that my writing is fast paced reading. I am not too thrilled about that because readers need to take a breath.

I'd also like to add here, that I find it disturbing that people nowadays don't see the value of elements that add to the story. I grow weary of, that's an info dump, that's back story, that's useless. Are we so lazy as readers that all we want is the action and none of the ambiance of our characters lives?

[lucidzfl]

So, there's absolutely no conflict in his interaction with his children? It's all "hi dad" , "hi kid", "nice weather" and so on? There's not even something small, like a kid who doesn't want to go to sleep, or is loud-mouthed, or shy, or simply teasing dad? I mean, stuff that is totally unrelated to the plot, but there nevertheless? If so, how can the children give any depth to the MC? I, as a lowly dabbler in words, would really like to know how you do that without any kind of (mild) conflict or tension.


They aren't his kids, he stumbled onto their farm. The 8 year old girl shot him in the chest thinking he was a burglar. When he survives he reveals that he's not a bad guy and they offer to let him stay with him for a few days. This is when he finds out their father has been missing for nearly a year.

So no, there is no tension or conflict in the chapter once he wakes up in the house. I suppose you could make the claim that my MC's deciding not to tell them about the apocalypse and that their father is likely dead might constitute tension, but its established early on, and moved past.

There is a specific lack of tension to this chapter because quite honestly ,things are never going to be ok for Mitch. Like I said in a post above, the lack of tension, things going smoothly, just reinforces the fact that shit is about to go sideways.

[maestrowork]

Every single page where nothing bad happens is going to increase the tension that the shit is REALLY going to hit the fan soon.

That's called the tension of anticipation... you know how in horror films when everything is just hunky-dory, you know something bad is going to happen around the corner and you can't help but hold tight to your seat... (and sometimes actually nothing happens, and you breath a sigh of relief, and that's when the bad guy jumps out). It doesn't just work for horror films... I have seen many movies that used this technique (anticipation) very well.

Again, that's the distinction between tension and conflict. Sorry, there is a difference.

(someone actually tried to define tension as "conflict within the readers" -- I think it is a fair definition, but personally I think that's convoluting everything -- I do, however, think it's always a good thing to rouse feelings in readers, whether they are tension, dread, fear, conflict, sadness, etc.. When we're emotionally engaged and invested in the characters and scenes, we'll be willing to go along with the ride. And conflict is only one way to engage the readers emotionally.)

But I'm afraid I'm beating a dead horse.

[lucidzfl]

That's called the tension of anticipation... you know how in horror films when everything is just hunky-dory, you know something bad is going to happen around the corner and you can't help but hold tight to your seat... (and sometimes actually nothing happens, and you breath a sigh of relief, and that's when the bad guy jumps out).

Again, that's the distinction between tension and conflict. Sorry, there is a difference.

In my book, I want the fact that my MC has bonded with the children and had a nice few peaceful days with them to really give the reader a sense of connection to them and the idea that the MC could REALLY finally be happy and have a sense of peace.

The preceding chapters is supposed to really mess with the reader when the Mitch tells them that the world has essentially ended and their father is dead, the little boy puts his arm around his sister, while looking at mitch and says, maybe daddy will come home, and maybe he wont, but now we have (the MC) with us and he's going to keep us company till then.

Because the boys put all this stock in the MC, and oh yeah, you guessed it, THAT AFTERNOON, Mitch is going to have to abandon them to save their lives. Its horrible and hopefully will really hit the reader hard, but I believe its only possible due to the peace the MCbriefly had with the children.

[Cassiopeia]

That's called the tension of anticipation... you know how in horror films when everything is just hunky-dory, you know something bad is going to happen around the corner and you can't help but hold tight to your seat... (and sometimes actually nothing happens, and you breath a sigh of relief, and that's when the bad guy jumps out). It doesn't just work for horror films... I have seen many movies that used this technique (anticipation) very well.

Again, that's the distinction between tension and conflict. Sorry, there is a difference.

(someone actually tried to define tension as "conflict within the readers" -- I think it is a fair definition, but personally I think that's convoluting everything -- I do, however, think it's always a good thing to rouse feelings in readers, whether they are tension, dread, fear, conflict, sadness, etc.. When we're emotionally engaged and invested in the characters and scenes, we'll be willing to go along with the ride)

But I'm afraid I'm beating a dead horse.LOVE this explanation! Love it!

[motormind]

I can tell you as a reader and a writer, if every single page is filled with conflict and tension, I'm going to drop the book. I'm told that my writing is fast paced reading. I am not too thrilled about that because readers need to take a breath.

