Are we judging story openings too harshly?

• Frankenstein: 1818
• Huckleberry Finn: 1884
• Moby Dick: 1851
• Peter Pan: 1911
• Robinson Crusoe: 1719
• The Three Musketeers: 1844
• White Fang: 1906

I think that tastes have changed as the novel form has developed over the centuries.

Norman Mjadwesch said:

has it gone too far? The prevailing view seems to be that there absolutely must be action to hook the reader from the get-go, that scenery and setting is of secondary importance, that the introduction of a protagonist must include an interaction with a major plot point. We are all required to stick to a fairly rigid formula that only sees a very few aspirants succeed.

Click to expand...

tbf, I don't think we're really required to do anything. Critique here is really feedback, and if most readers prefer an action-filled start, most critiques will lean that way. The writer isn't required to follow the advice - it's just there for consideration.

Norman Mjadwesch said:

It occurs to me that because loads of people are writing and not being published, that we are being overly harsh on ourselves and on others when it comes to critiquing the openings of our various stories, perhaps in the expectation that if we agonise over every aspect of our writing that someone will value it enough to offer us a book deal. There is an obsession with getting everything perfect (fair enough, or else why bother with improving our skills?) but has it gone too far? The prevailing view seems to be that there absolutely must be action to hook the reader from the get-go, that scenery and setting is of secondary importance, that the introduction of a protagonist must include an interaction with a major plot point. We are all required to stick to a fairly rigid formula that only sees a very few aspirants succeed.

Instead of expressing an opinion either way on the matter, I decided to go for a bit of a web search to see how many classic novels follow this template that requires immediate action, based upon the content of just the first chapter of the works that were listed. I didn’t read every one, limiting myself only to those that were familiar to me in a good way, but I was intrigued to discover that hardly any of those that I did read followed rules that we currently insist upon. The bulk of the books that I looked at did not even hint at the genre that they represented, but instead gave introductions that we would consider as weak beginnings if they were written today: family connections, minor descriptions of a town that seem irrelevant, and so forth. Only one of the opening chapters I read had any action at all:

• Frankenstein: genealogy, respectability. No castles, no lightning, no bodies.
• Huckleberry Finn: soliloquy. No pranks, no mischief.
• Moby Dick: telling, not showing. No ship, no sea, no conflict.
• Peter Pan: philosophy. No hint of magic.
• Robinson Crusoe: long-winded genealogy. No promise of adventure.
• The Three Musketeers: hooray! Revolution!
• White Fang: this was the only one that reads as a normal modern novel. The setting is moody, with a promise of things to come.

Have literary tastes changed so much that most of these books that we consider to be iconic would not make it past a first beta read without being found wanting?

Click to expand...

In over 100 years? Kinda.

Those, however, are mostly classics -- for a reason. There's plenty of rule-breaking stuff published today; just not the bulk. Were most books published at the time of Moby Dick like Moby Dick? Published the same year as Frankenstein was the classic The Veiled Protectress, which I'm sure we all read in school.

Less won the Pulitzer, and doesn't start with a ton of action.

Norman Mjadwesch said:

It occurs to me that because loads of people are writing and not being published, that we are being overly harsh on ourselves and on others when it comes to critiquing the openings of our various stories, perhaps in the expectation that if we agonise over every aspect of our writing that someone will value it enough to offer us a book deal. There is an obsession with getting everything perfect (fair enough, or else why bother with improving our skills?) but has it gone too far? The prevailing view seems to be that there absolutely must be action to hook the reader from the get-go, that scenery and setting is of secondary importance, that the introduction of a protagonist must include an interaction with a major plot point. We are all required to stick to a fairly rigid formula that only sees a very few aspirants succeed.

Click to expand...

I don't think this is the case. All an opening has to do is draw the reader from one sentence to the next to the next, until they turn the page--and are hooked. There are many ways to accomplish that, not restricted to the sort of opening you described. "Action" isn't a requirement. Interesting or engaging writing is, regardless of the means used to accomplish that.

Norman Mjadwesch said:

. . . I was intrigued to discover that hardly any of those that I did read followed rules that we currently insist upon.

Click to expand...

I don't know where you're getting this rule or who is insisting upon it.

Norman Mjadwesch said:

Have literary tastes changed so much that most of these books that we consider to be iconic would not make it past a first beta read without being found wanting?

Click to expand...

