First chapter and major story conflict

You can put the major conflict in chapter 1 but I wouldnt recommend it. Because one you're going to be writing an entire book based off the one conflict that could who knows be taken care in two chapters. U dont want to drag the story on.. You'd lose the reader then. I've read sooo many books that I thought would be amazing and then they just sucked because the writer tried to keep the reader going based on the conflict right away... build up to the conflict..

It depends on the genre. If it's crime/thriller then yes, you need conflict in chapter one:

WIP #2: Kidnapping
WIP #2: Attempted murder.

A common complaint from agents is that new authors start the story too early. Be wary, why are you starting before the real conflict begins?

For me, the major goal of a first chapter is to hook in the reader, and that means conflict.

I agree with gothicangel- it does depend on genre- I write thrillers so yeah i want confilcit in my first chapter- but not my major conflcit- there are small story arcs and large story arcs- if you start with a small but great conflict- you will hook your reader and get them vested in your characters and that is a great thing- I have my one character running wounded and bleeding- fleeing for his life right on page one- it is not the major conflict in my story, but it is pivitol to the plot-

If you are writing a romance then maybe not- but readers of thriller expect this-

The goal of chapter one is to hook the reader. That doesn't mean you have to spill your guts and introduce your pivotal conflicts in there; it just means you have to introduce tension.

Tension doesn't necessarily mean conflict. I think the best kind of tension often hinges on how well you know your backstory, and raises interesting questions. By that, I don't mean you throw your backstory in at page one. Random and possibly slightly mental example (!):

Say you introduce a mother and daughter and they act like they hardly know each other. They don't know mundane things about each other (how they like their coffee etc) - well this raises questions - mothers and daughters are supposed to know each other so why don't they?

My first chapter, which has been well received, has tension and the SEEDS of my main conflict. A strange man comes to the house, has a weird conversation with the main character's aunt, and it ends with the man passing the main character a business card with an address on it. My main conflict isn't introduced but why this strange man visits is in my backstory and the tension is in how he knows my MC, what the man was doing there, what the address is for and what will happen if/when he goes to the address.

The tension just has to raise interest and make the reader curious enough to read on. The fact you say you have the seeds of your main conflict in there is absolutely fine, just make sure you utilise them enough to generate questions/curiosity.

sheadakota said:

I agree with gothicangel- it does depend on genre- I write thrillers so yeah i want confilcit in my first chapter- but not my major conflcit- there are small story arcs and large story arcs- if you start with a small but great conflict- you will hook your reader and get them vested in your characters and that is a great thing- I have my one character running wounded and bleeding- fleeing for his life right on page one- it is not the major conflict in my story, but it is pivitol to the plot-

If you are writing a romance then maybe not- but readers of thriller expect this-

Click to expand...

I agree with this one. I build conflict, so the initial conflict isn't necessarily the main one, or it's one that links in to the main one but you don't understand how until later on. You need some sort of conflict, but I'd actually avoid having it be the big major conflict unless you're telling a story in flashback.

I was once told that the novel should start at the point where it's important for the story to start.

This could mean, in the case of a crime novel, at the moment of crime and then sort of working backwards.

Or it could mean, as in some historical novels, romances and fantasies, that it starts a little before the main action.

Raphee said:

My genre is mainstream.
The storyline/pivotal conflict is to save a boy's life, and this leads the MC into further problems.

The point about the agents complaint, that is interesting. I didn't know.

Click to expand...

That's because a lot of writers do the movie thing and write a character just going on about their normal lives for the first fifty pages and then something happens. In movies it works--you spend five minutes following someone around as they start their day or whatever, and then it's over and done with. In a novel, you really want some kind of conflict going on from very early in the story to keep interest. Agents (and readers) don't want to read about someone going on about their normal happy everyday life because it's boring.

I just don't agree that the conflict necessarily has to be the "real" conflict. I do think it works best if it ties in, but it all depends on the story you're telling. Maybe the story starts out with a dude coming back from cheating on his wife and realizing he can't find his wedding ring. Maybe the same dude is a detective and this doesn't have any direct bearing on the main conflict of him chasing down some serial killer. Maybe what it does is show the problems in his personal life, which is falling apart little by little until halfway through the story everything's gone to hell and he loses his job and decides to take out the killer himself. In this sense, losing his wedding ring isn't the main conflict and has nothing to do with the murderer (probably haha).

Now, compare starting with something like that and then the next scene having the character going to a crime scene to investigate, compared to a scene with the same character waking up, taking a shower, reading the paper, then going to work and getting called to a crime scene. Do you see the difference? It might not be a very good example, but hopefully it makes some sense. The second is boring and doesn't really do a darn thing. The first is somewhat interesting and tells us quite a lot about the character and his life--more than the latter did.

Tension is a good word, a better word, than conflict. I write contemporary/mainstream as well. For me, I aim to introduce the main conflict of the story by chapter 3 if I have a ten chapter novel. Before the release of the main conflict, I setup the story.

Having said that, it's important to introduce tension at once. The analogy with movies above is great, imho. I write sort of like that: first I show what the characters want, and why they're not getting it - or why the ARE getting it. And then - in chapter 3 (or four, or two, depending on the length of the novel) - i throw a spanner in the works.

kaitie said:

I just don't agree that the conflict necessarily has to be the "real" conflict. .

Click to expand...

I concur - it could be a sub plot conflict or tie into the main Plot conflict. We discussed this just recently in SFF ( as said above though this may change depending on genre)

Originally posted by me, quite early before I'd had my first cup of tea.

As long as you have a conflict to keep interest, the main one doesn't have to be on the first page.

