At what point in your story should the main plot begin by?

Wellllll...define "main plot."

I don't think it's absolutely necessary to start a story with the big exciting action bit of the plot. I do think that if you creep up on that, though, you need to be offering the readers relevant information. So maybe the MC doesn't know that they're falling into the plot, but they are. It may not yet be irreversible, but IME the early events of a story should be nudging the character in that direction.

If the first 20% of your book is backstory that has no relevance to the journey the MC is going to take, I'm probably going to be irritated as a reader. But if it's a slow burn that gives me bits and pieces that I can look at later and say "OH YEAH I SEE IT NOW," I will be intrigued and pleased.

IMHO, you need something intriguing within the first scene related to the plot. It need not be the door of no return, but it should put the reader on the path. This may seem simple, and perhaps painfully obvious; but, failure to engage and invite the reader to delve further into the tale runs the considerable risk of the book being put down.

Michael Hauge had a Six stage plot structure that addresses this a bit by breaking down when certain things tend to happen in movies. It's just a guideline, but helped me see a certain kind of structure, and that some stories *rush* the plot, and why that is.

He says at the ca. 25 % point of the story, there's the second turning point (end of Act I if you follow that kind of structure). This is where the story transforms the original desire of the character into a specific goal with a concrete and clearly defined end point. In his opinion, if this is placed too early, the story fizzles out. If it's placed too late, the reader will lose interest.

In case you're wondering what's supposed to come before that turning point, he breaks it down this way: roughly the first 10% of the book as set up (establish the hero and world, and hint at threats or conflicts to come). It ends with the first turning point of the book when it's clear what the character wants (the original desire). But it's not yet the big desire that will drive the main plot. It's in some way a desire to move into a new situation, which is the next 10-15% of the story. Conflicts build and lead to that big end of Act I turning point.

Again, this is all movie structure and one opinion, but it can really help clarify some structural issues if you look at it closely.

As the others said, everything leading up to that point has to be necessary and relevant to the stuff coming later. So no random backstory or stuff put in just because it's interesting. It has to build and matter to that big desire and concrete goal coming up.

I'd echo some of what Atlantic12 is saying. OP, your description of the "door of no return" sounds like what I'd call "the hero answering the call to action." In some theories of novel structure that's also the end of Act I/ start of Act II. It's often the point at which the main character enters a new setting, where she/he/they spend most of the book.

The story that comes before this moment, though, also needs to be part of the main plot, in the sense that it needs to be showing me why the main character needs to walk through that door of no return (the stakes) and why the main character, who has not yet achieved the growth they will achieve by the end of the book, is hesitating to walk through that door.

Uselessly simple answer

Keep it simple. Most pronouncements on plot structure are for critics and analysts rather than authors.

Starting a story or book, an author has only one rule to follow: get them interested immediately and keep them interested. You can say that in many different ways and it much harder to do than say, but all plot rules have been broken by successful writers. Sometimes structural rules help "get 'em and keep 'em" sometimes they don't.

There are many ways to grab and retain interest. Which ones are successful in a given writing depend on the writer and reader. Sometimes it's a puzzle: why is this person doing this strange thing? Sometimes it is word candy:these words taste so good, I must read more. (Hard.) Sometimes it's character: this guy is just like my best friend, I must know more. (Non-empathetics need not apply.) Sometimes it is forward action: what will happen next? Every reader has their vulnerabilities, every writer has their strengths. You just have to match your fortes with your readers' vulnerabilities. Simple? As a boar's teat. Whatever Grandpa meant by that.

When and how to end is another problem. If you end too soon, the reader is left wanting and may not read you again. You have to answer at least a few asked questions. If you end too late, you have failed to keep their interest and they may abandon you. What works in the first twenty pages may fail in the last twenty. Structural analysis might help you choose a satisfying end, but don't ignore your own feelings about a good end. They are most likely right for you.

From the first sentence. IOW - from word 1, every word is there to serve the story.

Agents and editors talk a lot about novels starting in the wrong place as a reason for rejection.
If a novel doesn't come to the main plot in the first pages, what is going on? Is something necessary happening or is it superfluous writing?
Every word should drive the plot and build the storyline.

I'd generally say it should start with the first page, though it may depend on what you mean by "main plot." Books that spend a fifth or more of the allocated space in set up can be rather dull, unless the set up itself is rife with interesting tension and conflict.

However, I just read a popular and well-regarded SF novel (The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet) where I realized when I was nearly halfway through that there was virtually no plot at all. I still wasn't certain who the protagonist was, nor was I sure what the character whom I thought was the protagonist for most of the book wanted, nor what obstacles she had to overcome. And the final conflict sort of went "squish" without any real resolution. I found it entertaining, but I felt like there could have been more to it. Many disagree, though, as it's done well and won some awards.

The above-mentioned book was one of the more extreme examples, but I've read other SFF novels that have inordinately long set ups. Some I've put down in boredom, and some (like Kushiel's Dart, where the first 100 pages or more were narrative summary of the protagonist's childhood, though a plot did surface eventually, and the book was very long--much longer than the length--120k words or less--we're usually told to stick to as debut fantasy writers), I've stuck with and enjoyed. I liked it enough I went straight to the sequels and read them with relish. It's hard to explain why some books with long set ups keep me hooked. With Kushiel's Dart, I think it was the narrative voice and personality of the protagonist, along with it being set in an interesting world. I loved Carey's alternative Earth and the way she wove what felt like plausible differences into the religions, cultures and history.