Short answer is, yes, literary tastes change, even decade to decade. All of the novels you listed are one to two hundred years old. Much has changed in that time, not just literary tastes. Does that mean they can't be read and enjoyed today? Nope. They can be and are, but the style, pacing, and language are of another time. That's not a bad thing, it just is what it is. However, I picked White Fang at random from your list and had a look. It opens with a paragraph painting a setting which sets a mood and has enough life to be a character itself. It was engaging (without action).

My expectations when picking up an 1850s novel are not the same as my expectations when picking up a 2019 novel, though I'm fully capable of enjoying both. And the expectations of 1800s readers wasn't the same as of readers today (apart from the expectation of being entertained/drawn in/transported/etc.).

On a more practical side, IMO, openings are more important now than they were a hundred years ago because of the sheer volume of books available these days coupled with online (and even bookstore) browsing. If an opening isn't engaging (note that I did not say "action-filled"), a reader is likely to move on to the next choice. Not every reader browses like this, but many do.

All the best,
Riv

-Riv- said:

It opens with a paragraph painting a setting which sets a mood and has enough life to be a character itself. It was engaging (without action).
Riv

Click to expand...

Zackly. Or for an opening that delivers a time and a character with enough voice and life to capture you (and no real action) read the opening of Marilynne Robinson's Gilead (which won the Pulitzer for fiction in 2004 I think?)

I had a revelation about the 'post your first three sentences' and the 'post your first 200 words' threads. They were useful, the critique was valuable. But forum members need to be cautioned, those three sentences and 200 words are not magical openings. They are tools to grow your openings with. Understand the concepts the critiques are saying, but don't come away thinking there are fixed 'rules' you have to follow in your opening.

Yes you need to draw your readers in, but there are ways to do it that the 'rules' can be a guide to but don't always encompass all your options.

When I critique openings, I judge them as a reader. If you open with paragraphs describing the weather or a field or a shopping mall in detail, I know it's not going to be a book I enjoy, because I don't enjoy lots of description. I can't think of any more valid critique than, "As a reader, this would make me put the book down."

Norman Mjadwesch said:

We are all required to stick to a fairly rigid formula that only sees a very few aspirants succeed.

Click to expand...

Few aspirants succeed because few have the talent, not because someone said their first paragraph was dull.

Norman Mjadwesch said:

It occurs to me that because loads of people are writing and not being published, that we are being overly harsh on ourselves and on others when it comes to critiquing the openings

Click to expand...

It's more about jumping on the bandwagon when on the internet, finding your own group of common interest and agreeing with its opinions in order to fit in. And of course the trend towards being overly critical while sitting comfortably behind your computer screen. Not to mention the general misunderstanding of good advice. You see things plastered over hundreds of blogs and you start believing it's the gospel. Happens so easy. It's the nature of the Internet. The real world is a bit different.

MaeZe said:

I had a revelation about the 'post your first three sentences' and the 'post your first 200 words' threads. They were useful, the critique was valuable. But forum members need to be cautioned, those three sentences and 200 words are not magical openings. They are tools to grow your openings with. Understand the concepts the critiques are saying, but don't come away thinking there are fixed 'rules' you have to follow in your opening.

Yes you need to draw your readers in, but there are ways to do it that the 'rules' can be a guide to but don't always encompass all your options.

Click to expand...

This. I feel much as the OP does if I take the input/feedback from those threads as the industry standard. With such a small snippet, as a critter it's easy to over-focus on the little bit we get to see and not see the whole picture. That's one of the reasons I don't participate as much as I used to in such threads. They are tools, not rules.

That said, when I put myself in the position of an agent or story editor, I simply cannot devote the time to fully consider each submission. Think of it like a car radio on "seek." It only takes me a few seconds to know whether or not I want to listen to more. The resolution to the apparent contradiction is that the agents are not overanalyzing like we tend to do in the "short snippet" threads, but are making quick decisions based on what they see.

To the OP, the reason is that literature evolves with language, culture, socio-economic changes, so yes what was the norm 100 or 200 years ago has changed by now. I think a lot of people as well can get side tracked about the word "action" if doesn't mean it has to be big, jump out of a helicopter, or get chased across the city. I read an opening recently where the opening action was some someone picking up his clothes and leave prison, nothing major but the way it was written pull me in because I wanted to know what he was arrested for, why there was nobody was waiting for him when he got out, etc...

