Oh Crap-ometer

Well, she said she liked the energy and it seemed fun, but I need more plot details. This is good to know.

I don't know why I was so nervous about this, but I'm glad it's over.

O frabjous day! Calloo! Callay!

I send you both congratulations for sending something to her! If my ms were, yanno, finished, I may have attempted to send a hook, as well.

First -congrats on submitting!

A hook, as I understand it:

• introduces the protagonist (essentially the good guy/gal - the character the reader should be rooting for)
• tells us what the protagonist cares about/wants
• introduces the antagonist (the bad guy/gal)
• tells us what the antagonist cares about/wants
• Why they clash
• why all hell breaks loose as a result.

It also gives a flavor for the tone of the story (a little harder to explain, but I'll try using an example):

Marly Richards [protagonist] is coping very nicely, thank you very much [what she wants - a quiet life], until she accidentally steals a statue owned by the wealthy Dralat President.

Galactic champion Bounty Hunter, Yolland [antagonist], is in danger of losing his title for the first time in ten years [what he wants - to keep his title]. The bounty on Marly's head will assure him of the win - and he's feeling confident. After all, she's only a petty thief, how difficult could it be? [what brings them together]

But Marly will to do anything to survive [conflict], and she has her 250 year old engineer and her wily boyfriend to help her escape. But it looks like one of them has sold her out [hell starting to break loose]. Can she figure out who, and why, before Yolland tracks her down?

Click to expand...

There's no back-story, and no concept here - just who, why and how.

I am most certainly not an expert - I hope some of the real writers round here will correct me if I'm wrong!

Hope this helps.

Marly Richards [protagonist] is coping very nicely, thank you very much [what she wants - a quiet life], until she accidentally steals a statue owned by the wealthy Dralat President.

Galactic champion Bounty Hunter, Yolland [antagonist], is in danger of losing his title for the first time in ten years [what he wants - to keep his title]. The bounty on Marly's head will assure him of the win - and he's feeling confident. After all, she's only a petty thief, how difficult could it be? [what brings them together]

But Marly will to do anything to survive [conflict], and she has her 250 year old engineer and her wily boyfriend to help her escape. But it looks like one of them has sold her out [hell starting to break loose]. Can she figure out who, and why, before Yolland tracks her down?

Click to expand...

I want to read that. It sounds like a great weekend sci-fi novel.

The hook has us all befuddled, but I feel much wiser after this crapometer. If you're like me, there have been 7 different potential hooks, and each sounds like a different book. Best Wishes!

Which one is yours?

By no means have I read all of the submissions - but I must say - a lot of them have focused on the crap in crapametre.

Some of them are plain shocking are they not? I find myself scanning and focusing on the ones Snarky says something constructive about. Has anyone read all of the submissions (besides Miss Snark). How about all the comments - any one read all of these as well?

Did you find reading them all constructive. I guess I now have a much better idea about what a hook is and what to include. Reading the crappy ones is a good lesson in what not to do, and the good ones are good for understanding what it is that makes the good ones good. Having so many certainly is an advantage.

Any tips on how I could find the posts more constructive?

Miss Snark has a VERY stylized idea of what a hook is, but maybe -- just maybe -- it works for her.

The presentation she insists is **CORRECT** is:

Char A wants X
Char B wants Y
They clash over it
which causes Z
which they clash over.

Sounds like any number of formula mid-list books to me, the kind that might be plotted with plug and play computer software. If Snark sells 20 of those a year, she makes a low to middling income. With some residuals and an occasional outlier, she would do better.

The implication from her blog is that is the ONLY way it is done. She might be right for the market she serves.

Quiller said:

Miss Snark has a VERY stylized idea of what a hook is, but maybe -- just maybe -- it works for her.

The presentation she insists is **CORRECT** is:

Char A wants X
Char B wants Y
They clash over it
which causes Z
which they clash over.

