I just realized that I'm far more tolerant of a slow start to a short story then I am a novel. I'm willing to let a story meander for a page or two before deciding the writer hasn't a clue what he's doing and moving on to something else. In a novel however the plot had better be going somewhere by the third chapter or I'm finished. I guess maybe this is because a novel (especially these days) represents much more of a commitment of time on my part.
Anyone else feel this way or find this odd?
Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :
I've had slush readers tell me that nothing happening within the first 150 words is a sure rejection slip.
Posted by annepin (Member # 5952) on :
I have the opposite reaction, actually. WIth a short story I get impatient very quickly. With a novel, I love to settle down and let the story unwind.
I guess I tend to read short stories for a point, or for a specific experience. I tend to read novels to escape, or to become entangled in the lives of the characters.
Posted by AWSullivan (Member # 8059) on :
I'm with annepin on this one. I want action early and often in a short story, but I can tolerate a lot slower pace in a novel.
It doesn't really make sense to me when I think about it but I suppose it might be simply because of what I think a short story should be--short and to the point.
Anthony
Posted by Bent Tree (Member # 7777) on :
My turn to follow suit.
In short stories, I have certain expectations. I want to shake hands with the MC,POV Character.
I can tolerate not being WOWed but it is critical that the character becomes alive and interesting right away.
In novels, I can read a page of scene-setting and be OK with it, and I realize it may not be the MC I meat in the first chapter. I really like it to be compelling-well its like meeting someone for the first time, the first impression. That sort of lingers for me when I read a novel, but I am far more lenient regarding critical elements in the intro for a novel.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
I was thinking of starting a recent story with a couple hundred words of explanation---forgetting this rule. Now, maybe, I'll start with part of the action, and try to fill in explanations as I go...
Posted by arriki (Member # 3079) on :
With me, you have the first paragraph, maybe two to sell me. I won't read past the first page unless I sense a competent writer.
These days, though, a number of books I have bought have wonderful opening chapters then slack off. It's like they know to suck me in to buying the book then feel they don't have to deliver the rest of the story in the same quality.
Posted by Jericho (Member # 8073) on :
arriki's comment made me thunk of the of the blockbuster movie experience. The first 13 lines or scene would be something exploding and then the movie does what it wants at what ever pace and you hope it'll be a good film . . . hope against experience.
It may be a tonal shift in the expectations of modern movie going book readers.
Posted by TaleSpinner (Member # 5638) on :
I'm not only impatient, I've read enough to feel I can tell quite quickly if a story is going anywhere. I might be wrong with my quick judgments sometimes, but it's my time I'm spending and I've too often invested it in a story which seems like it might go somewhere, only to find it up a creek with neither a paddle, nor any credible reason for being there.
A short story in a major magazine gets the first few paras to grab my attention, or I'm moving on to the next. Maybe a few more paras if I've read the author before and liked their stuff.
A novel gets the first chapter. Period. Life's too short, and there are many books in Borders.
Cheers, Pat
Posted by aspirit (Member # 7974) on :
What I see here is most readers, not just editors, start reading on the first page of a novel. That’s interesting. I’ve found many first chapters deceptive; that’s why for books I pick up without recommendation, I read a page or few in the middle before flipping to the official first page. I figure if I don’t like the middle, then the rest of the book is a waste of my time. Does anyone else think this way?
I’d say I’m more tolerant when reading short stories. I agree that as they don’t take as much of a commitment, I can afford patience with a slow start in a short story.
Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :
In a way, I'm less tolerant with short stories. They better have something to say to me by the end of the first page or I'm likely to be gone. Novels I'll generally give a chapter to get going.
Posted by Crystal Stevens (Member # 8006) on :
I know since I've been on Hatrack that I'm way too slow when it comes to starting a short story. I had to try 3 or 4 times before I had one that really worked. My hat is off to the true experts here at Hatrack, and I feel like my education has just begun.
Jeanne; I feel just like you. A short story better grab the reader by the first paragraph or the second one... no farther. If not by then, it's not worth reading.
Sometimes, though, I will read a ways into a novel if it doesn't grab me right away. I've read some that seemed like they weren't going anywhere, and then, "WOW!, what happened??? So, that's where all this was leading!" I'm not real fond of such novels, and there have been a few that started like it was rambling and just seemed to end without notice. And these were published works! Sure makes you wonder.
Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :
I do like a novel to start fast as well as a preference, but I'll give one a little to get going. I simply love the first paragraph of Game of Thromes which is so evocative. You know this novel is going somewhere and it's nowhere light and fluffy.
What got do I have to bribe to write like that I wonder?
Posted by Noele (Member # 8081) on :
Considering the 13 line deal here and what I've heard said about it, I think as long as things get hinted at within that length, then as long as clues of something coming are occurring then I'll keep reading. The action can wait as long as the writer can keep my attention somehow.