From: mdhangton@gmail.com   
      
   After serious thinking J.Pascal wrote :   
   > 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."   
      
   There was a particular guy who had this checklist, and his name escapes   
   me, but I have no reason to suspect that "no hook" meant anything   
   beyond no hook.  He never checked that box for me, but once I think he   
   wrote at the bottom of the list with a pencil "This one didn't grab   
   me."   
   >   
   > 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?   
      
   Maybe not, but that doesn't mean that you or I wouldn't be rejected for   
   "No 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.   
   >   
   These days, I try to go for strong emotion, or conflict dialog, or   
   something to suggest the POV character has strong attitudes.  I think   
   the strength of the pee in the snow passage was that it wants to   
   suggest that the POV character has an entertaining voice.  If I were to   
   criticize the above, that's probably what I'd say, that most of them   
   are pretty sedate, but maybe the next few sentences that I haven't seen   
   have more force.   
      
   But then that ms. I showed you a couple months ago didn't start out   
   much different, so....   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)