Epiphany: Magic and Showmanship, a Handbook for Conjurers

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ava Jarvis

Too stupid to know fear
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,143
Reaction score
247
Location
Bainbridge Island
Website
www.spontaneousderivation.com
A few years ago, I read the Learn Writing with Uncle Jim thread at the beginning, and thought: "Oookay, he says go get this book and read it, because it will teach me important things about writing, even though it is not about writing."

Got it, read it, said "oh, there are some similarities... okay." And thought not much more of it.

Then I started writing seriously again, and decided to re-read it and see if anything new came out. Nope.

And then a few days I realized, as I was doing critiques and marking up my own work: there is something very important covered in the book, that is not emphasized elsewhere, where technique is emphasized. And that is atmosphere and set-up.

Throughout the book, that's what's talked about constantly. A magic trick is just a trick if you do it on the street, with no story around it. It's not particularly memorable to folks, and they smile and think "oh, it's a trick."

But if you set up the atmosphere and story behind it--the whys of the trick; creating a special world where the trick has significance; an appropriate atmosphere of contemplation of telepathy, special powers, or whatever is appropriate to your "trick", even if you're a bumbling conjurer... suddenly your trick is no longer a trick. It's a full-fledged magic act. People get caught up in your world, and events are no longer "just tricks".

This is important to establish during your act, yes, but it is even more important to establish before your act, at the very beginning. Because without drawing people in and establishing the world, they just see your act as one more trick.

Mind you, there are lousy tricks, good tricks, and GREAT tricks. But in the end, they are only tricks and have no lasting impact on the audience.

As for how this applies to writing...

Say you take a reader and dump them into an action scene at the beginning. This is a popular way to start a story:

"Suddenly, Y acted in this way and things happened as a result."

But there's no context. There's no atmosphere. It's the equivalent of plunking your shell game out in the street. Your trick can be the best in the world, but there is nothing framing it right now---and to agents, editors, and readers, it's just a trick.

It's just a random scene.

Step back. What is Y doing and where is Y right now? Who is Y? Why do we care about Y? Do we have any idea what's going on?

The "card mind reading" trick is very bare bones. But depending on the context you develop around it, you can either have a cozy session with friends when discussing telepathy (remembering to dissolve the illusion gently at the end), or you can develop into part of an act--and acts can go many different ways. Or you can do nothing and just have a trick.

Setting up context shouldn't take long. It's enough to step out onto the stage and act the debonair magician for a while: walk out with top hat and tails, maybe with a cape, smoothly. Remove a handkerchief and turn it into a cigarette. With a wave of the hand, light the cigarette. Then turn the cigarette into a wand. Then begin your show. You've just established a personality and an atmosphere, with a few simple strokes.

And I thought: good gods. It makes so much sense. I don't think I've read any other writing books that talks about this, because it's NOT a technique, it's more like... a principle.

And then: Dang it. Now I have to go look back at every beginning I've ever written (as beginnings are my weak point).

It has helped.
 

Manat

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
312
Reaction score
38
Location
Right next to the Atlantic Ocean
Website
www.judithjamesauthor.com
I tend to agree with you overall, and it's how I like to start, both as a reader and a writer, but I've had several agents and editors tell me to start with a bang. I think the theory is that, particularly for new authors with no backlist or established fan base, many of their sales will come from impulse buys, somebody looking at the cover, picking it up and checking the blurb on the back, and then glancing at the first couple of paragraphs on the first page. If they aren't immediately hooked, they put it back and go on to the next.

If you're an established author with a fan base, I imagine this is less important. Anyway, don't know if it's true, don't necessarily follow it, but so I've been told.

 

Ava Jarvis

Too stupid to know fear
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,143
Reaction score
247
Location
Bainbridge Island
Website
www.spontaneousderivation.com
I tend to agree with you overall, and it's how I like to start, both as a reader and a writer, but I've had several agents and editors tell me to start with a bang. I think the theory is that, particularly for new authors with no backlist or established fan base, many of their sales will come from impulse buys, somebody looking at the cover, picking it up and checking the blurb on the back, and then glancing at the first couple of paragraphs on the first page. If they aren't immediately hooked, they put it back and go on to the next.


"Starting with a bang" does not necessarily mean "start with action"; nor does it mean starting without atmosphere.

When creating atmosphere, don't just dress the stage. That means nothing. You need a moving actor in that stage. And you need him moving in an interesting way that is relevant to the stage, and a promise of what will happen. It should be a promise of something interesting happening--the build-up mentioned before with the magician coming in all cool and collected--yet presenting as though he has otherworldy powers, just under his hat--that's a hook.

And, important to remember, it's a short hook. That display lasts less than two minutes, to hook your audience for an hour or more.

Someone once said you have three kinds of beginnings: those that show that something interesting has already happened, and here's the aftermath; those that show something interesting is happening right now; and those that show something interesting is about to happen. All three are capable of setting atmosphere, just as all three are capable of creating hooks.

It's probably important to remember that atmosphere can be set with a single sentence.

Example:

"I shot Jenny through the heart."

That's definitely an example of #2, but has no context. Let's add some more...

