Introducing MC

I have no problem with the MC being introduced later and there's not really need for the previous events to be a prologue. Even if people tell you "this has not been done before", nothing stops you from inventing things. But ask yourself, do those events need to be there, and why.

Paulsvault said:

I am but a 38 yr old newborn baby trying to learn to run a marathon before I can even crawl in this critical world of writing.

Click to expand...

I hope you're not a newborn baby as a reader as well .

Try it.

Take everything in those first ten pages and make them into a prologue, so that your first chapter starts with the little girl who is supposed to be your main character. Read the resulting beginning chapters with the prologue and without it.

IF there's no discernible difference in understanding / enjoyment of the story without those first pages, either keep them as a prologue or cut them.

IF people are confused or think the story loses something without those ten pages, then keep them as the beginning chapter.

Sometimes it can work, other times it won't. You should never compare your work to the juggernauts, especially ones that are several years old, but remember that Harry Potter started this way. The first chapter had him in it, but not until late, and he was never active in it. Arguably, that scene could have been (or was) a prologue, but they decided to keep it.

Paulsvault said:

I thought about necro'ing (is that even how you spell it??) an old thread, but I'll just start a new one. I have received two criticisms from my novel based on the introduction, so I want to toss out what I have done and see if I can get some differing opinions on how to fix it, if possible.

The first 10 pages on my novel begin with the 'chaos' caused by the antagonist that thrusts this kingdom (yeah, it's a fantasy...) into upheaval. There are a few characters introduced, but many of them are killed off later (hence the chaos). The MC is introduced on page 11 and is simply an unsuspecting girl who has no real connection to anyone introduced at the beginning. She is thrust into the situation by chance (which ends up being not so much chance later) and finds herself as the only one able to defeat the antagonist.

So my question is this. Many seem to agree that the MC should always be introduced at first (and when I hear something like that's the way it should always be my 1st instinct is to as why, but I suppose bending barriers should be left up to those who have already established themselves) so should I set those first ten pages aside as a prologue? Is that something I could get away with? Once the MC is introduced, the reader stays by her side and never leaves. Also, maybe this is really testament to my inability to keep a reader interested through even the first ten pages and into the introduction of the MC.

Anyway, I'll leave it up to the professionals to help me along. I am but a 38 yr old newborn baby trying to learn to run a marathon before I can even crawl in this critical world of writing.

Click to expand...

Hi Paulsvault. Sounds like you already know you can break any "rule" if you do it well enough (or if you already have fans who will stick with you). But what more often seems to work in today's overcrowded market is to connect readers to your MC ASAP. It's your best shot because we connect to individual people and most readers are looking for someone to connect with, and because the character and voice are most often the unique part of a story (there are tons of kingdom upheaval stories).

You can, like you're considering, separate your beginning and make it a prologue (especially since it's the only part not following the MC), but if it's failing to interest your readers as it is, I don't know that this will be much of an advantage. Have you tried starting your story with your MC and revealing the upheaval gradually to see how it might work?

Hope it works out whatever you decide.

CJ

I don't think there is anything wrong with introducing your MC later on if it works. To me, I don't think there are really any rules. I think it's a matter of what does and does not work. If it breaks the rules, who cares, if it's beneficial to the story?

I also don't agree that rule breaking is something that only the established authors should do. A lot of these big names in writing are only big names because they weren't afraid to bend the rules and try something different. Their work stood out from the others in one way or another, and that's why they are remembered. This is how new genre's are started.

I will use the music industry for example, rap music to be specific. Up until the late 70's, rap music wasn't a thing. Then some guys, average everday, not established musicians or producers or anything, just some guys experimenting with music. They tried something new. They tested it with audiences and voila! Rap music became a thing. Now everyone is listening to it. Sure it took some inspiration from jazz music, funk, and the blues before it, but it was a brand new thing. It hadn't been done before, and because some guys took the risk to try something new, even though they hadn't established themselves as artists, rap music is now a thing.

It's the same with writing. Don't be afraid to bend the rules, try something different. There's no guarantee that it will work, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't take the risk.

Now as far as criticisms go, are your critiquers telling you it doesn't work because they personally don't like it, or are they saying it doesn't work because it's "against the rules". If it's the latter, I would object to that advice or at least get more opinions from others. If it's the former, I suggest asking them what you can do to make it work, and ask why introducing the character late doesn't work in the story as opposed to just assuming it's bad because the main character isn't introduced when she's "supposed" to be.