I'd also like to add here, that I find it disturbing that people nowadays don't see the value of elements that add to the story. I grow weary of, that's an info dump, that's back story, that's useless. Are we so lazy as readers that all we want is the action and none of the ambiance of our characters lives?

When I talk about conflict and tension, I am not talking about action. I am talking about the small stuff, what you would call "ambience".

I have stated this so many times in this thread already that I really am at a loss as how to clarify my point. I especially didn't expect people to attack straw-man versions of my arguments all the time.

What do I have to do, color-code it? Draw charts? Make a puppet theater about it? Did anybody even read the link I put in here?

[lucidzfl]

Did anybody even read the link I put in here?

I did.

I went into detail about what I read in your link. Perhaps you should read the replies in their entirety and you'd be less confused.

[motormind]

In my book, I want the fact that my MC has bonded with the children and had a nice few peaceful days with them to really give the reader a sense of connection to them and the idea that the MC could REALLY finally be happy and have a sense of peace.

The preceding chapters is supposed to really mess with the reader when the Mitch tells them that the world has essentially ended and their father is dead, the little boy puts his arm around his sister, while looking at mitch and says, maybe daddy will come home, and maybe he wont, but now we have (the MC) with us and he's going to keep us company till then.

Because the boys put all this stock in the MC, and oh yeah, you guessed it, THAT AFTERNOON, Mitch is going to have to abandon them to save their lives. Its horrible and hopefully will really hit the reader hard, but I believe its only possible due to the peace the MCbriefly had with the children.

But how do you make the reader care about the children--or even the fact that he has them? Do you simply tell the reader: "he has three darling children, they are perfect, and he is happy with them"?

[The Lonely One]

But to someone elses point above, too much tension is exhausting. The reader has to catch their breath at some point. And FYI, i hate to tell you this, but LACK of defined tension can be JUST as tense as OVERT tension.


I think of Terantino when you say this. There are those long dialog scenes where characters shoot the shit with tension looming right outside of the conversation. You're thinking, when is everyone going to fuck each other up? Because you know it's going to happen, but you don't know when. I think this is what's called suspense.

[motormind]

I did.

I went into detail about what I read in your link. Perhaps you should read the replies in their entirety and you'd be less confused.

Where? I searched and can't find it. Could you put a link to it?

I think some people here are equating "lack of conflict" to "nothing happens: no emotions, no depth, no plot, no forward movement, flat writing" etc.

So how do you put in emotion, depth and forward motion without any form of conflict? I'd love to know.

[maestrowork]

I think of Terantino when you say this. There are those long dialog scenes where characters shoot the shit with tension looming right outside of the conversation. You're thinking, when is everyone going to fuck each other up? Because you know it's going to happen, but you don't know when. I think this is what's called suspense.

Exactly. There is tension and suspense, but no conflict in that particular scene itself.

I think that's what someone said upthread: the difference between "OMG, I think the shit is going to hit the fan" vs. "the shit hits the fan."

Learn to do that well, and your readers will thank you for that.

[maestrowork]

So how do you put in emotion, depth and forward motion without any form of conflict? I'd love to know.

With skills.

[motormind]

With skills.

Wow, that's deep. Would you like to tell us what skills you apply?

Like, when your characters get emotional, why do they? What reason do you give them to make them laugh, cry or get angry? And when you advance your plot, how does that go? Do you just let stuff happen?

[maestrowork]

read my book.

[motormind]

read my book.

So you can't just tell me? You surely must be able to communicate your skills, even for a bit.

In any case, I read the first pages of your book on Amazon.com, and it has conflict running all over them. On every page. So you apply it intuitively. Which is very fine (and the way most writers do it), but that's not the same as saying that you don't do it or it doesn't exist.

[john barnes on toast]

You FOOL! That was the PERFECT time to "have a man break down the door, preferably waving a gun". Why don't you realize that!




I've made at least two post giving a definition of conflict that contradicts the one your insisting on.

Are you even going to acknowledge what I've said, or just continue with the rather unedifying circular argument?

[maestrowork]

So you can't just tell me? You surely must be able to communicate your skills, even for a bit.

In any case, I read the first pages of your book on Amazon.com, and it has conflict running all over them. On every page. So you apply it intuitively. Which is very fine (and the way most writers do it), but that's not the same as saying that you don't do it or it doesn't exist.

I can, but I don't know if you're receptive of my advice at all, to be honest.

(actually, I already talked about that upthread, if you actually cared to read and consider what I had to say)


And I never said anything about my opening chapters -- I deliberately began my book with a suspense and conflict -- and I never disputed the fact that you need tension/conflict early on. But it's the notion of "conflict on every page" that is thorny for me.

And I already told you I have pages/scenes without conflict. If you don't believe me, that's your own issue.

