From: djheydt@kithrup.com   
      
   In article ,   
   William Vetter   wrote:   
   >Dorothy J Heydt was thinking very hard :   
   >> In article ,   
   >> William Vetter   wrote:   
   >>> It happens that J.Pascal formulated :   
   >>>> On Saturday, November 22, 2014 1:44:48 PM UTC-7, William Vetter wrote:   
   >>>>> Some time ago, I read one of those books...this one was about openings.   
   >>>>> It's thesis was the belief that it is possible to write an opening so   
   >>>>> strong, that editors, literary agents, readers, publishing executives   
   >>>>> are compelled to read on.  One of the examples mentioned the   
   >>>>> assassination of JFK in the first sentence.  Author claimed that this   
   >>>>> made it so interesting that people MUST read it.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> What I thought was that, "There are a lot of books about JFK.  Why   
   >>>>> should I read this one?"   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Of course, we want to be interesting, the get the quality of being   
   >>>>> interesting.  What do you think makes a fragment or piece of writing   
   >>>>> interesting?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I think it's different for different people.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Your example is a good one.  Lots of people would think, Oh, JFK again?   
   >>>> Yawn.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "The first time I died I..."  might get an, Oh! More!, or else it might   
   >>>> get,  Ew, gimmick much?  Or else, yawn, vampire, right?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I don't think that the question itself, of how to craft that one beginning   
   >>>> that is so strong that no one can put it down, is particularly valid.   
   >>>> Obviously the creature does not exist.  I think that it might be more   
   >>>> useful  to think in terms of who am I writing for and how do I get my   
   >>>> audience not to  set the book down.  If my audience begins and ends at   
   >>>> "agent, publisher's  slush reader and Editor" that's a particular   
   >>>> challenge, and frankly the only  one that doesn't have cover art to help   
   >>>> you out.   
   >>>>   
   >>> Once I read a short story in one of the 4 magazines.  I only remember   
   >>> the opening.  It was one of those flash forward openings.  A character   
   >>> shot another character's Roman nose off with a pistol because the nose   
   >>> annoyed him.  I remember it because it was obvious as a hook.   
   >>>   
   >>> Was it interesting?  Maybe.  It was violent action.   
   >>   
   >> I think I would've closed the book, or paged through the   
   >> magazine, at that point, and my reaction would've been not Yawn   
   >> but Yucch.   
   >   
   >I don't remember what or who it was, but it was in F&SF around 1980.   
   >What I was getting at is you can often see where somebody equates raw   
   >violence or action or grisly crime scene descriptions with the concept   
   >of hook.   
      
   Lawrence Block, who back in the day wrote lots of whodunits and   
   also wrote a monthly essay for one of the writers' magazines on   
   how to write fiction (generally, everything else in the book was   
   about how to write nonfiction and how to sell it to the editor   
   before you had written it).  One of his essays was titled "Let's   
   Hear It for Sex and Violence!"  He gave a couple of sample   
   paragraphs full of sex and violence, and then said, "You'd go on   
   reading, wouldn't you?"  No, I wouldn't.   
      
   --   
   Dorothy J. Heydt   
   Vallejo, California   
   djheydt at gmail dot com   
   Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.   
   Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)