"I shot Jenny through her cheating heart with a Walther .22 police special."

Okay, context; we have an idea of the POV character. Interesting, but in a way, a bit of a trick with good props. Let's add some more...

"In the icy rain, as stone-cold as my soul, I shot Jenny through her cheating heart with a Walther .22 police special."

Ah, so this is not the heat of anger, but the coldness of revenge. Even the weather is (melodramatically) taking a part in it, but what story weather doesn't? Atmosphere, in 10 words. Not perfect, but decent.

One problem with this opening--not necessarily a problem, depending on how it's handled--is that we've started with #2, but now (unless there are more people to shoot) we now have #1 in the next paragraph during what is still the start of the story. Losing focus is a bad thing right now. Atmosphere is one way to connect the first paragraph with the ones that follow.

 

Manat

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
312
Reaction score
38
Location
Right next to the Atlantic Ocean
Website
www.judithjamesauthor.com
Ok, maybe I should rephrase LOL. I was specifically told to start with action. I ended up going with a publisher that liked the start I had, which was VERY atmospheric, introspective in fact. I'm just saying there are reasons that some editors and agents like to see action first.

Good luck with the manuscript. I think a person's got to write a story the way it wants to be told, so you'll get no argument there from me.
 
Last edited:

Ava Jarvis

Too stupid to know fear
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,143
Reaction score
247
Location
Bainbridge Island
Website
www.spontaneousderivation.com
Ok, maybe I should rephrase LOL. I was specifically told to start with action. I ended up going with a publisher that like the start I had, which was VERY atmospheric, introspective in fact. I'm just saying there are reasons that some editors and agents like to see action first.

Ah, okay. :)

I'm glad you kept your atmospheric start, that's very cool.

Good luck with the manuscript. I think a person's got to write a story the way it wants to be told, so you'll get no argument there from me.

Thanks.
 

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,767
Reaction score
4,662
Location
Scotland
Three things help your opening.

Letting the reader know where he is, what's happening, and in whose head he is supposed to be.
 

Ava Jarvis

Too stupid to know fear
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,143
Reaction score
247
Location
Bainbridge Island
Website
www.spontaneousderivation.com
Three things help your opening.

Letting the reader know where he is, what's happening, and in whose head he is supposed to be.

I recall Swain saying similar things.

Orson Scott Card has an alternate three:
- So what? (Why should I care what's going on?)
- Oh yeah? (Do I believe what I'm reading?)
- Huh? (Did the author just lose me?)
which get at other aspects of the opening.
 

Deirdre

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
889
Reaction score
159
Location
Menlo Park, CA
Website
deirdre.net
I was specifically told to start with action.

Action can be a very small thing, though.

I generally don't like openings without at least some context, and the one I like least is having a story open with people arguing.

To me, walking in on two strangers arguing tends to make them both unsympathetic -- especially if I know nothing else about them.
 

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,767
Reaction score
4,662
Location
Scotland
If it were between a lawyer and a judge/lawyer/witness/accused in court, say, you should get the gist of where you were and what was happening very quickly.

Like everything else - it depends how it's done.


Action can be a very small thing, though.

I generally don't like openings without at least some context, and the one I like least is having a story open with people arguing.

To me, walking in on two strangers arguing tends to make them both unsympathetic -- especially if I know nothing else about them.
 

PeeDee

Where's my tea, please...?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
11,724
Reaction score
2,085
Website
peterdamien.com
I start with:

1) Here's what's happening
2) Here's why you should care
3) Here's how it's different than it seems.

And I go from there.

The mood and the atmosphere, I find, has much less to do with what I actually say in line-by-line of text and more to do with my tone, with the way my writing feels and sounds as it goes along, with how the characters express themselves and think about the world and talk to other people.

But that said, I'm not arguing with you, Ava. I think you pulled the right lesson out of that book. (I've read it, but never applied it to writing. I just have an interest in magic)
 

She_wulf

that's me
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
876
Reaction score
263
Location
Maryland
Website
CaliaWilde.com
I like to start with action. I like to read books that start with action.

Don't give me context until after you've got my attention because otherwise I just don't care.
Funny, one of my favorite books of all time starts as a description of an individual...All about the different names she had, why she had them, one sock, etc. There was no action at all.

I "backtrack".

What that means is, there is a point in my book that X happens, then Y, then big climax Z happens...but what happens before those points? Does it need to be addressed.

My current WIP has a distinct complication, the MC's daughter is kidnapped.
But if we started it there, you would not grow to love the daughter before she is ripped away. Therefore we have to introduce her. OK, that's a starting point, but wait... there's still one more thing that needs to be addressed before we can introduce her, we need to set up the context of the introduction. THAT is where I started. In the process, I introduced the MC flaws and all. I also introduced the "why" of her kidnapping, although you really don't see it yet.

It's like Agatha Christie introducing the MC by having an old friend visit. That old friends says one thing in the conversation that is a Red Herring you later go...HUH? how did I miss that? It was in the first chapter for cryin' out loud!
 