[Cassiopeia]

Where? I searched and can't find it. Could you put a link to it?



So how do you put in emotion, depth and forward motion without any form of conflict? I'd love to know.Are you asking to learn from him or are you asking because you are challenging his statements?

How do you put emotion, depth and forward motion? You use conflict...and you've also stated that Mr. Wong does it on all of his pages that you've read on Amazon.

I think the problem is that the definition of conflict here is not absolute. And it's been explained over and over again in this thread, how to write and move a plot forward without "conflict".

Tension
Conflict
Angst
Interaction
Narrative
Dialogue
Characterizations

All move a story forward. Be careful not to confuse controversy as the only type of conflict there is.

On a final note, as I live and breathe there will never be one way of writing nor one way of explaining how to do it.

[motormind]

I can, but I don't know if you're receptive of my advice at all, to be honest.

And I never said anything about my opening chapters, and I never disputed the fact that you need tension/conflict early on. But it's the "conflict" on every page that is thorny for me.


You're backpedaling. Big time. Well, have it your way. It's nap time in my part of the world, so I bid you farewell.

[maestrowork]

Poor motormind.

This time, maybe you can keep your word.

[lucidzfl]

But how do you make the reader care about the children--or even the fact that he has them? Do you simply tell the reader: "he has three darling children, they are perfect, and he is happy with them"?

Man, if you don't start actually reading my posts, I'm going to stop responding. I specifically said they weren't his children. You can't find the one where I followed your link? Do you not see all of my posts or something?

Also, John Barnes, I haven't been talking to you this whole thread, so I don't know what I'm talking around, but the post I made to maestro which you quoted was an off topic joke ... so....

[motormind]

You FOOL! That was the PERFECT time to "have a man break down the door, preferably waving a gun". Why don't you realize that!

On a side note, I read the link which Motormind posted.

The guy doesn't say ANYTHING about having conflict/tension on every page. He makes a large distinction between "skimming large swaths of books" that have no tension for dozens of pages on end, and having microtension.

I agree that on a general basis, when keeping the plot moving forward, you should have tension that gives people something to resolve or understand pretty often. He still didn't specify every page.


Ah, I finally found your comment. Well, one last comment before I hop into bed: yes, you are all right and I am totally wrong. Who am I to blow against the wind?

Godspeed!

[maestrowork]

Don't flounce if you don't mean it.

[lucidzfl]

Ah, I finally found your comment. Well, one last comment before I hop into bed: yes, you are all right and I am totally wrong. Who am I to blow against the wind?

Godspeed!

I uh... I was only saying that he didn't specify every page...

He simply said that one mistake people make is having only one central point of conflict or tension and that its not enough to keep people interested. He furthers the point by saying that it is in fact, the little conflicts that really do hold our interest throughout the book.

In fact, I didn't disagree with anything he said in the link.

I merely pointed out that he never specified every page. (Or even every chapter). So perhaps your interpretation of his ideal is a bit exaggerated.

ETA: Now that you're reading my posts, did you see where I said the kids are not his children and explained the "no tension chapter" ? I'd be interested to see if you disagree with my reasons for that chapter.

Despite what you may think, I'm not trying to be antagonistic.

[Akuma]

I'll believe whoever is published.

[ChaosTitan]

Maybe it's time for everyone to step back a bit. This thread is getting circular and no one is saying anything new on the topic.

[Pepper]

Is it just me, or has this thread turned into a quiet war?

Not referring to anyone in particular here (I started skimming posts a few pages ago and can't remember who is saying what), but....

Person A has an opinion.
Person B has another opinion.
Person C has an opinion different to the others.

A, B and C all believe their personal opinion is the golden standard.

Agree to disagree and be friends again! The OP's question has been answered. ;)

After a serving up the first few hundred words of my wip in SYW, one of the comments was that there was no conflict. That it would be a no sell unless the conflict, or a conflict, was made apparent to a reading agent/publisher in the first three or four paragraphs. Just wondered what the consensus on this was.

Many thanks,

Ian


*runs away* :scared:

[Pepper]

Bah CT beat me to it. *shakes fist at skele-kitteh*

[blacbird]

Is it just me, or has this thread turned into a quiet war?

Not referring to anyone in particular here (I started skimming posts a few pages ago and can't remember who is saying what), but....

Person A has an opinion.
Person B has another opinion.
Person C has an opinion different to the others.

A, B and C all believe their personal opinion is the golden standard.

Oh, yeah? Well yer wrong.

caw

[Slushie]

Oh, yeah? Well yer wrong.

caw

No, yer wrong.




