A killer opening...

IMHO
I think you have to have some type of 'hook' for any story. There has to be a reason for the reader to want to get past the first paragraph. For me the MC has to be engaged in something. Either inner conflict or physical danger. There has to be some type of tension. Maybe something 'interesting' going on. Since horror is not a arm chair cozy or a love story, you have to give the reader a sense that the drama of horror is in their hands. Intriguing. An interesting concept.
Again, this is just my two cents.

I think any novel in any genre should start with something interesting. I cannot remember what the article was I read last night, (it was regarding Crime fiction) but it quoted Janet Reid as saying something to the effect of: you need to start off chapter one, sentence one with setting a character on fire. However, you had better keep things interesting after that or I'll stop reading.

If your opening rocks, it still has to tie in.

I don't care for flashbacks or even starting with the climax. I do like to start with some tension or activity, something exciting that will draw the reader in and have them asking the good sort of questions that keep them turning pages. You can introduce characters by placing them in the middle of horrendous, exciting, or bizzare situations. Just make sure it is integral to the rest of the story.

It may be a good idea to write the book then find your starting point after the fact. This worked...not well for me, but I found the perfect spot after much angst.

ceramiccoconut said:

In horror films, at least modern ones, 'they' say you should always start with a scare before scaling back and building up.

I know in novels, 'they' say always to start in medias res. Writers often interpret this as starting with action--which isn't necessarily what it means. It also leads writers to start with the climax and then flash back (which is a cliche that should typically be avoided).

But horror is different. When you read a horror novel, how do you expect it to start? Do you expect a scare? Immediate, building tension? Or just introduction to characters, getting to know them, and have stuff start happening to them slowly? What's the best kind of opening/start of a horror novel for you?

Click to expand...

It really depends on the novel. There is no single "good" opening. I don't personally think it matters how the novel begins, so long as it is done skillfully. However, I would advise against "immediate" scare. With that, you run the risk of having something around every corner because the tension level falls short. Slowish buildup to the scary stuff is better. But it has to be *interesting*.

The thing is, a horror novel needn't be all about the scary stuff. In fact, when it is all about the scare, I get very bored very fast. The key here is, in my honest opinion, to get the reader to care about the character - a viewpoint I've talked about before here in the horror section and many of the other writers here agree if memory serves. If the reader doesn't give a shit, then what is the point? You can't make a reader frightened for the character, and in essence frighten that same reader on any emotional level for themselves, if they don't give a damn one way or the other. Cheap scare doesn't do much for me from a reader's perspective and without that level of caring, all you are left with is cheap scare.

ceramiccoconut said:

How about this, then... what about starting with a character that isn't the main? You see this a lot in horror movies. I suppose in books, this gets into prologue territory. You don't necessarily have to make it a prologue, but I've also read that you should almost never start a novel with a character that isn't the main one.

But what if it's something like, say, DaVinci Code, where the intro scene sets things up for the rest of the book? Then again, I've also heard not to put something at the beginning that won't be referenced again until late in the book.

Click to expand...

Translating anything from a horror film into a horror novel, and really even comparing the two, is useless from a writer's perspective. The two are very different types of writing.

For one, the horror film is all about visual stimuli. The horror novel is about emotional stimuli. You cannot accomplish these two things the same way.

If you're talking about a Red Shirt scene, those things bore me. As for openings in general--I agree with EFCollins. It just depends. With horror in particular, you go in knowing at the outset (assuming you went to the horror section on purpose) that you're in for something scary. With that in mind, you don't have to start with "scary" right up front. Just a general sense of unease, something not quite normal, a hint that "scary" is on the way. I'm much more a fan of the slow burn than sudden "BOO!" scares.

Rhoda Nightingale said:

If you're talking about a Red Shirt scene, those things bore me. As for openings in general--I agree with EFCollins. It just depends. With horror in particular, you go in knowing at the outset (assuming you went to the horror section on purpose) that you're in for something scary. With that in mind, you don't have to start with "scary" right up front. Just a general sense of unease, something not quite normal, a hint that "scary" is on the way. I'm much more a fan of the slow burn than sudden "BOO!" scares.

Click to expand...

Two of a kind! I love that slow burn. The impending sense of doom without starting with it. Yes, yes, yes!

Regarding film: I didn't say one can't learn from horror films. I said the two types of writing cannot be compared. What the viewer gets is not engaging their imagination in the same way - they see the fruition of story through someone else's imagination. In a novel, it's as much about the reader's imagination as it is the words written. It is very, very different writing. I watch a lot of horror films and I learn something from every single one of them. That doesn't mean I'll ever try to write a novel that way. Cinematic writing, for the horror novel or even short story, is usually boring and done badly. I've seen it once done well, and this was a story written by one of our very own Horror Hounds. Monkey boy did a good job with his story. Usually though, it feels too gimmicky. Saccharine instead of sugar. Not my bag.

Ah. Suspense is a good thing from the very start, whether there's immediate scare or not.