Paulsvault said:

I thought about necro'ing (is that even how you spell it??) an old thread, but I'll just start a new one. I have received two criticisms from my novel based on the introduction, so I want to toss out what I have done and see if I can get some differing opinions on how to fix it, if possible.

The first 10 pages on my novel begin with the 'chaos' caused by the antagonist that thrusts this kingdom (yeah, it's a fantasy...) into upheaval. There are a few characters introduced, but many of them are killed off later (hence the chaos). The MC is introduced on page 11 and is simply an unsuspecting girl who has no real connection to anyone introduced at the beginning. She is thrust into the situation by chance (which ends up being not so much chance later) and finds herself as the only one able to defeat the antagonist.

So my question is this. Many seem to agree that the MC should always be introduced at first (and when I hear something like that's the way it should always be my 1st instinct is to as why, but I suppose bending barriers should be left up to those who have already established themselves) so should I set those first ten pages aside as a prologue? Is that something I could get away with? Once the MC is introduced, the reader stays by her side and never leaves. Also, maybe this is really testament to my inability to keep a reader interested through even the first ten pages and into the introduction of the MC.

Anyway, I'll leave it up to the professionals to help me along. I am but a 38 yr old newborn baby trying to learn to run a marathon before I can even crawl in this critical world of writing.

Click to expand...

I don't think the MC always has to be introduced first, but I think when the MC is introduced, it should be clear that's the MC, if that makes sense.

If you've got 10 pages of a kingdom and other characters who are killed off all running around, my main question is: why?

It might all need to be there; I haven't seen a word of it so how would I know, but my instinct says it sounds like backstory that likely doesn't belong. I suspect it's the result of a fairly common impulse to attempt to overexplain things to the reader that the reader doesn't need explained.

Could the Hunger Games have started with 10 pages of the revolution that started the whole dystopian world of the books, before introducing Katniss? Yes, but why? Did the reader need to pages of that to understand the world she lived in? Nope.

cornflake said:

I don't think the MC always has to be introduced first, but I think when the MC is introduced, it should be clear that's the MC, if that makes sense.

If you've got 10 pages of a kingdom and other characters who are killed off all running around, my main question is: why?

It might all need to be there; I haven't seen a word of it so how would I know, but my instinct says it sounds like backstory that likely doesn't belong. I suspect it's the result of a fairly common impulse to attempt to overexplain things to the reader that the reader doesn't need explained.

Could the Hunger Games have started with 10 pages of the revolution that started the whole dystopian world of the books, before introducing Katniss? Yes, but why? Did the reader need to pages of that to understand the world she lived in? Nope.

Click to expand...

My first thoughts exactly. I'm sure it's a fabulous scene, but it could well be an info-dump. If it's her story, shouldn't it begin with her?

Paulsvault said:

Many seem to agree that the MC should always be introduced at first {...}

Click to expand...

I don't. Depends on the story structure.

Paulsvault said:

{...} and when I hear something like that's the way it should always be my 1st instinct is to as why {...}

Click to expand...

Suspense-type story structures (as opposed to 'genre' which is a marketing thing) often begin with the Opponent committing a crime, then it goes into introducing the Hero, then follows the story action: equal foes at opposite ends, a battle of wits & fists, a series of attacks and counter-attacks, pursuits, etc. In such a structure, the first question is What are the stakes? Opening up with the Opponent is thus perfectly acceptable and within norms for that story structure.

-cb

I introduce my MC and main supporters via active prologue. The readers get a feel for who they'll be reading about and bits of the plot and subplots.

I had a very similar problem a little while ago (and still haven't quite solved it). There are two characters share MC 'duties' and while the first one was there from the start, the second (who also brings most of the adventure to the table), doesn't show up until the 3rd chapter.

I ended up rewriting the 3 chapters a prologue and then found the feedback was that even that took too long to get to the 'action'. The mistake I found I was making wasn't that I wasn't introducing my character early enough but that I was cramming in too much exposition, which can get tiresome to read.

So I've rewritten a third time and cut straight into when the action starts for both the MCs, interspersing the background I wanted to tell throughout the 'next' 3 chapters (through things like dialogue, conflict, etc.). Feedback has been better, though it still needs a bit of work.

No idea whether this is something that could help you but thought I'd share.

I think it depends as others have said.

Because my MS is very character centric, I would be extremely wary of starting with someone other than my MC. That's not perhaps such an issue for other stories.

