Jane Friedman: "A Big Mistake to Avoid in Story Openings" (A Case ofTell, don't Show)

Me&BacchusGoIntoABar · Dec 22, 2009

I've read countless manuscripts that begin by describing a character writhing in pain. Mental pain, physical pain, emotional pain, you name it.

For instance:
John clenched his throat and tried to stop the flow of blood, but he couldn't. His skin became whiter and whiter, and he broke out into a cold sweat. He felt prickles all up and down his back, and his breathing became intensely labored. He squinted into the sun and wondered if this was finally going to be it.

[Two paragraphs later, after more pain description]

He felt certain he was going to die after getting trampled by a bull moose. He thought about his life as a whole, and was actually pleased at the thought he'd never have to suffer married life again.

Writers probably think it is better to dramatize this opening moment of crisis—to SHOW the character in pain or agony.

In fact, it's usually better to come right out and tell, and get to the point quickly. You can grab my attention much more effectively by starting out this way:
On his 500th hunting trip, it finally happened. John was trampled by a bull moose. His wife tried calling him while it happened but he couldn't reach his cell phone. In that moment it became crystal clear to him: He wanted a divorce.

This is a VERY extreme example, but hopefully the point is made. Dramatizing (or showing) can slow down your first scene to an absolute crawl. It's hard to care about any character's pain until we know that character's conflict, motivation, and overall environment.

Later on in the book, when we're on the edge of our seat, wondering what will happen to John, because we care so much about John—that's the time to show and dramatize, and keep us in suspense.

Link

Discuss-a-roo.

Sevvy · Dec 22, 2009

It's true. When someone says you should write an opening that has stuff happening in it, that is suspenseful and keeps us reading, they don't necessarily mean there should be an action sequence or something. Having it open in the middle of some guy clutching his throat is confusing, not suspenseful. I don't have any reason to care why he's holding his throat yet. But telling me he's about to get trampled by a moose...that's kinda interesting.

kuatolives · Dec 22, 2009

Buddy should read Stephen King's Misery. The opening is fifteen pages of the best suffering I've ever read. Agents are idiots.

raburrell · Dec 22, 2009

The problem with the first opening is John's just a soon-to-be dead guy, who we're pretty sure actually won't be. Yawn.
The interesting thing about the second one is he's a guy in a bad spot, who's just made a decision about his bad marriage. a) the author created (at least the potential for) empathy and b) had the character do something other than wonder about his own mortality.

I'd keep reading.

veinglory · Dec 22, 2009

It's not opening with suffering, it's opening with a character we know nothing about suffering something poorly described. In romance it is often hideous terrible emotional pain.

Yawn.

kaitie · Dec 23, 2009

veinglory said:
Its not opening with suffering, it opening with a character we know nothing about suffering something poorly described. In romance it is often hideous terrible emotional pain.

Yawn.

I think this is completely true. Something I've seen from quite a few writers is a feeling that more graphic tends to equal more emotional weight. Now, sometimes graphic can work well, and I'm not suggesting people shy away from it necessarily, but all of the cases that I can think of where graphic works best are times when you're already emotionally connected to the character. It's insanely difficult to create that emotional connection through something painful. Well, that combined with trying to create a shocking and dramatic intro to hook people.

I tend to think if people are trying to go for shocking and dramatic as an intro it rarely works. From the kinds of things I've seen anyway. The fun thing about the second example is that the irony and unexpectedness is what makes it fun and hooks you. Being trampled by a moose is already intriguing because it's unusual, and then to pair it with the other ideas the way it's done is just fantastic, IMO. That's the kind of thing I'd keep reading on in a heartbeat.

Anyway, back to what I was basically saying to begin with (I'm thinking aloud, hence the insanely random and rambly nature of this post), things like pain and suffering are most effective when combined with the emotional attachment one feels for a character. Though in general I just think people should stop trying so hard.

kaitie · Dec 23, 2009

raburrell said:
The problem with the first opening is John's just a soon-to-be dead guy, who we're pretty sure actually won't be. Yawn.
The interesting thing about the second one is he's a guy in a bad spot, who's just made a decision about his bad marriage. a) the author created (at least the potential for) empathy and b) had the character do something other than wonder about his own mortality.

I'd keep reading.

And it's made all the more interesting by the juxtaposition of completely contradictory ideas--being trampled by a moose and wanting a divorce. I'd keep reading, too. It also has more voice, doesn't it? The first reads as incredibly generic, but the second has some personality to the words.

Lady Ice · Dec 23, 2009

motormind said:
I am totally baffled by all this business about openings. I am doing something in my WIP that's supposed to be a total no-no: somebody waking up from a dream. I tried to eliminate it and start further in the story, but it just doesn't work. The wake-up scene is very important, the more since it is being mirrored by a similar scene in the end.

What to do, what to do? Do I go for artistic integrity (HA!) or beat my story into something salable?

If it's mirrored properly at the end, use it. It's just that it's such an overdone beginning (having a dream allows you to do an info-dump of the problem) that it might put people off.

Phaeal · Dec 23, 2009

kuatolives said:
Buddy should read Stephen King's Misery. The opening is fifteen pages of the best suffering I've ever read. Agents are idiots.

Stephen King is a virtuoso writer of suffering. Don't try this at home, kids.

For the most part, the agent is right. Starting in media res doesn't always work. In fact, it often flops. The reader has made no investment in the character or characters involved, has no sense of who they are, can lapse into the boredom of confusion. Plus so many stories do start this way, their authors spurred into a frenzy by gotta-grab-the-reader-by-the-throat misdirection, that anyone who reads much unpublished material (agents, editors, frequenters of SYW) must be jaded to the point of, well, suffering.

Virtuosi of starting almost in desperate media res, often with cameo characters, are Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child. See the opening of Relic: They show us the explorer in the South American jungle a few pages before all hell breaks loose on him. When the hell breaks, we have already seen enough of his courage to be on his side, enough of his reckless determination to fear for him, and we have at least a vague idea what the hell is going on.

Jane Friedman: "A Big Mistake to Avoid in Story Openings" (A Case ofTell, don't Show)

Me&BacchusGoIntoABar

Sevvy

Spec Fic Writer

kuatolives

Gonzo Journalist

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

veinglory

volitare nequeo

kaitie

With great power comes

kaitie

With great power comes

Lady Ice

Makes useful distinctions

Phaeal

Whatever I did, I didn't do it.