When to start the story?

IMO world building doesn't necessarily draw readers into the story, and too much (aka. core dump, information overload) can push them away.

You can mix in just enough world building to make the scene interesting and give context.

I've noticed that most tales have a tipping point - an instigating action that sets off a chain of events that makes up the story. Like dominoes falling. I suggest that you start there.

I think it depends on genre and your vision. If you start in the middle of a fight, we don't know who to root for or how to feel. I put books back on the shelves when they open like that.

I like being seduced into a story, not manhandled into one.

I read light science fiction, some fantasy, historical, and mystery.

The simplest answer is that it varies from story to story. What works for one story won't work in another, and while one story can benefit from setting up the setting or establishing backstory/status-quo, other stories will benefit from getting into conflict quickly. This is why reading plenty in the genre you write is always an asset. You'll know what kind of openings are common and popular in other books similar to your own.

My advice would be to just get started and not worry too much as to whether you are kicking off at the right point. As you continue writing, the story will evolve and I'd bet you will gain a better feel for your narrative. You'll get a better sense then of when and where the story should start.

I think people misunderstand the word "conflict".

For me conflict means tension or raising questions to hook the readers and get them to turn the page, it doesn't mean you need to start with full blown conflict in the sense of the middle of a fight, or argument. You need to start with actions but actions in the sense of people doing something and not just pondering or describing the weather, etc...

My advice would be to pull some books at the library or use the "look inside" facility on Amazon and study the opening pages of books from different genres and see how they start. I believe that something with over-estimate the amount of background information or world-building readers need to enjoy a story. For example The Handmaid's Tale which is speculative fiction, you start straight into the story and you discover the world as you read along, no information front-loaded before the story starts.

For example "Fahrenheit 451" starts low key with a fireman that gets off from work (starting with action), but the author drops clues to get the reader hooked showing that this is not a normal world and not a normal fireman. Readers is intrigued and keeps reading.

Otherwise I always use the advice that I use for creating scenes which is "enter as late as possible and leave as early as you can". For example if your story is about a barman who meets a stranger who tells him he's the chosen one, you could start very early with the barman getting up, getting ready for work, showing the reader where he lives and how he gets to work" but that's not very compelling and it raises no questions or you can start late which means with the barman at work drying and stacking glasses on shelves (starting with action) and being weary of this stranger on the other side of the bar who keeps glancing at him.

In the end it's like everything else in writing it's all in the execution.

"You should start your book as far into the conflict as possible"

Actually, I've never heard this bit of advice before. I don't think that would have worked for The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. I guess it depends on the conventions of your genre, but if understanding character motives is important, you may need to go way back -- generations even -- before the conflict even really begins.

talktidy said:

My advice would be to just get started and not worry too much as to whether you are kicking off at the right point. As you continue writing, the story will evolve and I'd bet you will gain a better feel for your narrative. You'll get a better sense then of when and where the story should start.

Click to expand...

This ^ exactly. As long as you can live with killing darlings and rewriting beginnings, just start where the story starts at the moment. When you cut a chapter or a section just put it in an inactive file, that way it's easier to let go.

I wrote and tossed lots of chapters and re-wrote the beginning more than a half dozen times. Every change improved the story. I'm very happy with where the beginning ended up.

Where to start the story is much easier to see after the book is more developed.*


*Not everyone writes this way, that's okay.

I've heard that and to an extent I believe it. But I feel the conflict or "big" event hits home a lot harder when you care about the characters and this can take some time to develop. I think it also depends on what the "big" conflict is. I had this problem myself in my Fantasy novel.

My inciting incident and major conflict is my main character's (HANNAH) best friend who reports her for hiding an illegal and Hannah's family are arrested.This relationship and betrayal is central to my entire story. Her best friend betrayed her to save her own family.
This betrayal wouldn't feel as potent to me if I started the story as close to this moment as possible because then we wouldn't get a good feel of the relationship between these two friends. You wouldn't understand why her friend betrayed her and I'd lose the shock value.

These girl's are true best friends and live in a awful, unfair world together. Her friend wasn't being cruel she was just terrified and desperate. Hannah understands her actions but still can't forgive them because so much happens to her and to her family because of this friend's choice.

So I think it depends what the major conflict is and how much "setting up" it requires.

Hope this helped.

