How thrilling must a thriller be?

aruna · Mar 25, 2006

I'm in a bit of a quandary.
My WIP is, I guess, a thriller, or suspense, or whatever. However, all the deaths and dying - and there's a lot of it - occurs in the fourth quarter. Up to that point, from the very first word, it is all foreshadowing. I have an MC who is figuring things out, investigating, trying to solve a puzzle; the threat of something terrible about to happen hangs over all her work. She interviews people, she discusses possiblities, a lot of sleuth work. However, the reader knows in advance what is going to happen - which is horrific in its own right (the 1978 Jonestown mass suicide).

Most of the book is simply a build up to that climax. It's very character driven - the MC has issues of her own, which are resolved during the climax, and there's a romantic subplot. Basically, though the suspense is all psychological, and it's based on the fact that the reader knows, more than the MC, what it's all leading up to. I guess I'm depending on the reader's curiosity into how a thing like this could happen. It is and was a big story, and never really understood. This is really the fictionalised inside story of what really happened.

I have my eyes open for talking heads. But there just is not a nice juicy murder up front to draw in the thriller crowd, and yet it's too horrific to count as mainstream. I think. A lot of atmospherics, however. What do you think? At the moment I'm believeing it's all crap.

Julie Worth · Mar 25, 2006

No, a thriller must have thrills all the way through to be a thriller, not just at the end. I'd call it mainstream, as that's the biggest market.

aruna · Mar 25, 2006

That makes me feel much better - I'd hate to have to add thrills!

Carlene · Mar 25, 2006

Yes, I agree. My problem with too many books I read is that they start slowly - and I don't read them. I think you have to start with a bang, especially in a mystery or thriller or ... Kill somebody, blow something up, wash away a town - get the readers attention. You can but in backstory etc. later, after you have the reader good and hooked. One of my favorite beginnings and this is a paraphrased was, "There were four men in the room, but only three were breathing." Now, are you going to keep reading? I sure did - all the way to the end of the book.

Carlene
www.crdater.com

Linda Adams · Mar 25, 2006

I'll go in a different direction than everyone else--it depends on the subgenre of thriller. If you're writing an action-adventure thriller, then the reader is going to expect a high level of action and adventure throughout the entire story. If you're writing a serial killer thriller, than the reader is going to expect to see some killings throughout the story--but probably not a lot of action. If it's a legal thriller, they will expect to see something to do with the legal system and probably not a lot of action at all.

Also bear in mind that not all thrillers have a murder up front. Again, it depends on the subgenre. Clive Cussler's books have a historical scene that starts the book (action adventure). The best thing to do is read thrillers and see if your story does fit in with it. This link list might also help: http://www.hackman-adams.com/articles/index.htm

Jamesaritchie · Mar 25, 2006

thriller

There's nothing at all wrong with a novel starting slowly/ Ever read Stephen King. Great writer, but he always starts slowly.

Is there a particular reason you want to call this a thriller? There are many, many types of novels in the suspense category, and "thriller" is not the best word for many of them. This doesn't mean they aren't good, and won't find bazillions of readers.

I like some thrillers, but I hate that everything I read is suddenly called a "trhiller." Most aren't, and shouldn't be.

alleycat · Mar 25, 2006

I don't think I would call that a thriller either, not because the ending is known (think of Day of the Jackal) but because it doesn't sound like the story is about someone trying to stop what is going to happen.

One additional thought would be to open with a chilling scene right before the mass suicide and then jump to the story of your MC. That would give the reader an idea of where the rest of the story is going; sort of a mental road marker. Just a thought.

ac

Julie Worth · Mar 25, 2006

Jamesaritchie said:
There's nothing at all wrong with a novel starting slowly/ Ever read Stephen King. Great writer, but he always starts slowly.

The only thing wrong is you won't get published. Stephen King can do things we can't.

Jamesaritchie · Mar 25, 2006

Openings

Julie Worth said:
The only thing wrong is you won't get published. Stephen King can do things we can't.

Sure you will. Slow doesn't have to mean boring. Stephen King isn't the only slow starter out there, there are many. And Stephen King got his start with slow openings long before he was famous. I prefer slow openings, and have no problem finding writers who work this way.

Really fast openings can get old very fast, and I think one of the worst things new writers do is listen to the advice plastered all over the internet saying you have to start with action. You don't, and it's often the worst possible way to start.

