Hit the ground running or slow burn?

[sknox]

FWIW, my openings are at first heavy on info. For that matter, I invariably have scenes later on that are the same. What I've discovered is these passages are really just me figuring things out. I'm explaining the world *to myself*.

Also invariably, I root this stuff out in edit mode. The question I apply is this: does the story need it? Not: does the reader need it? I'm not writing for the reader, I'm writing for the story. The only material that should make it through editing is the material required to advance the story, period.

But during early drafts, go ahead and put it in. The only way I know how to do world building *really* is to put it into a story and see if it fits. It's rather like clothing: the only way I really know it will fit is to put it on and wear it for a while.

 

[Rafellin]

In my current WIP, I have two opening pieces that are slow burn, in effect the thoughts and sketch characters of the two main protagonists.

Then it's off into a background piece (chronology by chapter title) that tells the salient bits of a past event as they happened. History and action.

Then a little more current as an interlude.

Then more recent history in the same style.

Half a dozen chapters in, we are up to date, with the protagonists as they engage in the major event that they were preparing for in the opening two pieces.

By then, the audience has been with them for a few months, in effect, and has a sketch background of their history prior to the main events.

And so off in current and future as the tale unwinds, with the occasional interlude to cover illustrative moments from their mutual history that helps flesh out plot or character.

 

[mosaix]

I much prefer a fast pace and from the very first sentence too.

 

[barrett1987]

Modern world requires modern story telling. Hit the ground running. Flash Gordon yo arse!

 

[Susan Boulton]

Oracle hits the ground running, then slows for the second chapter.

My novel Hand of Glory, also does to some extent, though not as fast, but the hook is there.

 

[tinkerdan]

We seem to be in a time where we want to be able to pull things apart like the child that pulls the wings from flies not so much in malice as in ignorance of what we do. We want to boil the contents of each success and distill the parts that make it successful because we don't want to face the fact that there still exist that one factor of je ne sais quoi the i don't really know in all of this because the act of reading is simply so subjective that it cannot be examined by reducing the pieces without also reducing the reader. When we try to reduce the reader we do no more than kill the goose that lays the golden egg and we have nothing.

In the face of that we divert our efforts toward the spectacular thinking that we need that hook that moment of conflict that: well certain something that we still have trouble defining. Ultimately what you do goes before the reader who in all their subjectivity will either love it, hate it or become indifferent. It's mostly out of our control. The best thing to do is engage the reader.

Yes we can go by the text book and create the perfect conflict for the perfect character within the framework of the perfect plot- subjectively toward the writer's POV. That still has to go to the Agent and pass his subjectivity. Even with that accomplished it must go past the editor and publisher to get to the finished piece and that is one or two more subjective opinions. Rarely do we see fiction published solely from the standpoint of all the mechanical parts working the in the clockwork fashion. Yes a well constructed clock that serves its purpose is a fine thing to have, but we still enshroud it in a more subjective case for a certain beauty that entices the buyer and not everyone will buy this one.

We have to engage the reader and engaging the reader is the hook and that's something subjective that for some will be the slow engaging flow of engagement whereas for others it might be the explosive ear-pounding action to deafen the reader. Sometimes it might be a blend and there should be conflict, yet how do we define the conflict.

I look at Little Dorrit as story that starts with the city of Marceilles and creates the illusion that the city is a creature and perhaps the first character in the book. The talk of strangers visiting her staring yet being out stared by the city herself and then as we walk through the city with her own staring countenance as the guide she brings us to the prison where there are two unfortunates awaiting judgment or perhaps just serving out time. We don't really know. They are stark contrasts to each other and much of what we learn about them occurs when visited by the jailer and his young daughter. But now we seem to be captured within their points of view though it may still be the city through whose eyes we see them. It is not really clear what the central conflict might be here other than a possibility of some grave injustice to the system that has landed these two unfortunates in prison in Marsielles. But a large question is what compels me as a reader to continue to read this novel that consistently repeats phrases and words and has such long sentences and almost a dismal setting inside a prison with not much action or, as yet, plot. It's that certain something that Charles Dickens has in the narration that engages the reader and compels him to continue on with confidence that when we really get into the story things will be very interesting.

 

[michaelhall2007]

Have you considered using the Prologue to set up the history of the characters/universe.
You can break down the slow start into flashbacks and include a prologue at the start of the book (where else would you put it )

The only problem with this is that for some unknown reason, some people don't read the prologue. They just flip to chapter one and crack on.

It's like blindly grabbing at the cans in the cupboard and then wondering why you are eating Peas on Toast, when you clearly wanted Beans on Toast.

Frustrating and maddening if you ask me. But they happily skip along to chapter one like they know best.

 

[MatterSack]

Just look at Inglourious Basterds for proof you don't need a flashy introduction. In fact, I think you'll find that interesting characters and conflicts get you way further anyway (I don't find action very interesting if the characters aren't worthwhile).

 

[Mirannan]

I'm pretty new at this myself, but one way of doing this that seems to be approved of is a very short (sentence or two) first paragraph, which needs to be very strong indeed, as a hook; then you can slow down a bit. It works quite well for the starts of chapters too, especially if the story is episodic.

An example of this is the start of chapter 3 of my WIP. "I was the first to see the Visitor in action."

 

[SciFrac]

If you start with an escape, that's fine. Just make sure the "Call" is presented in the next one or two chapters. However, if your call IS the escape, and your story explores the resulting problems it creates, then you need to start with your MC and give us plenty of time to connect before you thrust them into danger. Otherwise, we* won't care what happens.

*the Royal we

 

[gdoc]

If in doubt go for a spectacular start, just make sure to tie it in to the character. A bit of mayhem to suck in the reader is no bad thing.

In media res - the technique of starting in the middle then filling us in as you go - is a very old technique. Perfectly reasonable.

Good luck whatever you do.