Sounds like any number of formula mid-list books to me, the kind that might be plotted with plug and play computer software. If Snark sells 20 of those a year, she makes a low to middling income. With some residuals and an occasional outlier, she would do better.

The implication from her blog is that is the ONLY way it is done. She might be right for the market she serves.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm thick but is this not the way most hooks work - and most plots? What they want can be metaphysical or abstract not an item. To use a couple of completely random examples-

Mona Lisa Smile - Char A wants recognition and to be a prof of worth
Char B wants the girl
Char C wants her school to remain how it's been for the length of her memory.

All of the threads clash. Char A finds her position threatened, Char C finds her school changing which she's not happy about and 2 B Chars loose the girl.

Star Wars (Epi 4) - Char A wants to take down the Empire
Char B wants to wants to rid the Empire of the rebels.
This causes no end of havoc - the stealing of the plans, the kidnap of the Princess which neccistates her rescue etc.

I could go through just about every book in this house (and movie too) from midlist to no list to best seller.

She (and others) are asking that it be broken down this way so that they have the premise distilled. What agent has time to read a 10 page synopsis detailing characters? As she keeps saying, the hook is just the begining, it's the writing that really matters.

Don't forget that about half (just guessing here, but several) of the books she's asked for pages from -- or at least that she indicated hooked her -- did NOT follow that format.

That said, the format she's offering is pretty much the definition of story, as it's seen in popular fiction -- protagonist and antagonist in a struggle, with a crisis and a resolution.

If you look at the submissions she rejected, one of those elements, if not more, is usually missing. There are a lot of navel-gazing stories, missing an antagonist and an external struggle; and there are lots of set-ups, where you've got a protagonist and an antagonist, but no information on the struggle, crisis and resolution. And there are several that are even missing the protagonist, either b/c he/she dies at the end of the set-up and there's no mention of who carries the story thereafter, or there are a dozen characters listed with no indication of who the story is really about.

It's not about formula. It's about the necessary ingredients for a story, for a publishable work of popular fiction. Personally, I think it holds true for literary fiction too, but some would disagree.

JD

expatbrat said:

By no means have I read all of the submissions - but I must say - a lot of them have focused on the crap in crapametre.

Click to expand...

I have; I found most of them mediocre, a few to be "crap", and some to be books I'd buy if a tidier version were on the back cover and the first paragraph of the book was entertaining. I disagreed with Miss Snark on several, but then, I haven't read several billion slush pile queries and so I suspect I'm somewhat less jaded -- and also less aware of what the market is saturated with and what markers in a query point to good writing in pages.

Because it's all about the writing, ultimately. That's what makes me, reader extraordinaire with a $30 B&N gift card burning a hole in my pocket, buy the book and the sequel and the next series by that author... and tell all my friends about it.

expatbrat said:

Some of them are plain shocking are they not? I find myself scanning and focusing on the ones Snarky says something constructive about. Has anyone read all of the submissions (besides Miss Snark). How about all the comments - any one read all of these as well?

Did you find reading them all constructive.

Click to expand...

No, not really. The first crapometer was much more amusing (far more of teh crazy and bizarre to point and laugh at). A lot of these are so worked to death that, while I can see glimmers of ideas and fun behind them, I get the feeling that the prose is painfully timid and stiff out of uncertainty rather than poor writing.

Not to mention that a lot of what the good writers among the snarklings are writing isn't my cup of tea. And after the seventh or eighth "this isn't a hook, it's an X; go look at the formula" critique, I think the point is made. I think it's actually a bit unfair; with 700 entries and what seems like half getting that response, it's obvious there's been a miscommunication or misunderstanding somewhere.

Not that I'm volunteering to sit through 700 revised entries, but is seems a somewhat pointless exercise when what seems like half the entries receive the same comment pointing towards a fundamental misunderstanding of the format.

As far as the comments go, the sheer, overwhelming number of entries means a lot aren't even being commented on at all, and the really out there ones that are tend to be, because of the blogger comment holding system, the same sentiment repeated.

expatbrat said:

Any tips on how I could find the posts more constructive?