Interestingly, both these books were debut novels and were picked up by a major SFF imprint (Tor, I believe), so agents and editors aren't always looking for stories that that follow all the rules new writers are assured they must follow until they are published and famous. I assume there's some other quality that makes gatekeepers think a novel has the potential to sell well, even without the traditional elements.

Roxxsmom said:

However, I just read a popular and well-regarded SF novel (A Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet) where I realized when I was nearly halfway through that there was virtually no plot at all.

Click to expand...

I've been thinking about this, because I can think of examples as well, but only in SFF.

I think with MTS you've got a genre contract with the reader, similar to the HEA/HFN contract in romance: the story must be about a central mystery or dramatic dilemma. Given that, you probably don't want to take too much time painting blades of grass before you cough up a crisis.

In general, though, I think a critique like "the book starts in the wrong place" is really a softened way of saying "I wasn't interested enough to read more." It's possible to start slow and build atmosphere, but you've got to do it in a way that makes the reader want to keep turning the page.

It depends--in a short story the main plot is the only plot there is, so by default it has to start with the first sentence. In a novel, there will be sub-plots, which function as a way to explore aspects and implications of the characters and setting without resolving the story too quickly. In that case, the story can begin with one of the sub-plots, but if so then it should be interesting in it's own right, and somehow eventually lead the protagonist to the main plot, so that the novel overall has coherence. There are exceptions, of course, esp in terms of experimental writing styles that are trying to avoid the restrictions of traditional narrative structure. In general, I would say that the longer the overall work, the later the main plot can start. "Lord of the Rings" is probably the poster child for this--by some lights the "main plot" doesnt start until we are more than half-way through the entire work, but no one notices this because all the sub-plots that led there are so interesting in themselves, and because the transition from one sub-plot to another is so seamless (this is partly a function of Tolkien's legendary ability at world-building).

Doesn't he also say that the closer the first door is to the beginning, the faster your novel will take off.

Put the door where it belongs in your particular story. If it's a thriller it belongs up front, long before a fifth of the book has gone.

Horses for courses.

gbhike said:

Hi all.

I was reading a book by James Scott Bell recently, and he said that as long as your character enters the first "door of no return" (aka starts the main plot from which he cannot go backward and escape) in the first 1/5th of the book, then you're good. So for example if your book was 20 chapters, you'd want to main plot to be initiated some time in the first four chapters.

I've heard some people say your main plot should start right away. No waiting, no hesitation, no nothing. Just jump in. I've heard others say that so long as your character is *in action* and doing things from the get-go, it's OK to spend a little bit of time using that to set up the story, the setting, the characters, etc. So long as you don't wait too long to jump into the main plot.

What are your guys' thoughts on this?

Click to expand...

gbhike said:

What are your guys' thoughts on this?

Click to expand...

Depends on the story structure. M/T/S is a set of three closely related story structures.

Mystery (or Detective) is about finding the truth. So the first story beat relates to the criminal (or a representation thereof). Some times it's a murder. Some times it's something innocuous that grows up to become a big thing. The second story beat is about the Heroine, specifically why this particular sleuth has what it takes to find the truth - and the criminal. Some stories have those plot beats merged into one - the sleuth is called to a crime scene and discovers an important clue no other sleuth has yet found (ex: Columbo). That pretty much gets you to your "door of no return". Many James Bond movies follow this pattern although they are sold as 'Action flicks'. Goldfinger. Diamonds Are Forever. Both start with something simple that grows bigger and bigger.

Thriller is about a Heroine as the victim. It's deeply personal. It's a "why me" thing for the Heroine while the criminal toys around the Heroine to torment her. The first story beat is usually a direct attack on the Heroine. Like a murder with a signature. Something from the past. Often a secret unearthed or one that needs be kept hidden whatever the cost. The second beat is about the Heroine's demons, a murky past, someone lost or a case that went sour. This quickly get you to the "door of no return" where the Heroine must solve the crime in order to rid of her demons. The movies Fatal Attraction or Basic Instinct are your typical examples of such a structure.

Suspense is Cop versus Criminal head-on fight, which is often psychological. A tit-for-tat game in which fists and wits are de rigueur. The first beat usually depict the criminal as someone above the law. The second beat depict the Heroine as a flawed cop. Someone with a chip on her shoulder. She's 'in the system' but works on the boundaries of what's acceptable. The first encounter is your "point of no return". They size each one up and setup the fights ahead. Films like The Usual Suspects, Heat, and The Dark Knight are good examples. Some times the cops & criminal roles are swapped, like in Ocean's Eleven or The Fugitive. Add instead a comedic twist and you have Home Alone.

The first two beats will often depict the arena in which action will occur. Mystery moves about a lot. One clue here, another miles away. The first two beats rarely occur at the same place unless they are merged. Thrillers have limited space - like a pressure cooker. The house. The workplace. The small town. An island weathering a storm. A prison. Suspense doesn't have any restriction - limited as in a Thriller (ex: Dark Knight) or huge expanses that can cross continents (ex: Catch Me If You Can).


Hope this helps.

-cb