Three ways to start a novel . . .

[EriRae]

I have three ways to write the first line of my novel. It's a play off those drug awareness commercials, "Noboday ever says 'I want to be a drug addict when I grow up.'"

Which one is better:

1) Nobody ever said, "I want to be a Nazi when I grow up."

2) Nobody ever says, "I want to be a Nazi when I grow up."

3) Dolf Price never said, "I want to be a Nazi when I grow up."


As of now, I have it as #1, changed from #3. It's 3rd person limited past tense, so I don't really like switching to present tense for #2. What do you think?

[Danger Jane]

1

[Lady Esther]

1.

[Shadow_Ferret]

1.

I'm hoping you've already written the novel and are now just obsessing details. I'd hate to think you're just starting the novel and already obsessing on the first sentence.

[Azraelsbane]

I have to go against the flow here and say number two. I think this is an instance where the first punchy sentence being a different tense than the rest of the piece (I'm guessing it's probably past) doesn't matter.

I have a line in my memoir (end of a chapter) that reads: Ten didn't feel like skateboarding in Springfield. It was sworn secrets and holy water. And forever it burns.

I find that sometimes in instances like that, present tense is much more effective.

Also, if you're trying to play off of something, then keep it in the same tense as the thing you're emulating, otherwise it loses something.

Just my 2 cents on the matter. :)

[EriRae]

No, my friendly ferret, this is the 3rd rewrite of the 1st chapter of what used to be a 186k novel that I am now trying to cut to 80k for YA. It's been done for almost 2 years. *sigh* and now the real sh*t begins.

[Kentuk]

Number 3. The first two are unfortunately not true, the third introduces your character.

[c.e.lawson]

I choose number three. Why? Because I'm sure there were some boys in Germany some years ago who DID say, "I want to be a Nazi when I grow up." :(

c.e.

[Marlys]

2.

[Felicia Beasley]

I voted for number one, but I agree with those who picked number three because it introduces your character. I just didn't like the sound of number three as much as number one personally.

And I don't envy your task of ripping out over 100k words to fit your genre length :(

[Soccer Mom]

3 because if gives us a character straight off. This personalizes and takes it out of the realm of navel contemplation.

[MerryDay]

#3...because your book is in 3rd lim. past and the other two immediately set the reader up for omniscient.

[Azraelsbane]

Thinking back on the 3rd limited thing...yeah, #s 1&2 do set you up for omniscient. #3 is nice because it doesn't (necessarily) and introduces the character, as people have said, but I really feel I'd need the next line to judge whether the first line works. Is Dolph thinking back on how he never wanted to be a nazi, and now he is one?

[rugcat]

#2.

Why? Because it's better. Really.

[kristie911]

#3 because it gives your character a name. I hate the beginnings where the author makes the characters name a big secret. And then use it like a hook at the end of the chapter...I think it's cheap.

Blah, blah, blah. She did this and she thought that. Then you get to the end of the chapter and the last sentence says something like...But Stephanie Miller knew the truth. Cheap, cheap, cheap. A name is not a hook. :)

/End rant.

Sorry to disrail... :D

[Thrillride]

Yup. number 3. I like that we know the character's name and like others have said...I don't think the first two are accurate.

Another thing I want to add. Just that line makes me want to read more. I'm curious about your story.
That's a good thing.:D

[Monkey]

Number 2 reads better than number 1 in my opinion, but I would choose number 3 overall because it introduces the character, makes the statement personal, and brings the statement beyond the realm of debate.

[Angelinity]

1 and 2 are not really true -- many may have said that, maybe some still do.

3 is your answer.

[TurkeyLurkey]

Number 3. The first two are unfortunately not true, the third introduces your character.
Good point, I change my answer to #3.

[EriRae]

If I go w/ #1 it reads like this: Nobody ever said "I want to be a Nazi when I grow up." Dolf Price never had a choice. His father beat it out of him at eight years old . . .

#3 would read like this: Dolf Price never said "I want to be a Nazi when I grow up." He never had a choice. His father beat it out of him at eight years old . . .

What his father makes him say is one step further than "I want to be a Nazi." He has to say "I will finish what Adolf Hitler started," hence, never saying the previous statement.

[wayndom]

Of the three AS PRESENTED (meaning as stand-alone statements), I like the second one best, because it seems to include the reader. I don't like the first, because it's too specific -- I'm sure somebody somewhere has said, "I want to be a Nazi..." but when you say "Nobody ever says," it's understood that you're making a general statement, not a factual one.