You open any novel the way that nopvel and that story should start, and it's different for each. Cookie cutter fast opening can dull the mind when you're reading slush. Give me a chracter, a setting, a situation, and a STORY.

One of the reasons long novels sell so well is because many of them don't start with action. They let the reader immerse himself into the story, get to know the characters, learn about the story, before things get too hairy.

Slow openings are fine, if they're appropriate slow openings.

Slow doesn't have to mean boring.

aruna · Mar 25, 2006

I agree with James, that slow is not boring. The trouble with many of these slam-bang openings is that they may be thrilling, but you don't really CARE about the MC because you don't know him/her yet.

The way my WIC is at present constructed, there are hints from the very first sentence of what is to come, and in fact there IS an attempt to prevent it; but if not to prevent, at least to escape it. Therein lies the tension.

I am not fond of relentless action.
James, I am determined to finally read a Stephen King novel but Ihave to admit that I hate horror. I don't mind death and danger, I just hate horror if you know what I mean. Thevery idea of Shining and It gives me the creeps. I want something that keeps youon the edge of your seat without being supernaturally dark. Which one would you recommend? I've seen The Green Mile, Misery, and Shawshank Redemption; the latter is a short story so that doesn't count.

I'm not particularly stuck on calling it a thriller; it's just that the last section is, indeed, quite full of suspense and danger; everyone is in jeopardy, and the question is how are they to escape?

Linda, thaks for the website and the articles there were very helpful. The one in which mysteries and thrillers are compared was a bit confusing, as my WIP really does have elements of both!

I think I just won't mention genre in my query letters. Let them figure it out themselves.

Jamesaritchie said:
Sure you will. Slow doesn't have to mean boring. Stephen King isn't the only slow starter out there, there are many. And Stephen King got his start with slow openings long before he was famous. I prefer slow openings, and have no problem finding writers who work this way.

Really fast openings can get old very fast, and I think one of the worst things new writers do is listen to the advice plastered all over the internet saying you have to start with action. You don't, and it's often the worst possible way to start.

You open any novel the way that nopvel and that story should start, and it's different for each. Cookie cutter fast opening can dull the mind when you're reading slush. Give me a chracter, a setting, a situation, and a STORY.

One of the reasons long novels sell so well is because many of them don't start with action. They let the reader immerse himself into the story, get to know the characters, learn about the story, before things get too hairy.

Slow openings are fine, if they're appropriate slow openings.

Slow doesn't have to mean boring.

ChaosTitan · Mar 26, 2006

aruna said:
I am determined to finally read a Stephen King novel but Ihave to admit that I hate horror. I don't mind death and danger, I just hate horror if you know what I mean. Thevery idea of Shining and It gives me the creeps. I want something that keeps youon the edge of your seat without being supernaturally dark. Which one would you recommend? I've seen The Green Mile, Misery, and Shawshank Redemption; the latter is a short story so that doesn't count.

Ah, but Shawshank is a novella, not a short story. And if you want to read King, but don't want his scarier stuff, then "Different Seasons" sound just about right. It is a collection of four novellas: Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption, Apt Pupil (Bryan Singer directed the film of the same name), The Body (film version is Stand by Me), and The Breathing Method. TMB is the only novella of the four that has anything overtly supernatural in it.

I would also recommend reading "The Green Mile" since you say you've seen the movie, and check out "Desperation," "Dreamcatcher," "Hearts in Atlantis," and "The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon" for works that can't really be called Horror.

aruna · Mar 26, 2006

Oh, but another hang-up of mine is: I don't read short stories or novellas! I hate them! For me, the longer a book the better (if its a good book, that is!)

alleycat · Mar 27, 2006

You could start with On Writing, if you haven't read it. It's partially pointers on writing, and partially an autobiography (parts of it are funny, such as when he describes the accident where he was almost killed). He has a number of books that aren't horror.

By the way, The Green Mile was filmed in Nashville at the old state prison; the most famous prisoner there was James Earl Ray.

aruna · Mar 27, 2006

I've read On Writing - my only Stephen King book - and unlike others I didn't find it terribly useful. It's his fiction I'd like to try!

aadams73 · Mar 27, 2006

Jamesaritchie said:
Really fast openings can get old very fast, and I think one of the worst things new writers do is listen to the advice plastered all over the internet saying you have to start with action. You don't, and it's often the worst possible way to start.