I do understand what you are getting at. If you have a cinematic style and are able to do it well, that's wonderful! I do like the style when it's done well. Luekman is the only person I've read who was able to do it right and I thoroughly enjoyed the story he presented. If I'm not mistaken, I told him I'd kill him if he didn't start sending it to publishers, hehe! If you can write that way and do it well, then I look forward to seeing something of yours in SYW. When done well it is very effective. When done badly... well, it's bad LOL!

i think some kind of action, however big or small is important. some movies get away with starting minimal, like dawn of the dead starting in the hospital.

my novel starts in the middle of the disaster, reaches a climax and finishes all in the first chapter. just so there is conflict do hook in the ready. catergory romance, at least what i have read, starts slow. my favorite author starts with backstory and to be honest if the endings werent so good i would never read her.

now i have never read a horror novel, just stumbled into writing it, but i think some form of action is necessary, or else someone like me will come around and put it down cuz its boring.

as for the slow burn....i posted and was smacked because no action happened lol. so i wrote a prologue and posted chapter 1 and still was told to start with action. my prologue is filled with action, chapter 1 is slower, actually being named calm before the storm.

See, this is where many, many writers make mistakes when given a critique. Action does not always mean big drama. Action can be shopping at the mall... as long as it is active and has purpose within the story. Standing at a rack of clearance items, rifling through the clothes from last season and big epiphany happens. What happens in the very first chapter doesn't have to be big drama. But it does have to be dramatic and relevant to the story. Dramatic meaning important and interesting, but not necessarily a main event.

Edited to Add: Not that I'm saying you specifically made a mistake. I'm just speaking in general.

see i agree. i had it starting with a date which was very important. it showed where a character started so the reader could see how mad he goes. but i was told to start with zombie attack.

...

Really? You were told that here? On AW? In the horror section???

I have not read the story, so I can't say that it was or was not the most effective way of establishing a connection with your readers. Sometimes it is the best way. Sometimes it isn't. The only way I could know for certain is to read the story. And it would still only be my personal opinion.

You are the writer. You know what is best for your story. A critique is just that... the opinion of someone else. They are giving advice, but sometimes it isn't always the best advice. I have killed many a good tale by following every critique I got on a story. A critique is only something to mull over, think about and then you decide what is best.

In horror particularly, suspense is key to engaging me in the story. I want to feel like something's coming. It's okay if you use cheap thrills to create a mini-climax early on, but keep the tension up.

The opening to any novel is tough to write, and sometimes the real beginning of the story isn't apparent until after you've finished the first draft in entirety.

My novel, Ink, does not start with the main character, but it does start with a significant character, but most importantly, it starts where the story starts. My current WIP begins with a woman walking alone at 3:00 a.m., and you slowly, along the course of her walk, find out why she's out there, and no, she's not running from a crazed axe murderer, etc.. Her walk and what she eventually encounters is where the story starts. Is it wham-bam action? Nope, not at all. It's a slow burn sort of lead-in.

I believe in taking the reader by the hand and leading them into the darkness one step at a time, not pushing them in headfirst, but that's how I tell a story. It may not be how you tell one.

EFCollins said:

...

Really? You were told that here? On AW? In the horror section???

I have not read the story, so I can't say that it was or was not the most effective way of establishing a connection with your readers. Sometimes it is the best way. Sometimes it isn't. The only way I could know for certain is to read the story. And it would still only be my personal opinion.

You are the writer. You know what is best for your story. A critique is just that... the opinion of someone else. They are giving advice, but sometimes it isn't always the best advice. I have killed many a good tale by following every critique I got on a story. A critique is only something to mull over, think about and then you decide what is best.

Click to expand...

i know. i appreciate the crits but only some you agree with. some you take with that grain of salt.

and i potsed in fantasy since it gets more traffic than horror. mine can be considered uf along with horror.

dgrintalis said:

My novel, Ink, does not start with the main character, but it does start with a significant character, but most importantly, it starts where the story starts.

Click to expand...

LEGENDS starts with the secondary main character and the main villian being friends at the beginning of the zombie/harpy outbreak. Tristan(love interst for MC) and Stephan (Villian) are vampires on the run from the government. stephan gets killed-or so the reader thinks-and tristan is out for his own survival. he meets alex and they fall in love while dodging ravaging monsters...sorry one could get away with that stuff. but i do like the idea of not starting with the MC but a secondary one.

"Always start with action" really means "start with something interesting". It's also said that you have around 200 words to hook a reader (or 30 seconds - take your pick).

What this really means is that you have to convince a reader to turn the page, somehow, some way. If you succeed you have done what 90% of most writers fail to do. It doesn't matter if you do it with a Boom!, slam-bang action, a car chase and shoot-out, or the lead up to a violent gunfight.

Let's look at several different ways of starting each of the above from movies.

Boom! (Terminator 2)
The movie starts with SkyNet blowing up human civilization.

Slam-bang action (Mission: Impossible)
Every episode of the TV show starts off with something exciting going on. The Tom Cruise movies start with some sort of mission going badly awry.

Car chase & gunfight (Bad Boys)
The heroes start out in, well, a car chase and ensuing shoot-out.

Lead-up to violent gunfight (Shane, High Noon)
Can anyone say that either of these movies starts out with something boring going on? In Shane the movie starts with the boy seeing Shane ride in. The novel is even better. I don't think I've ever read a more descriptive or frightening description of a small child watching a gunfighter ride across his path. Go read that passage. It's a classic example of how good writing just works and sets a mood.

In the movie High Noon Gary Cooper's getting married and planning to move on and settle down. Is anyone bored by the opening scenes in High Noon?

High Noon and Shane are immortal, but they start slow. The others are equally immortal, but start with lots more action.

Yes, they're different genres, but each has it's own way of starting what becomes an immersive and intensely interesting story.

(I could add Bullit and Birds Of Prey, but I think my point here is made).

Start with something interesting happening and get your reader to turn the page. Then keep doing that for 400 pages.