Crispin said:

Sadly, yes. I think there are two reasons for this: 1) People are stupid. And I don't mean that in the cynical sense, but the clinical one. People today are becoming less intelligent as a matter of fact. They are also less patient. When TV and Movies overtook books as a main form of entertainment, people became trained to expect "excitement" in much shorter time periods. 2) A lot of this is on agents. I have no doubt that were someone like Tolkien to submit today, he would be "snarked on" by some unremarkable agent telling him he was too wordy and droll and that he ought to learn to write before trying again. And that's the main point: I don't think people understand that being an agent is no different than any other job. They aren't passionate or romantic or whatever you imagine. They want, like most of us, to do as little work as possible and get home. And so if there is some overly simplistic, but at least nominally successful formula they can follow to expedite that process, they will.

Having said all that, while it is certainly an uphill battle, I woulnd't say it's impossible. The market of intelligent readers is still there, just smaller. And, while most agents do merely follow a lazy formula, I'm sure some still look for anything exceptional, however it might be presented.

Click to expand...

There are so many level of wrong in this post, I don't know where to start.

Question: have agents done anything to you to show such a level of contempt for an entire profession?

I don't think it's struck a nerve, more that it's a topic that comes up a lot.

But almost always those questions miss historical context, among other things. To flip it another way: lots of really great books currently published in recent years, could not have gotten published in earlier times. The audience wasn't there for it, and the style of writing probably would repel readers (assuming you could go back in time and show them a copy.)

I'm going to ignore the derail and go back to the OP.

As others have said, classics aren't a good or fair place to look because tastes and expectations change. I still see your point, in that sure, we can all find some recently pubbed books where we read and think wow, this would get ripped in SYW. Or we see queries in QLH that get ripped, but go on to have requests, and alternatively, queries the squirrels love that don't get requests--this doesn't mean there isn't value in QLH, because those are both outliers, and often others see what we don't because we're too close.

But, if we're trying to get published, it is on us to make our work the absolute best we can, because the field is crowded and the number of debut slots are limited. Very few of the statements made in SYW are rules, they're guidelines. Already been mentioned but I want to stress, it isn't that every story needs action (as in fight/chase/sex) on the opening page, but it does need to be interesting from those opening sentences. And that's where the beauty of individual tastes and preferences comes in. Yes, some readers/crittters won't be interested unless there's physical conflict or an obviously alien landscape, but many will be hooked by a strong voice, a quirky setting, or beautiful writing.

When we write, it's on us to make the work the best we can--self explanatory.

It's also on us to know our critters to determine the weight of their crit--(though always, always, thanking and appreciating all crits whether they're ones we see as helpful or not)--I'm trying to think of how to explain this one. It isn't that we need a deep and personal relationship with each critter, and it isn't post count, but really look at the crit. Does this apply? Might it apply? or is it a generic "rule" without context?

Know who our intended audience is--I love the "first three sentences" thread. It's fun and sharp and a very useful exercise to illustrate the many forms a hook can take. When I post in that thread, I always know there will be several who won't like my 3 because they don't enjoy my style. I also know *should be* several who do.

And it's on us to understand the business and current expectations of professionals as best we can, because while writing is a creative endeavor, the publishing world is a business.

Norman Mjadwesch said:

Oh dear, I seem to have struck a nerve. That wasn’t my intention.

Click to expand...

I don't think you've struck a nerve; I think people just don't agree with you.

Norman Mjadwesch said:

The purpose of my question was actually intended to make those who may be struggling with their writing feel a little better about themselves, more forgiving (for want of a better word).

Click to expand...

Openings are hard, but as others have said, they don't need to be action-filled. They just need to be compelling. The classics that I personally still read (I unapologetically loathe Moby Dick) grab me from the first paragraph. Here's the first 60 words of Bleak House:

London. Michaelmas term lately over, and the Lord Chancellor sitting in Lincoln's Inn Hall. Implacable November weather. As much mud in the streets as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth, and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus, forty feet long or so, waddling like an elephantine lizard up Holborn Hill.

Click to expand...

How awesome is it that Dickens wrote about dinosaurs?

I do think writing advice tends to default toward "start with action" when the reality is it needs to start with a hook. Action scenes make pretty good hooks! But they're not the only ones.

Are we too hard on ourselves? Oh, goodness, yes. Not all writers and all that, but so many of us are constantly nit-picking our own work and agonizing over making it Just Right, long after it's polished like glass. That said, we're constantly learning and improving, and finding out an opening doesn't work isn't a bad thing, just an annoying one. That we beat ourselves up over it is the bad thing.