There are many narrative reasons why you might not need or want to do taht though.

There are lots of ways to start a story. All of them can be made to work.

If, for instance, you start with a secondary character, that will work if they're interesting in their own right. And if they continue in the rest of the story. People may be disappointed if someone they really like is introduced and then is killed off or moves offstage never to be seen again.

If you introduce the main character later, this can work IF you make the setup interesting.

My personal preference, both to read and write, is to start immediately with the MC.

The first of the two ways of introducing your MC is similar to a movie starting with the big picture (tiny stagecoach rolling across a vast plain) and narrowing the focus down to the stagecoach, then narrowing further to your MC looking out the window.

The second way is to start with a closeup on your MC, then opening up to the stagecoach, then opening further to the long shot.

Which gives the feeling YOU want to create? And can you pull it off?

Odile_Blud said:

I don't think there is anything wrong with introducing your MC later on if it works. To me, I don't think there are really any rules. I think it's a matter of what does and does not work. If it breaks the rules, who cares, if it's beneficial to the story?

I also don't agree that rule breaking is something that only the established authors should do. A lot of these big names in writing are only big names because they weren't afraid to bend the rules and try something different. Their work stood out from the others in one way or another, and that's why they are remembered. This is how new genre's are started.

I will use the music industry for example, rap music to be specific. Up until the late 70's, rap music wasn't a thing. Then some guys, average everday, not established musicians or producers or anything, just some guys experimenting with music. They tried something new. They tested it with audiences and voila! Rap music became a thing. Now everyone is listening to it. Sure it took some inspiration from jazz music, funk, and the blues before it, but it was a brand new thing. It hadn't been done before, and because some guys took the risk to try something new, even though they hadn't established themselves as artists, rap music is now a thing.

It's the same with writing. Don't be afraid to bend the rules, try something different. There's no guarantee that it will work, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't take the risk.

Now as far as criticisms go, are your critiquers telling you it doesn't work because they personally don't like it, or are they saying it doesn't work because it's "against the rules". If it's the latter, I would object to that advice or at least get more opinions from others. If it's the former, I suggest asking them what you can do to make it work, and ask why introducing the character late doesn't work in the story as opposed to just assuming it's bad because the main character isn't introduced when she's "supposed" to be.

Click to expand...

I agree it's good to take risks that are original or really serve the story, but starting with the kingdom upheaval isn't original and might not be a risk worth taking. It's not about "rules" so much as it is about connecting readers. Readers once had more patience and fewer options and didn't have to be connected so immediately. Best chance now seems to be connect them with someone straight off.

The choice is yours, Paulsvault, but it doesn't sound like you were connecting readers with your current beginning, and I don't think slapping a prologue label on it is likely to help. I'd try something different. You can still introduce your MC as an "unlikely" hero and still work in what's going on with the kingdom.

ETA: If you're going for originality, I'd say even more so start with your MC because there's a lot more chance of a unique and original character than plot.

My only rule as a reader is that I MUST connect with SOMETHING in the first 15 pages. Whether that's a villain, a town, a shrubbery, or a character, I don't care that much. My rule of thumb is that in the first 15 pages, I must have SOME form of connection to an author's world, character, etc. Write how you want to write.

Just consider one thing: perhaps your MC is the most interesting thing about your opening. Perhaps then it would be best to slice and dice this original opening and sprinkle its remains into the MC's narrative and such. If this is the case, I'd say let go of your wants and dreams...sike! This is your story. If you connect with the current structure, I say keep it - please do still consider changing though. Considering is more commitment-friendly than changing something and regretting it later.

I wanted to introduce the conflict, the resulting death and chaos, and then have her slowly introduced into the story as an unlikely protagonist.

Click to expand...

To me, I feel there's a difference between unlikely protagonist and main character. Your main character can still be an unlikely hero while still being established in the first few pages. Everyone has said 'Harry Potter', but 'White Fang' opens a similar way- establishing a gritty arctic world before introducing the MC. When people read, they connect with characters more than a world.

A kingdom in chaos is something we've seen in a million other fantasy novels, but your MC is someone I've never met before. Odds are, I'm going to want to see who this person is first before caring about the war she's caught in.

Maybe float your first 10 pages to a few other people and if it still doesn't connect, you can always open with your MC and then frame the backstory into a later scene.