Click to expand...

Ignore them and wait for the pages. The "hooks", while probably a very useful exercise in making sure your plot works, seem only somewhat related to the actual query writing process. You have the formula; run your novel through it and see if you get a catchy second or third paragraph for your query.

You know, for someone who loathes the crapometer as a complete waste of time, I've sure wasted a lot of energy following it.

JanDarby said:

It's not about formula. It's about the necessary ingredients for a story, for a publishable work of popular fiction. Personally, I think it holds true for literary fiction too, but some would disagree.

JD

Click to expand...

Thanks JD for summing up what I was trying to say.

The hook is like the menu item description.

The novel is the dish.

I'm not so sure that the things--being able to write a mouthwatering description of a meal, and cooking the meal itself--are fully correlated.

However, I've found Miss Snark's crapometer very helpful, although lately I haven't been able to log on due to Internet access problems from Asia (cut optic cables near Taiwan), although I can access some websites. Strange.

Anyway, I was working on a novel idea, trying to get past the opening chapters and struggling. One evening I browsed through the HH crapometer and ping! a light. After reading Miss Snark's umpteenth comment about lack of antagonist I realized I didn't have an antagonist and I didn't know who would be my antagonist. After I figured that one out, the novel unjammed.

And what if there isn't anantagonist? Not all novels - and not all GOOD novels - have an antagonist.

I am pretty certain that I could never have written a satisfactory hook for my first novel - even though it turned out to be a book that many readers enjoyed.

My fifth book - now, that's different. It has a very clear high concept which I could reduce to one simple sentence. That was my intention before I wrote even one word. Many agents requested it as a result. However, I know that there are books I may write in the future than can't be as easily "hooked".

So to all those who tried and faied - take heart. Justbecause you can;t get your stopry into this forumal, doesn;t mean it's not a good story.

I also have to say this: I'm very admiring of the Snarklings who take the time to comment, often in great detail, on so many of the hooks. It makes me feel very selfish; I've only commented twice, and only to say congratulations. It seems some people are reading in detail and thinking through the plots to help the writers. That is just so great and supportive. Often, I enjoy the comments as much as MS's reply - especially if she's only given a WTF.

aruna said:

Not all novels - and not all GOOD novels - have an antagonist.

Click to expand...

Could you name one? Antagonist doesn't always mean a person, nor, if it is a person, does it mean a clear-cut oppositional stance in a typical genre sense. I'm racking my brain trying to think of a novel I've read that doesn't have an antagonist and the only one I can think of that comes close is "Einstein's Dreams"

So to all those who tried and faied - take heart. Justbecause you can;t get your stopry into this forumal, doesn;t mean it's not a good story.

Click to expand...

True. It's a format. One editor once told me (about synopses, which I reckon applies here as well) that she'd seen lots of synopses that were terrible novels, and vice versa.

Cath said:

A hook, as I understand it:

• introduces the protagonist (essentially the good guy/gal - the character the reader should be rooting for)
• tells us what the protagonist cares about/wants
• introduces the antagonist (the bad guy/gal)
• tells us what the antagonist cares about/wants
• Why they clash
• why all hell breaks loose as a result.

It also gives a flavor for the tone of the story

Click to expand...

A "hook" is that thing at the beginning of any piece of writing that compels the reader to read on. Nothing more. It's often hard to define with precision. Trying to "cookbook" it in this fashion is searching for frustration. Pick up any number of successful novels, and look at the first paragraph or two. I'd bet eighty percent of them don't live up to this list of ingredients.

caw

blacbird said:

A "hook" is that thing at the beginning of any piece of writing that compels the reader to read on. Nothing more. It's often hard to define with precision. Trying to "cookbook" it in this fashion is searching for frustration. Pick up any number of successful novels, and look at the first paragraph or two. I'd bet eighty percent of them don't live up to this list of ingredients.

caw

Click to expand...