Slow openings are fine, if they're appropriate slow openings.

Slow doesn't have to mean boring.

I totally agree. I like a novel that will give me a reason to *care* what happens to the characters.

alleycat · Mar 27, 2006

aruna said:
I've read On Writing - my only Stephen King book - and unlike others I didn't find it terribly useful. It's his fiction I'd like to try!

I'm not a Stephen King fanatic, but I've read several of his books. Here's a few suggestions:

The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon

The Dead Zone

Hearts in Atlantis

Delores Claiborne (one of my favorite Stephen King books; strange, but not over-the-top)

These are all slightly on the weird side, but they're not quite as creepy as Cujo and Rose Madder and some of his other books.

ac

MGM · Mar 27, 2006

I'm a little confused over the Stephen King digression. You say you want to write a thriller based on the premise the Jonestown Massacre provided? How to start? Evil has to start somewhere. I'm sure, if you were to seriously research Jim Jones, you would find that his infamous villainy had it's roots in something much more mundane. I don't know if you ever read Thomas Harris' Silence Of The Lambs. Maybe you should. Evil usually finds it's beginnings closer to home. Maybe you should have your MC have a personal interest in a small town crime, one that takes place some time in the past, unsolved, but unrelentingly pursued. The personification of this crime could serve as the beginning of your story. It would introduce your readers to your antagonist and protagonist. The detection of which would be an intriguing segue into the story you really want to tell...a massacre. Any ultimate answers we glean will be those we provide for ourselves. The real struggle will be for your MC, to follow his/her gut instincts in the face of adversity. The only true closure will be that which they allow for themselves. I take it you want to write an interesting story, not an outdated newspaper editorial.

Julie Worth · Mar 27, 2006

Jamesaritchie said:
Sure you will. Slow doesn't have to mean boring. Stephen King isn't the only slow starter out there, there are many. And Stephen King got his start with slow openings long before he was famous. I prefer slow openings, and have no problem finding writers who work this way.

Really fast openings can get old very fast, and I think one of the worst things new writers do is listen to the advice plastered all over the internet saying you have to start with action. You don't, and it's often the worst possible way to start.

You open any novel the way that nopvel and that story should start, and it's different for each. Cookie cutter fast opening can dull the mind when you're reading slush. Give me a chracter, a setting, a situation, and a STORY.

One of the reasons long novels sell so well is because many of them don't start with action. They let the reader immerse himself into the story, get to know the characters, learn about the story, before things get too hairy.

Slow openings are fine, if they're appropriate slow openings.

Slow doesn't have to mean boring.

Stephen King is a terrible example. Just because he did something doesn’t mean we can do it. He’s a name brand, we’re not. He puts out a book and people buy it because it has his name on it. But we, the nameless untouchables, must obey the rules. For thrillers, we must have a fast and exciting opening. Otherwise, it will be rejected.

dantem42 · Mar 27, 2006

Julie Worth said:
Stephen King is a terrible example. Just because he did something doesn’t mean we can do it. He’s a name brand, we’re not. He puts out a book and people buy it because it has his name on it. But we, the nameless untouchables, must obey the rules. For thrillers, we must have a fast and exciting opening. Otherwise, it will be rejected.

I would say it depends upon the subgenre. In the case of Stephen King, something without supernatural content often gets going pretty quickly (for example, Gerald's Game or The Regulators). The basic premise is established early on. But in the case of works with huge supernatural content (such as It, which gets my vote for the scariest thing between book covers), it's not appropriate to throw everything out there quickly. The protag has to slowly encounter the supernatural bit by bit, or it's not credible. If you try to bang out a supernatural scenario in the first fifteen pages, it's usually going to fall flat.

Interesting to look at a sort of hybrid: Rose Madder. In this case, the non-supernatural elements emerge very quickly (the wife leaving the pyschopathic husband and his pursuit of her) while the supernatural elements (the painting with the alternate world) emerge only very slowly.

Shadow_Ferret · Mar 27, 2006

Julie Worth said:
Stephen King is a terrible example. Just because he did something doesn’t mean we can do it. He’s a name brand, we’re not. He puts out a book and people buy it because it has his name on it. But we, the nameless untouchables, must obey the rules. For thrillers, we must have a fast and exciting opening. Otherwise, it will be rejected.