Thing is what is the main conflict for the Character is not always the main conflict for the Plot ( though the best are intertwined / related). In fact having two main conflicts, one of each, can be helpful ( and much better for screwing over your characters with )

For instance one of mine starts with a character being bullied, again, because she looks different. This character conflict leads onto ( and ties in with) the Plot Main conflict, which is related but different and comes in later. In another, an incoming famine is the initial conflict ( Plot related) but one of the major conflicts in the book is Character based - which is introduced at the end of chapter 4 - because the reader needs to know beforehand why this is such a disaster for this particular character, when it wouldn't be for almost anyone else.

So, the initial conflict need not be the Main Plot conflict, but it should probably at least a major subplot ( ie Main conflict for character) and it's even better if it's related / intertwined somehow with the Main Plot Conflict

Click to expand...

My current WIP's chapter 1 begins in a nightclub. It starts of with tension between him and his friend's because he is obviously hiding from something.

Then as the chapter progresses the main plot conflict kicks in: he is being followed and by the end he is kidnapped.

conflict != tension

The first paragraph's job is to make the reader read the whole first page. The first page's job is to make them turn the page. So on and so forth.

As long as your book starts off THAT way, it doesn't matter.

I recently checked out a 400 page hardback from my local library. New book, first-time writer. The first 200 pages consisted of an interview inside a police station of a murder suspect with some backstory of the suspect thrown in. I stayed with the story because I recognized the location, and I was curious as just how far the author was going with the interview, which was dull reading. The story never started until the half-way mark, and the second half was good with considerable conflict. Actually, the author had a 200 page book.

Something interesting with conflict and tension should happen in Chapter 1, and hopefully it's as close as the main plot as possible (don't spend a few chapters describing to me what happened six months before the inciting incident).

I think it's good to put the inciting incident in chapter 1. But the MAIN major conflict? No. Even thrillers usually start with an inciting incident and not the main conflict. Guard your plot twist like you protect your children. Don't show all your cards all at once, so early.

shaldna said:

I was once told that the novel should start at the point where it's important for the story to start.

Click to expand...

I would say that you want to start the story at an exciting, tense moment- something that would grab the reader. The story may not actually start there, but some stories start at very boring places (such as autobiographies).

In Chapter 1, you need to establish the opening balance. Where are we in the story? How are our characters feeling on a scale of 1 to 10- 1 being dreadful, 10 being brilliant? If you don't show the stakes, the conflict will be meaningless:

a) a couple date for 2 weeks. One of them cheats.
b) a couple have been married for 30 years. One of them cheats.

The conflict is the cheating but the stakes are different.

I think it chapter one should either start the main conflict or relate to it. If it doesn't, I'd have to ask why it is in your novel.

If you put a "conflict" in chapter one that has nothing to do with the story you're telling, I personally am going to be pretty disgusted.

First novel I ever wrote had the main conflict starting in chapter 3. Needless to say, I couldn't find a rep for it. I like to put some of the conflict in chapter one. Background conflict, some dramatic turning point where, perhaps, the protag has found their last straw. #2 has my protag busting up her mother's collection of knick knacks with a baseball bat and running away from home. The conflict with her mother is not the main conflict in the story, but it puts her in a position where she's emotionally ready to face the real conflict and strategically places her in a position to pursue her goals (she's removed from the home after running away).

If the conflict isn't related at all to the story line, I'm also going to get pretty disgusted.

Raphee said:

However it is better to delay the central conflict.
However, there is a balance to achieve by not rambling about the character's daily life. If he has to brush his teeth, the tooth brush better be arsenic coated.

Click to expand...

I'm going to be a bit of an outlier here.

No. Don't delay the central conflict.
Why would you want to?

My characters hit the ground running. They are immediately in action that is directed literally or metaphorically towards the main plot conflict.

The last couple chapters solve the central problem.
I want my first chapter to open the central problem of the story.
And just to be holisitc and fancy about writing, I want an 'echo' between the beginning and the ending chapters.

If the conflict is resolved when (a) the hidden plans are disposed of and (b) the villain is foiled . . .
I want to open the story with the heroine being tortured by the villain in re the whereabouts of those plans.

If the conflict is resolved when the heroine suceeds in (a) freeing the hero and (b) saving what is most valuable from the wreck of civilization . . .
I want the story to open with the heroine's determination to free the innocent and the wreck of civilization still smoking in the background.

So,
Not just a hook.
Not just interesting action.
Not just the important consideration of --
this is where everything changes;
this is the point of no return;
this is the hero's worst day ever.

But,
The first chapter sets the protagonist point blank against the central problem of the story. And he is taking action.

I think a lot of readers want to be eased into the story, especially if it's long. We don't care enough about the characters to care about the main conflict. There aren't any stakes.

It depends on the genre and pace of the story.

You can drop the characters in the first major conflict immediately (like the opening scenes of Lost), but then you will have to find a way to tell us who these characters are and why we should care.

Another way is to present the "ordinary world" of the characters first so we at least get to know them, but don't do three chapters of it... keep that short and get to the inciting incident quickly. But you don't have to present the central conflict immediately.

There are no rules except "what works." Don't let your readers put down your book, that's all.

I for one hate to tie up ALL loose ends. I like to keep my readers thinking, guessing, theorizing, or drawing their own conclusions.

That's just me.

Lady Ice said:

I think a lot of readers want to be eased into the story, especially if it's long. We don't care enough about the characters to care about the main conflict. There aren't any stakes.

Click to expand...

The problem with that is that you have given me nothing to care about the story that I would stick around while you are "easing me in".

There aren't any stakes. I'm supposed to be interested in something that has nothing to do with the story while you convince me your character is wonderful. How about putting them in the middle of a good story (that will make me care) and show me they're wonderful by how they handle it.

You assume that people don't care while something exciting happens but do while they're having tea and crumpets. Don't bet on it.