Probably a Silly Question, but...

[TheTomG]

I think there's a mix up that happens between a hook and "fast paced versus slow" or "action-filled versus quiet."

The concept of a hook is that it is something interesting, and slow things or quiet things can be interesting. You may not have an action novel anyway, you may never get into car chases and gun fights and collapsing skyscrapers, that's maybe not your style anywhere in the book.

But it still has to be interesting of course. Thought-provoking. Curiosity-enticing. You have to bait the hook, but WHAT you bait it with can vary. I suspect there's an intrinsic thought that the bait is always action and full-on drama, but I don't think it has to be one of those things to snare the reader, so long as you have something that will embed that hook firmly in their minds. Also, different bait for different readers too, you have to know what kind of audience you are aiming at to choose the right bait

 

[Triceratops]

I think there's a mix up that happens between a hook and "fast paced versus slow" or "action-filled versus quiet."

The concept of a hook is that it is something interesting, and slow things or quiet things can be interesting. You may not have an action novel anyway, you may never get into car chases and gun fights and collapsing skyscrapers, that's maybe not your style anywhere in the book.

But it still has to be interesting of course. Thought-provoking. Curiosity-enticing. You have to bait the hook, but WHAT you bait it with can vary. I suspect there's an intrinsic thought that the bait is always action and full-on drama, but I don't think it has to be one of those things to snare the reader, so long as you have something that will embed that hook firmly in their minds. Also, different bait for different readers too, you have to know what kind of audience you are aiming at to choose the right bait

Agreed. The hook can be very subtle in a literary fashion, something that nags the reader rather than provokes or excites. It does depend on what type of book it is. It doesn't have to be a full-out action scene--a violent episode or physical confrontation, but something intriguing that spurs the reader on.

 

[Brian G Turner]

There's nothing at all wrong with writing a story that starts slow.

However, plot is merely *one part* of the engagement process - your characters, your dialogue, your world, your prose itself - are all elements intended to draw the reader in.

A good pace makes for a quick read, but can easily come at the expense of depth. And good depth takes time for all the pieces to be moved into play.

 

[Toby Frost]

It doesn't have to be action-packed, but it has to be interesting. The easiest way to make something interesting is to have action occur, preferably starting in the middle of an exciting event and dropping lots of questions about what is going on (whilst making the actual events clear). But setting up questions and events to anticipate doesn't necessarily require a big gunfight.

What I think you shouldn't do is any of these:

a) A very gradual amble up the path, starting with the land of X in the continent of Y, zooming into city Z, down its broad leafy streets where the birds chirp to a small cottage where Jim the carpenter sits on his porch step, contemplating his peaceful life... unless a huge boulder, irksome wizard, crash-landing manticore or the like actually adds a bit of excitement to the scene. I think it's safe to say that Tolkien covered the bucolic rural opening, and did it fairly well. Besides, descriptions of chirping birds have to be pretty good not to seem twee or dull.

b) That opening where you get a lot of detail about not much, possibly in very purple prose, and are left bewildered. "It was dark, not a total blackness, but a shimmering grey that reflected bleakly upon his soul" for several paragraphs before being told that our hero is locked in a suitcase about to be thrown off the Eiffel Tower. Now that is interesting, but the bit before is too vague to be.

c) A potted history or similar infodump. This is perhaps more contraversial, as many fantasies begin with a prologue explaining the ancestral rivalry between the lands of A and B. My own feeling is that without actual individuals involved, it comes across as terribly dry. That said, I did recently read a fairly well-received fantasy novel that opened with a long summary of the various hard-to-distinguish kingdoms of the region.

I think it's unfair on readers for writers to expect them to swallow something dull on the anticipation that the good stuff comes later. Stephen King once wrote that the openings of many of his drafts were just throat-clearing, which he would delete later to drop the readers straight into the story.

 

[Myra]

It doesn't have to be action-packed, but it has to be interesting. The easiest way to make something interesting is to have action occur, preferably starting in the middle of an exciting event and dropping lots of questions about what is going on (whilst making the actual events clear). But setting up questions and events to anticipate doesn't necessarily require a big gunfight.