But as James pointed out, Stephen King wasn't ALWAYS a name. He started out as a nobody just as the rest of us are. do. have. (someone correct my grammar, I'm too tired.)

dantem42 · Mar 27, 2006

aruna,

You can also find excellent cult thrillers out there to get some mud between your toes. Try A Darker Place by Laurie R. King, and Death du Jour, by Kathy Reichs, which are the two best I've read recently. And it's best to stick to reality -- most investigations into cults result from friends and relatives raising questions about the disappearance of people under odd circumstances, and you can quickly make that creepy at the beginning of the novel to get the reader's attention. Also, possibly the murder, or disappearance, or threatening of people who have escaped the cult earlier, as this is another common theme that shows up in actual investigations.

aruna · Mar 27, 2006

Hi MGM,
the story itself is not a problem (it's all worked out), nor the cult theme; I have myself experience with cults and cult-like groups, and as for Jonestown, I not only lived near where it happened, I'm in email contact with a couple of the survivors and have the full story!
No, I was simply a bit concerned as to whether or not, due to it's very violent conclusion and the menace that hangs over the whole story, it wouldbe classified as a thriller; or maybe a literary thriller, as the theme and the characters are as important as the plot.
But in the meantime I've decided not to worry about classification but simply to write it.

aruna · Mar 27, 2006

Thanks. I'll see if those books are in the library.

aruna · Apr 25, 2006

Answer: not very!

I read the teo cult thrillers Dante recomended, Death du Jour and A Darker PLace.
Death Dy Jour is pretty thrilling and has murders all along. But A Darker Place...!

On the cover, this book is described as a "literary thriller". The front cover blurb says it's a "nail biter thriller". (Ney York Times Bok Review). ANother back cover blurb says: "casts a spell of psychological terror more visceral than any serial killer melodrama...2"

I honestly don't know what they are talking about. The first half of th ebook is mainly backstory, in which we are told in bits and pieces of the MC's former cases, which reduced her to the emotional wreck she is today, when she sets off to solve the next case. She is an FBI agent who infiltrates a cult. However, its not clear why; there seems to be no immediate danger, and th eonly motive seems to be a few lettsr of complaint from about chilren in the club.

IN fact, the cult seems more benevolent than otherwise, and even accepts state-appointed difficult children in order to sort them out - with fairly good results. There is little evidence of any kind of wrong-doing - it just seems to be one New Age group with a few weird beliefs and methods, just as there are hundreds more in the US. I kept waiting for some feeling of danger, but the only thing that happens is when the MC gets mixed up in a fight between two adolescents and loses a couple of teeth.

Later on, (around page 300!) she is sent to the cult's mother group in England, where apparently all the action is going to happen, but though this cult is strict and yuo feel something WIL happen here, it's not until the very last chapter that it does.

No kidding.

There are also a couple of long dream sequences, a long conversation between the MC and a teenage bopy about art, lots of internal monologues. Very long descriptive passages of the English countrysied - actually, very well written descriptions.

But I have to say this was in no sense of the word a thriller. It was most definitely a mainstrema novel. Danger or thrills or suspense just was not an issue The backstpry was more thriling than the novel, but as it was "told" it;'s actually quite confusing - it was hard to keep her three previous cases, and what happened then, clear.

IMO this book should have bene the last in a series. The autor (Laurie King) obviously had a very well developed backstory, with three cases weach of which would have been a thriller, and which was all packed into the first half od this book.

It's not a bad book, just, for someone expecting a thriller, terribly lacking in any thrill whatsoever. As a mainstream novel it works.

Anyway, it certainly answered my thread question - I'll just write th ebook an dlet the publisher worry about genre! I suppose this was marketed as a thriller because that's the genre she usually writes in.

(Spoiler: there is also not a single murder! All the deaths happened in the backstory, and in the fuinal horror nobody dies except the baddie!)

How thrilling must a thriller be?

On a wing and a prayer

What? I have a title?

On a wing and a prayer

New kid, be gentle!

Soldier, Storyteller

Still around

What? I have a title?

On a wing and a prayer

Around

On a wing and a prayer

Still around

On a wing and a prayer

A Work in Progress

Still around

MGM

What? I have a title?

Court Jester

On a wing and a prayer

On a wing and a prayer

On a wing and a prayer