As the opening sentence of a novel, however, I'd go with #3, but I'd change it to "Dolf Price never thought, 'I want to be..'" because when you make it a specific statement of fact, you're talking about what he thought as a child, not what he said.

Is that picayune enough for ya?

[wayndom]

If I go w/ #1 it reads like this: Nobody ever said "I want to be a Nazi when I grow up." Dolf Price never had a choice. His father beat it out of him at eight years old . . .

#3 would read like this: Dolf Price never said "I want to be a Nazi when I grow up." He never had a choice. His father beat it out of him at eight years old . . .

What his father makes him say is one step further than "I want to be a Nazi." He has to say "I will finish what Adolf Hitler started," hence, never saying the previous statement.

Okay, I read almost all of this before I realized what his father was beating out of him. So I think the third sentence (first version) should read, "His father beat the words out of him."

'Course, you've got a problem if his father beat other words out of him, since you've already stated that "his father beat it out of him." You don't want to have these kinds of minor disagreements in your prose, especially in the opening sentences. So you need to figure out exactly what his father beat out of him, and make the sentences that lead up to it consistent with each other.

Maybe like:

Dolf Price never said, "I want to be a Nazi when I grow up." He never thought it, either. But before his eighth birthday, his father beat him until he said, "The South shall rise again..."

Or something...

[EriRae]

Yay--thank you! I need to be more specific "His father beat the words out of him." I like that better.

[EriRae]

I choose number three. Why? Because I'm sure there were some boys in Germany some years ago who DID say, "I want to be a Nazi when I grow up." :(

c.e.

Point taken. Thanks, too, Kentuk. :( What a mad world.

[Tracy]

I voted for number 3, for all the reasons the others said: i.e. it introduces the character.

But I would say, "His father beat the choice out of him".

Maybe it's a cultural thing, me being Irish and all, but if I read "He beat the words out of him", to me it means the words are no longer in him/of him. When you beat something out of somebody, they no longer have it. So if his father beat the words out of him, then he'd no longer want to say them.
Now I know you know longer have words once you've spoken them, they're OUT of you. But somehow that's different.

[EriRae]

I voted for number 3, for all the reasons the others said: i.e. it introduces the character.

But I would say, "His father beat the choice out of him".

Maybe it's a cultural thing, me being Irish and all, but if I read "He beat the words out of him", to me it means the words are no longer in him/of him. When you beat something out of somebody, they no longer have it. So if his father beat the words out of him, then he'd no longer want to say them.
Now I know you know longer have words once you've spoken them, they're OUT of you. But somehow that's different.

I changed this to "His father beat the words from him with a pine bough..." there's something more about a stump in the back yard. This first chapter is becoming VERY wordy and I'm trying to CUT words...not good.

[Stijn Hommes]

Whatever you do. Don't pick number 2. If that fits the tense of the other stuff you wrote, I'd really recommend you to change it. Past tense is more common when relating fiction.

[cletus]

2 or 3.

Unless the novel is about nobody. Then choose 1.

[Azraelsbane]

Whatever you do. Don't pick number 2. If that fits the tense of the other stuff you wrote, I'd really recommend you to change it. Past tense is more common when relating fiction.

Oh no, not another past/present tense deal. Hide the post from Shady, quick! LoL.

As for this, I don't agree at all. I've already said my piece about how one bit of present/different tense can be grabbing, so I won't rant on about it. Also, when mimicking a popular phrase, it is okay to use the tense of the popular phrase, otherwise it just sounds weird to people who actually recognize it as such.

ex:
"This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs."
"This was your brain. This was your brain on drugs."

Probably not the best example, but I just woke up. No caffeine in my system yet.

[Stew21]

I'm going with 3 as well. I like the character's name thrown in.

[preyer]

3.

[Kate Thornton]

3 works best for me - your hook becomes a character intro - concise is good!

[Shady Lane]

Oh no, not another past/present tense deal. Hide the post from Shady, quick! LoL.


:)

[jennifer75]

If it were/is a Memoir, I'd start with #2...but #3 introduces the character, and a LOT of the plot I think.

... just read your first post, so it's not a memoir....I still say 3. :)

[EriRae]

Thanks so much, all!! I am going with #3. I agree that #1 and #2, despite the past/present issues and the fact that my novel is about SOMEBODY rather than NOBODY, are simply NOT TRUE. :( I don't want to start my novel with a lie, and I do want to introduce my MC, so #3 it is.