What I think you shouldn't do is any of these:

a) A very gradual amble up the path, starting with the land of X in the continent of Y, zooming into city Z, down its broad leafy streets where the birds chirp to a small cottage where Jim the carpenter sits on his porch step, contemplating his peaceful life... unless a huge boulder, irksome wizard, crash-landing manticore or the like actually adds a bit of excitement to the scene. I think it's safe to say that Tolkien covered the bucolic rural opening, and did it fairly well. Besides, descriptions of chirping birds have to be pretty good not to seem twee or dull.

b) That opening where you get a lot of detail about not much, possibly in very purple prose, and are left bewildered. "It was dark, not a total blackness, but a shimmering grey that reflected bleakly upon his soul" for several paragraphs before being told that our hero is locked in a suitcase about to be thrown off the Eiffel Tower. Now that is interesting, but the bit before is too vague to be.

c) A potted history or similar infodump. This is perhaps more contraversial, as many fantasies begin with a prologue explaining the ancestral rivalry between the lands of A and B. My own feeling is that without actual individuals involved, it comes across as terribly dry. That said, I did recently read a fairly well-received fantasy novel that opened with a long summary of the various hard-to-distinguish kingdoms of the region.

I think it's unfair on readers for writers to expect them to swallow something dull on the anticipation that the good stuff comes later. Stephen King once wrote that the openings of many of his drafts were just throat-clearing, which he would delete later to drop the readers straight into the story.

There's nothing at all wrong with writing a story that starts slow.

However, plot is merely *one part* of the engagement process - your characters, your dialogue, your world, your prose itself - are all elements intended to draw the reader in.

A good pace makes for a quick read, but can easily come at the expense of depth. And good depth takes time for all the pieces to be moved into play.

Agreed. The hook can be very subtle in a literary fashion, something that nags the reader rather than provokes or excites. It does depend on what type of book it is. It doesn't have to be a full-out action scene--a violent episode or physical confrontation, but something intriguing that spurs the reader on.

I think there's a mix up that happens between a hook and "fast paced versus slow" or "action-filled versus quiet."

The concept of a hook is that it is something interesting, and slow things or quiet things can be interesting. You may not have an action novel anyway, you may never get into car chases and gun fights and collapsing skyscrapers, that's maybe not your style anywhere in the book.

But it still has to be interesting of course. Thought-provoking. Curiosity-enticing. You have to bait the hook, but WHAT you bait it with can vary. I suspect there's an intrinsic thought that the bait is always action and full-on drama, but I don't think it has to be one of those things to snare the reader, so long as you have something that will embed that hook firmly in their minds. Also, different bait for different readers too, you have to know what kind of audience you are aiming at to choose the right bait

Great advice, and I can't remmember where I first heard it: In Late, Out Early.

This can mean opening in the middle of a pitched battle instead of with the soldiers marching toward it, and so on.

In terms of the end, finish as close to the answers as you can. What I mean by that is, leave as soon after the questions raised at the start of your story are answered as possible. For example, in a mystery it might be when the murderer is revealed, as the question at the start is 'Whodunnit?'. The reader is invested as far as finding out the answers to whatever question is raised, but anything beyond that has less meanign for them.

To use movies as an example: Will Indy get the Ark? Will John McLaine beat the bad guys and save Holly? Will Cole Trickle win Daytona?

All three movies finish very soon after these questions are answered, like two minutes later. On the other hand, you have Lord of the Rings, where the question is 'Will Frodo destroy the ring?'. The half hour or so after this question is answered is little more than indulgence, and detracted from the trilogy as a whole.

Thanks to all of you Your insight and advice has been very helpful and I will keep it all in mind. I think I'm just going to write the first draft (get it out of the way) and then go back and do the editing. That way I'll have a clearer idea of where I want my book to go

Thanks again!

 

[Brian G Turner]

But setting up questions and events to anticipate doesn't necessarily require a big gunfight.

Absolutely agree - when I read Mark Robson's "Imperial Assassin" I noted early on that every sentence seemed to entice you to read the next, through raising intrigue. It was a really good use of pace, and especially appropriate for a YA novel.

While "action sequences" at a start can generate tension, they do this through raising questions to push the experience, IMO. Get lost writing action, and you lose the questions which draw the reader into the story in the first place.