From: julie@pascal.org
On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 5:10:04 PM UTC-7, William Vetter wrote:
> on 11/23/2014, J.Pascal supposed :
> > On Sunday, November 23, 2014 10:45:02 AM UTC-7, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dorothy J. Heydt
> >
> > Which goes to show the folly of trying for an opening that will compel
> > everyone to read the rest.
> >
> Still, these editors take the concept of hook very seriously. I have
> seen checklist rejection letters where one of the boxes is "No Hook."
There's a vast difference between a hook that will compel all readers and a
hook at all.
Still, I'd apply my rule (ha!) of "the critique is this, but what are they
really responding to" method of examining comments on a manuscript.
"No hook" is easier to put on a check list than "I was given no reason to care
for as long as I bothered to read" or "I couldn't possibly say why but I
bounced right off the first paragraph."
What makes more sense, in an empirical sort of way, isn't to look at what any
one particular editor says, or checks off a box for, but to look at what they
do. So look at a whole lot of books, one after the other, that actually got
past the editor. Do
they have a hook? What is in the first couple of paragraphs that makes you
think that the rest might be interesting? Is the moment tense or calm? Are
you "shown" or "told?" Is the moment personal or impersonal?
I'll borrow the first sentence of the thing Seawasp just shared.
The screaming came from the alley to Steve's right; it was high-pitched, the
voice of a child in terror and pain." I'd say that was tense, told, and
personal. From memory, the openings of a couple of Wen Spencer's books are
calm, shown, and personal.
I just pulled those criteria out of my butt as an example, BTW. People could
probably come up with a different and better set. For example, I'm using
tense or calm instead of action or non-action, but don't mean that "calm"
doesn't have a conflict,
just that it's not action sequence. And besides, my suggestion is to make a
list of the things that you notice, not the things that I notice. "Hook,
no-hook," is about as specific as "grabs me, didn't grab me." Important
information, but not useful
unless a person can figure out why or why-not.
First sentences from some of my stories, no claim if they're good "hooks" or
not. (And I invite anyone to discuss them, if they "do the job" they're
supposed to do and why, and I've published nothing, so there you go.)
1) "I've had the most curious daydream," Kiralee said as Mark lowered himself
onto the springy grass next to her.
2) It was Tuesday and the cafeteria was serving fish balls and rice.
3) Iemar's room was a small one with a narrow bed and single window and hardly
room to walk between them.
4) Sirs Tissleman and Jonchil sat carefully unmoving in their chairs.
5) Amongst the muttering in the air lock Dae'Neal thought he heard the
phrase "Captain's brat."
6) The first breath of unfiltered planetary air reeks of green, of animal
shit, and of decay.
7) The reason that wizard's towers are out in the middle of nowhere is to
protect normal people from the wizards.
-Julie
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