I always give feedback as a reader. When I'm in the bookstore choosing a book, I read the blurb, then I open the first page & read. If I enjoy it enough, I'll pay money. If not, it goes back on the shelf. If I'm reading in SYW the difference is I explain why I'd pay money, or why I'd put it back on the shelf. Harsh? Well, I suppose if you want to sell your book, you might find the information useful, if it helps you improve your text.

I wonder if part of the resentment comes from the fact that people misunderstand what the “rules” are and why they exist? Yeah, if I was told I was only allowed to write fast-paced, action openers, I’d be annoyed. But the rule (as I’ve interpreted it) isn’t about action it’s about conflict. I look for conflict, or the hint thereof, in an opener, because without conflict there is no story. And conflict can be anything from a shootout to getting stuck at a red light to feeling anxious about a conversation with your parents. For myself, I know beautiful writing will only keep me engaged for so long. Conflict keeps me turning pages.

I also tend to get annoyed when I read “descriptive” openings because I feel like the author is underestimating me as a reader. This may be totally personal, but I don’t like feeling like the author wants to hold my hand and make sure I see the world exactly like they want me to. I want to use my imagination! If I wanted a perfect visual representation I’d watch a movie. Let me fill in some blanks!

So yeah, are we overly critical of openers? Probably in some cases, but I think that has more to do with the number of options we as readers have now. And if it’s on critique threads, then yes, people are hyper-critical because they are being asked to be critical. That’s the headspace. But I don’t think it has much to do with an unfair formula being forced on authors. And recall, rules are made to be broken, you just have to know the rules and why they exist first.

We can study outliers till we're blue in the face, but mostly all we'll learn from them is that... outliers exist.

Norman Mjadwesch said:

OK, yes the books I used as examples are over a century old, but they are still readable today. They may have been written for a different audience, but if they remain popular then who’s to say that writers today shouldn’t use that particular style of writing, particularly if they are writing historical fiction set in that period? Wouldn’t that be an authentic flavour?

Click to expand...

Are they still popular, or do we just know them today because they're taught in school? Endless adaptations of Frankenstein and Peter Pan notwithstanding, are people actually still reading the original books? Or just consuming the remixes?

I have seen some modern historical fiction that tried to work in the style of the period the story was set in - sometimes successful, sometimes very much not. (IMO, of course!)

Norman Mjadwesch said:

OK, yes the books I used as examples are over a century old, but they are still readable today. They may have been written for a different audience, but if they remain popular then who’s to say that writers today shouldn’t use that particular style of writing, particularly if they are writing historical fiction set in that period? Wouldn’t that be an authentic flavour?

Click to expand...

Personally, I find some older books readable despite their slow openings, not because of them.

As someone who's writing a historical romance, and reading as widely as possible in that sub-genre, a slow start with lots of descriptions and genealogy does not seem competitive in that market. I also don't feel I could write progressive characters and explicit sex with a hundred-years-ago style.

PyriteFool said:

But the rule (as I’ve interpreted it) isn’t about action it’s about conflict. I look for conflict, or the hint thereof, in an opener, because without conflict there is no story.

Click to expand...

This, exactly. Action is not the same as conflict.

I've read a lot of openers that have characters engaged in frantic, bloody battles, or running for their lives from monsters, or screaming at each other in a furious argument. Are these action-packed? Yes. Are these interesting? Not if there's no conflict.

Action is characters fighting, but conflict is why they're fighting. I'd much rather read about characters talking civilly to each other, with conflict simmering below the surface, than to open a book and be plunged into an explosive battle scene where I don't know who's fighting who, or why.

PyriteFool said:

I also tend to get annoyed when I read “descriptive” openings because I feel like the author is underestimating me as a reader. This may be totally personal, but I don’t like feeling like the author wants to hold my hand and make sure I see the world exactly like they want me to. I want to use my imagination! If I wanted a perfect visual representation I’d watch a movie. Let me fill in some blanks!

Click to expand...

That's interesting because I've heard a lot of people complain about the author "making me do the work" with very simple descriptions. What's a good cutoff for you, for, say, a main character? A sentence? Half a paragraph? A whole page? I get the reader wanting to use their imagination, but doesn't the author have to set a foundation for that imagination to work off of?