Shadow_Ferret

Court Jester
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
23,708
Reaction score
10,661
Location
In a world of my own making
Website
shadowferret.wordpress.com
Funny, one of my favorite books of all time starts as a description of an individual...All about the different names she had, why she had them, one sock, etc. There was no action at all.
I believe I said "I" throughout my post. Meaning, it is what I like not what everyone or you should like.

To paraphrase: Your mileage may vary.

Do what works for you.

Personally, a novel that opens with description of a character I just met or a lot of backstory would bore the heck out of me. The reason I had trouble getting into Harry Potter was because the first chapter was about how horrible his life was, how horrible his adopted family was. But it never showed me WHY I should care. I didn't start caring about him until he was transported to Hogworts and things started HAPPENING.
 

PeeDee

Where's my tea, please...?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
11,724
Reaction score
2,085
Website
peterdamien.com
Even when it's just description of a character, or backstory, or a scene at the beginning of a book, if it's still interesting, it's still worth reading. Don't give me boring shit. Give me all sorts of interesting detail and backstory....but make sure it's interesting. It's really easy as that.

A good example is Stephen King, who occasionally wanders off and just does a random wallop of backstory on a minor character. Now, we can make a case that that's not interesting or necessary -- though I think that's probably for a different thread -- but I find it interesting enough. Because the writing style engages, because the story and the details are always interesting. That's enough.

IN books where I tend to skim chunks, skip passages, and eventually put the book down, it's because of the lack of forward motion. Story's rolling, or about to start rolling....but first....let me tell you everything that happened in the two years prior.

I often draw the comparison that backstory, atmosphere, mood, and so on is just like the sets in a stage play. They don't have to be complete rooms down to the last detail, they just have to suggest and provide enough that you can focus on the characters and their story.

More to our point, it would not behoove the stage production or entertain the audience if, before the show, a drab and monotone stage hand came out and pointed out each piece of the set and explained what it was and how they made it and how it would be used.
 

She_wulf

that's me
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
876
Reaction score
263
Location
Maryland
Website
CaliaWilde.com
I believe I said "I" throughout my post. Meaning, it is what I like not what everyone or you should like.

To paraphrase: Your mileage may vary...
Of course! It's like my obsession with paranormal detective stories, not everyone "gets" the genre. I know my sister wouldn't. (we've discussed this...)

Apologies.
 

Ava Jarvis

Too stupid to know fear
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,143
Reaction score
247
Location
Bainbridge Island
Website
www.spontaneousderivation.com
I agree that any context set should be interesting and that it should---like everything else in a book---move the story forward. I am not arguing against that basic precept.

But every good book I've read has set context while moving forward. Harry Potter, by the way, did not open on "how horrible his life was"; rather, it opened on the "day that was different"---the events on the day when Harry first became "the boy who lived". Without this context, "how horrible his life was" is no different than numerous other books that begin in similar ways. But with that context, everything else that follows after has a sense of being bigger than life.

This, at least, appears to be how it goes, when I read through multiple genres and look at the books that worked and were successful.

As for openings being my weak point---I'd say more that I write an adequate opening, covering the various triple-points and smoothly getting the story rolling. Mechanically and in practice I'm okay. But my openings do not have enough soul.

I'm trying to find the missing piece.
 

Deirdre

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
889
Reaction score
159
Location
Menlo Park, CA
Website
deirdre.net
If it were between a lawyer and a judge/lawyer/witness/accused in court, say, you should get the gist of where you were and what was happening very quickly.

Having argued in front of a federal judge, I can safely say that no civil case gets in front of a judge unless at least one party wasn't willing to settle for terms the other could live with. I have seen a federal judge slice like a laser through the issues at hand.

In other words, civil cases will usually make me unsympathetic to the dispute at hand without context of how things got so bad.

Criminal trials, now, there's a different point of non-sympathy.

This doesn't mean I don't like courtroom dramas. I do. But I don't like opening courtroom scenes, generally. Show me why the argument's important first. Then show me the argument.
 
Last edited:

Deirdre

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
889
Reaction score
159
Location
Menlo Park, CA
Website
deirdre.net
But every good book I've read has set context while moving forward. Harry Potter, by the way, did not open on "how horrible his life was"; rather, it opened on the "day that was different"---the events on the day when Harry first became "the boy who lived".

Actually, it opened with the Dursleys.

"[SIZE=-1]Mr. and Mrs. Dursley of Number 4, Privet Drive were proud to say they were perfectly normal, thank you very much."[/SIZE]
 

Ava Jarvis

Too stupid to know fear
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,143
Reaction score
247
Location
Bainbridge Island
Website
www.spontaneousderivation.com
Actually, it opened with the Dursleys.

"[SIZE=-1]Mr. and Mrs. Dursley of Number 4, Privet Drive were proud to say they were perfectly normal, thank you very much."[/SIZE]

Heh! You're right. And that says it all: it's not that they are extremely normal. But they are proud of it and will defend it in the face of all odds---and they doth protest too much, which already implies, before we reach the next sentence, that they have something to hide.

And then it's build-up time as the real world is intruded by the wizarding world, until the scene at night where the lights pop off and Dumbledore appears.

It appears to have worked for many people, including myself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.