The formula is for a hook one would use in a query letter.

No, it shouldn't be in the first two pararaphs of your book. I'd hope a lot more than eighty percent of published books don't give you the entire plot and all the characters in the first two paragraphs.

blacbird said:

A "hook" is that thing at the beginning of any piece of writing that compels the reader to read on. Nothing more.

Click to expand...

Ok- I'm wondering if we're using a different interpretation of the hook.

Yes, I agree the first page should have enough charisma to make the reader read on - but this isn't about the reader, it's about selling the book to an agent or publisher - and they're looking for a different kind of hook.

I believe what the agent or publisher want to see is whether or not the characters, plot and writing are new/interesting/marketable - not whether the reader will continue past the first page.

The most common comment on the Crapometer seems to be "this isn't a hook it's a first page."

OK - DecemberQuinn said it first and better.

I have read *almost* all of the entries and all of her comments. I have found it incredibly useful. I can see what makes an interesting story. You see the patterns of what same old, same old is when you see it appearing in the slush pile one after another. there are a lot of boiler plate novels in the 700 and there were a lot of really bad hooks.
I have been keeping track and learning along the way what makes a hook. For example, I now know anymore than three characters and the hook is bogged down. The story should be general with specific examples to spice it up and most importantly, a hook is an advertisement: it makes you want to read the real thing, give the conflict and leave us hanging and we'll be begging for more.

BTW, she gave the formula as a basis, she says that it is a starting point. Start with the simple recipe and build up from there. As a matter of fact this is what she wrote on her blog:

This is the "template" that isn't.
It's a list to make sure you've got all the elements in your hook.

You won't just substitute things for XYZ, you'll make this over into your own work.

It's not a template; it's a starting point.

X is the main guy; he wants to do:
Y is the bad guy; he wants to do:
they meet at Z and all L breaks loose.
If they don't resolve Q, then R starts and if they do it's L squared.

Click to expand...

She warned everyone that the comments on the hooks were going to be brief. It was only meant to be a way to filter the pages to avoid reading garbage. I think she has gone well above and beyond what she needed to. By accepting 700 hooks and commenting on everyone of them, MS has been amazing.

10000

Novelist in Paradise said:

Could you name one? Antagonist doesn't always mean a person, nor, if it is a person, does it mean a clear-cut oppositional stance in a typical genre sense. I'm racking my brain trying to think of a novel I've read that doesn't have an antagonist and the only one I can think of that comes close is "Einstein's Dreams"

Click to expand...

The closest I can come are the Isabel Dalhousie novels by Alexander McCall Smith. They don't have the traditional "bad guy", instead the antagonist is often an ethical issue or dilemma.

Robert McKee's Story (an excellent book, btw) uses "Leaving Las Vegas" as an example where the protagonist is also the antagonist.

There's a third "agonist" to throw in here, the contagonist - someone who works alongside the protagonist or seems to have the same path (but a different goal), and continually gets in their way - either deliberately or otherwise. A contagonist could also take the place of the traditional antagonist.

Cath said:

The There's a third "agonist" to throw in here, the contagonist - someone who works alongside the protagonist or seems to have the same path (but a different goal), and continually gets in their way - either deliberately or otherwise.

Click to expand...

Gandalf?

Cath said:

uses "Leaving Las Vegas" as an example where the protagonist is also the antagonist.

Click to expand...

I didn't like it. A man wants to drink himself to death; he does. No conflict and no suspense. My wife fell asleep.

On the other hand, Silence of The Lambs won best picture in 1991 and I still remember the woman who would become my wife digging her nails into my arms because she was so afraid of what would happen next.

There's no doubt in my mind that a unique and compelling protagonist is better than not having one.

MattW said:

Gandalf?

Click to expand...

More like Gollum or Boromir - they've got a different and conflicting goal, but they appear to be helpful to the protagonist.

(And Doug - I agree about Leaving Las Vegas - but it's just an example.)