There are many different writing "rules" and ideas about how to write, and every book is different. I think you should try to learn "the rules" like formal structure. Then you should think about them, and use what is appropriate for your story. But be aware of the rule you are breaking. If most books use a three act structure and a hook midpoint through the first act, and your hook isn't until the very end of the first act, are you making that choice for a good reason?

Finally, if you're looking to trad publish you're probably safer sticking closer to convention for early works. If you think about various masters, like Picasso, or James Joyce, they broke all the rules. But they created pieces early in their career that followed the rules, both to learn them and demonstrate mastery. Then they broke the rules. I'd be shocked if someone is an amazing writer who can only write pieces that break all the rules but somehow can't write a piece that follows a relatively standard structure. It's not impossible but...

petuh112 said:

Or is it more "There should be conflict immediately", even if the conflict is not the main one the story will be built around?

Click to expand...

Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner

The story starts when you strike the match, not when you lay out the wood.

Another way to think about it is your protagonist enters the story with a flaw/lack, and the whole point of the plot is to force them to confront that and grow (or fail to grow: tragedy)…which means the plot doesn’t have to start on page one, but the character has something going on that is causing conflict in their life/keeping them from being happy right now. Also, conflict does not have to mean fisty-cuffs.

That said, you don’t have to nail it in the first draft. You’re not doing it wrong if you start somewhere and find it’s not the beginning of your story. Writing isn’t a performance art, it only looks like a published work fell out of the author’s brain perfect the first time ;-)

Story Genius by Lisa Cron is worth a read if you’re struggling to work out where your story starts.

petuh112 said:

I've heard the advice "You should start your book as far into the conflict as possible", both here and other places, especially in the Share your work section. I understand it to some extent, but oftentimes I feel that taking a moment to build world and character before jumping into the meat of the story can be helpful, especially in a science-fi/fantasy context.

Click to expand...

That's about it, really. "Lord of the Rings" is a story about hobbits who are tasked by a magician to destroy a magic ring. It doesn't begin with how the ring was made. It starts as far into the conflict as possible - with the hobbits and the magician coming to give them the task. "Harry Potter" doesn't start with how Hogwarts was created either. It starts with a brief moment to build world and character. So does "The Name of the Wind", which is a modern fantasy classic. There are a few chapters to tell us who's who and what they do, although it doesn't start with the birth of the main character, which would have been way too far away from the "main conflict". Hope that makes sense.

The story should start immediately. It doesn't have to take pages and pages to give a reader a sense of character or setting or situation.

Letting me into who the main character is, for example, is starting the story, but spending pages having him then study his navel and reflect on his dull life is boring.

If, within the first page or so the reader knows where he is, what's happening and in whose head he is supposed to be, there's a good chance he'll continue reading until either he doesn't know any of these things, or gets bored.

If writing novels everyone wanted to read were easy we would all be best sellers.

Read books of the kind you want to write. Note how they begin, and which ones keep your attention and give you the desire to keep turning pages.

I liken the search for the starting point to seeking a loose thread in a tapestry. That one thread that if you pull the entire tale will unwind.

I think starting a story with a little bit of action is a good way to get going. It gives you an understanding that this story isn't going to go nowhere, it's going to have a bit of a thrill.
Careful though not to start out with too much, just enough to entice and then focus a bit more on world building after the conflict has finished it's "first round" for lack of a better phrase would be pretty good too.
That being said, you don't necessarily have to have much action either, it's all about how you want to portray your world and story.

Have you ever read any of Patrick Rothfuss' books?
He's a genius. The way he builds his world and makes it seem so simple...He doesn't blow you away with action but rather settles you in with a very, very well written story about where you are and what's happening.

Conflict is also great when it comes in bite size chunks that don't make you feel overwhelmed.

One suggestion is to take a tiny section at the beginning of your story to elaborate on your character's life. Then, provide the "life-changing question" they will be facing throughout your story (e.g. if your character is going to learn how to find true happiness, another character could say to them, "Are you truly happy?" in a conversation). Then, the event that transitions into the journey to answer the life changing question.

This varies from story to story. Not everyone is going to use the model/pursuit method as another!

For me it depends on if the main characters are established in their attitudes, behaviours, knowledge and skills or if there will be a lot of growth. If the characters are going to undergo significant growth I like starting the story before the events that lead to the change happen. This provides the reader a reference point for how the characters change throughout the story. If the characters are established I think you can start at any point. Jumping right into the action may even be what a typical day is for the characters. This can set a baseline for what they're capable of doing, which allows you to have them do the extraordinary and make it believable.