Moral of the thread: there's conflicting consensus on what constitutes conflict and everybody is wrong except for me.:D

[bearilou]

I think until we all agree on what conflict is and how it is similar/different than tension, we're not going to get any farther in this discussion.

I thought I agreed with motormind, I thought I understood. Then I was corrected, indicating that I obviously did not.

So...until definitions are hammered out, I think we will be chasing each others tails.

[blacbird]

No, yer wrong.

Well, now we got conflict, godamit. Yer wrong.

caw

[motormind]

"Is this the five minute argument, or the full half hour?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM&feature=rec-HM-rev-rn

[Samantha's_Song]

But don't you find, when we are told things like this on writing sites, that it usually comes from some link on the net, or some 'writing' book that someone's read, and the people who find and make these statements haven't actually been published themselves yet. I know this sounds bitchy, sorry peeps, but I'm not going to take advice from a writer/writers who haven't, themselves, been published. Like I said earlier, I know what makes a good story from all of the books I've read over the years. :)
I'd also like to add here, that I find it disturbing that people nowadays don't see the value of elements that add to the story. I grow weary of, that's an info dump, that's back story, that's useless. Are we so lazy as readers that all we want is the action and none of the ambiance of our characters lives?

[Cassiopeia]

But don't you find, when we are told things like this on writing sites, that it usually comes from some link on the net, or some 'writing' book that someone's read, and the people who make these statements haven't actually been published themselves yet. I know this sounds bitchy, sorry peeps, but I'm not going to take advice from a writer/writers who haven't, themselves, been published. Like I said earlier, I know what makes a good story from all of the books I've read over the years. :)If you are being bitchy then I'm sitting right next to you.

As we've seen on other threads over and over again, nothing is written in stone (sorry mac, had to use it) and nothing can be pinned down to perfect advice because there is no such thing.

[Samantha's_Song]

Bitches of a feather stick together. :D :Hug2:
If you are being bitchy then I'm sitting right next to you.

[Cassiopeia]

Bitches of a feather stick together. :D :Hug2:Yes'm...at least that's the way I see it. ;)

[motormind]

If you are being bitchy then I'm sitting right next to you.

As we've seen on other threads over and over again, nothing is written in stone (sorry mac, had to use it)


Actually, that is not true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone

;)


and nothing can be pinned down to perfect advice because there is no such thing.

Since when does advice have to be "perfect" to be usable?

[Cassiopeia]

Since when does advice have to be "perfect" to be usable?Oh come now...are you seriously going to take something like that out of the context of my post? I've not said it's not usable. I've said there is no perfect advice.

[motormind]

Oh come now...are you seriously going to take something like that out of the context of my post? I've not said it's not usable. I've said there is no perfect advice.

My, aren't writers a sensitive bunch. I sometimes feel like a brontosaur in a porcelain shop here.

[Cassiopeia]

My, aren't writers a sensitive bunch. I sometimes feel like a brontosaur in a porcelain shop here.My, my, my...you do like to poke and see what buttons you can push, don't you?

I suggest, if a writer has no sensitivity they live in a bubble and can hardly write characters to which we can relate.

[motormind]

My, my, my...you do like to poke and see what buttons you can push, don't you?


When there are buttons littered all over the place, it's hard not to push some.


I suggest, if a writer has no sensitivity they live in a bubble and can hardly write characters to which we can relate.

A sense of humor helps, though.

[Cassiopeia]

When there are buttons littered all over the place, it's hard not to push some. At some point or another button pushers find that there's a lesson to be learned and it's not a rather nice one.



A sense of humor helps, though.And a nice understand of online etiquette comes in handy as well.

As for me, I find ignore works perfectly well. Cheers.

[motormind]

At some point or another button pushers find that there's a lesson to be learned and it's not a rather nice one.


Oh my. My hands tremble so much I can hardly type these words.


And a nice understand of online etiquette comes in handy as well.


You mean the etiquette that lets you hurl thinly veiled threats like the above in my direction?



As for me, I find ignore works perfectly well. Cheers.

Yes, you might learn a thing or two, and we can't have that, of course.

In any case, I think this thread has fulfilled its function in showing how you can derive conflict from totally nothing whatsoever. I guess it's time to close it.

[john barnes on toast]

This thread should be closed.

[lucidzfl]

This thread should be closed.

Your MOUTH should be closed!


:D :D :D :D :D

(Ees Joke!)

[Birol]

Thread closed.

Let me end with this quote: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." - John 8:7.

Those of you who reported a post in this thread may wish to take the above quote to heart.

That said, Chaos, please PM me if, in your opinion, any participant in this thread deserves a time-out and whether you feel three or seven days is more appropriate.