If she's unaware of it, and lots of people involved in it are never to be seen again, and presumably, most of the book takes place after it -- I ask again, does it belong in the book? Like, does the reader need to know how it all happens, specifically, or just that it did happen?

I'll just add to the general sentiment that unless one is a genius, one should jump through all available hoops to make one's early stuff super easy for the reader to enjoy, and then later, when and if one has become popular and has name recognition, one can indulge in more personalized modes

Ensnaring a reader when you're an unknown writer means the first paragraph or three:
a) provide some initial questions or conflict or both;
b) sketch a preliminary outline of protagonist, setting, and stakes;
c) show the readers that they are in the hands of a confident and professional writer and can trust him/her and relax into the flow.

Then, once the reader has been convinced to start turning the pages, the prose needs to have no tangles; it flows freely, drawing the reader in deeper, who is now skating down a slope, unable to stop, unless it's really, really time to eat or drink something or do the opposite.

Every scene is interesting and provides some sort of dynamism, even as a dimly noticed undercurrent. When there is no action happening or questions being asked in the current scene--we add dynamism by reminding the reader frequently of past action and questions and foreshadow imminent action and questions.

For every question in the plot resolved, another has already taken its place, to keep tickling the generic reader's ganglia. From time to time we throw in a small "beautiful" bit to appease the aesthetically minded reader, or a small "smart" bit, to appease the cerebral reader, but mainly we concentrate on not allowing the generic reader to want to put the book down.

When ego gets in the way, we think the purpose of each scene is for the reader to think: "This is a really good writer!", while from the functional point of view, the purpose of each scene is for the reader to think: "I want to know what happens next!"

Likewise, when ego gets in the way, we think the purpose of each sentence is to impress peers and show the world how well we can write, while from the functional point of view, the purpose of each sentence is to produce a specific reaction in the reader.

While we are nobodies with a book that's a risky bet for the reader (or the publisher, for that matter), we concentrate on making sure each scene forces the reader to want to know what happens next, and on making sure each sentence produces a specific (desired by us) effect upon the reader. Once we've achieved some mastery of all this, and made some sort of name--then we can start indulging in impressing peers and experimenting

I think the intro of the MC is a sort of bonding experience for the reader. Of course you can introduce your MC later, but ask yourself why so many established authors of good books start that way?

Why not intro your MC out in the farmland seeing smoke rise from this disruption describe? You could then have her wander among the horrors of it and build her character via her reactions to it.

Paulsvault said:

Ok, so after reading through the comments I completely understand what many have already said. A kingdom in upheaval has been done and done, so find a way to introduce the MC first, get the reader to become interested in her life, and then introduce the conflict. My problem will be finding a way to introduce said upheaval b/c the MC is totally unaware of it as it happens (but that's up to me to figure out right!). I went into detail about how it happened (which could be considered an info-dump too early, so condensing it may not be a bad idea), so maybe I can find a way to allow the MC to find out about it as the reader does, through dialogue and 'word of mouth' (more or less).

And here I was thinking that writing a book was as simple as slapping some words on a page and waiting for the fame and fortune to roll in

I appreciate all of the help from you all and will continue to visit this page and many others like it to hone my ever-growing ability. I have become complacent with my thoughts, constantly considering what to do about this, and I need to just DO it and see what works or doesn't work.

Thanks

Click to expand...

Methinks you've got it!

When I read your original post in this thread, I thought WOW, 10 whole pages of probably unnecessary backstory. Readers' eyes are likely to be glazing over before the MC is introduced. Then I began to wonder if this is written with an omni POV. Is it?

I identified with the "slapping some words on a page". That's how I started. My first book was a 300K omni giant. I had soooooo much fun writing it. Then I learned something about how it is supposed to be done. Oooops.

Still fun, though, isn't it?

My problem will be finding a way to introduce said upheaval b/c the MC is totally unaware of it as it happens (but that's up to me to figure out right!). I went into detail about how it happened (which could be considered an info-dump too early, so condensing it may not be a bad idea), so maybe I can find a way to allow the MC to find out about it as the reader does, through dialogue and 'word of mouth' (more or less).

Click to expand...

Tbh I do something similar in my book- my MC learned he's walking right into a war occurring in a neighboring region. I'm assuming in your world there are still some type of message/news services, even if they're primitive or your MC has some family/friends that know what's going on. Maybe your MC doesn't need the details because she's too worried about handling the results.

There may be useful related comments in the currrent active thread about "biggest character arc".

caw