)."Is that it?" Torin shouted as the wind howled around them.
"What?" Landrel shouted back. The falling snow had obscured his friend almost completely, so he appeared only a dim shape.
Torin cupped his hands over his mouth and leaned closer. "I said, is that it?"
"I think so," Landrel replied. "Even if it isn't, we need to find shelter. The storm is getting worse."
"Right," said Torin. He gestured at the cave entrance and shouted, "You go in and start a fire."
His friend nodded and disappeared into the cave. Torin slung his pack over his shoulder, started back down the hill, placing each foot in the snow carefully. This far from town a broken ankle might well be fatal.
He slowed when he neared the oak tree they had passed, and began studying the ground. Sure enough, the pair of tracks he was looking for were imprinted on the snow, visible even now.
[This message has been edited by Louis Wu (edited December 17, 2003).]
That not said, I will elaborate. We don't really have any good indication which character's perceptions we're following until, "His friend nodded and disappeared into the cave." Since in this sentence, 'friend' unambiguously refers to Landrel, we can presume that we are not getting his version of the story, since he does not see himself disappear anywhere (maybe he does later in the story...).
This is part of the reason that you should generally avoid starting a scene with a line of dialogue. 'Nuff said on that subject. I'm picky, and it isn't like I was still confused as to who's story I was reading by the end of the fragment posted.
There is a much bigger problem in that you have howling wind and falling snow that can obscure a friend almost completely, yet when Torin decided to go back and look for a pair of tracks (their own?) he finds them "imprinted on the snow, plain as day." Clearly, he has an understanding of 'day' so different from ours that it is hard to imagine why he would even use such an idiom. Also, he finds these tracks by studying the undergrowth. Undergrowth means small shrubs and the like...and you don't leave 'tracks' on undergrowth. Marks left on undergrowth are called by the broader term, 'sign'.
Pick pick pick, I'm picky today. I feel it. The prose is good, but what it comes down to is that this is not a 'hook'.
My theory of 'hooks' is simple. You create an interesting character, right off the bat, someone that the reader will want to know better. In olden days (and in some modern 'literary' works) this would typically be a witty or provocative narrator (most modern 'literary' works that try this bomb because...while the writers might have been taught some theory of how to do it, they cannot overcome the fact that they are not witty and do not have any original or thought provoking insights to share--wow I'm being catty ).
In most successful contemporary literature, the 'hook' is either an interesting POV character or an intriguing person that the POV character meets in the first few scenes (frequently both). There are different methods of making either a successful 'hook'.
Situation. This works for both kinds of characters (POV and non-POV), and is very broad, but also very immediate. If you are first introduced to someone in an unusual situation, this can spark curiosity. If the situation is one that you've desired for yourself, then it can spark a desire to experience the situation vicariously through the character (this works better for POV characters, though whom the reader will experience the story). If the situation is one that demonstrates admirable or attractive qualities in the character, then you can assume the character possesses said qualities (works well for non-POV characters--for POV characters you should demonstrate internal qualities in their reactions, not the external situation per se). And so on.
Wit, humor, intelligence. Works best for POV characters (since often an intriguing non-POV character will not have many immediate opportunities to demonstrate such internal qualities), and is probably necessary for all successful 'hook' POV characters. The reader should get a sense that the POV character is an alert, intelligent individual, with many original and coherent insights into life, the universe, everything, and particularly the immediate situation being shown to the reader. Even if the POV character is supposed to be of sub-par intelligence, it should be Forrest Gump-type stupidity, where a certain level of profundity is evident despite a lack of ordinary mental agility. Don't used tired, cliched, 'avant-garde' observations either. Any reader that is not an intellectual zombie will throw up and throw your book across the room (the best you can hope for is that the reader has a good arm so that the book gets thrown clear of the up-chuck). If you use provocative insights, make sure the term avant-garde can be applied without little quote-marks, at least.
Physical attraction. Works only for non-POV characters, never attempt to sell a POV character based on physically attractive features. The only feature of the POV character the reader will actually see is narcissism, and it isn't attractive. It is okay for characters to have some narcissism, we all have some, but don't try to use it as a 'hook'. For non-POV characters, you have to describe their attractiveness in terms of how the POV characters are attracted to them. Probably obvious, but I'm just saying.
There are other 'hooks' to use, but this post is already too long. So I'll leave it to someone else (or many someones...can 'someone' take a plural like that?).
Do you think it's really necessary to introduce the POV character _in the first line_? Give the reader some credit. They don't need to be spoon-fed.
[This message has been edited by Louis Wu (edited December 17, 2003).]
The ideal place is in the first line.
So, the answer to your question is yes.
And it isn't spoon-feeding anyone. It's telling the reader exactly where they are (or in other words, whose head they're in).
The fact that we don't know what the mysterious "it" is that your character found acts more like a turnoff than a hook, at least for me. We need more information about "it" for it to be interesting. Not necesarrily what it is, but at least something to make us care that it got found. Is it the item that will save the world? Destroy it? Is it something that will bring about world peace? Is it at least worth some money? Why do I care that it got found. The only thing I really learn from the first two paragraphs is that somebody found something. Not exactly captivating.
In my opinion, just rely on a good story, interesting characters, and old-fashioned good prose to hook your readers. It will work much better than a clever beginning hook to draw them in.
They were searching for the cave on a tip from an innkeeper, because inside the cave is an object of value. You're right about the characterization, but they're going to have a long chat once inside the cave, and that will explain who they are, what they are doing there, and where they're going.
It's a simplistic storyline, but I'm not interested in breaking new ground for originality. All I want to do is sharpen my technical skills - how to write clearly and how to structure dialogue and narrative effectively.
[This message has been edited by Louis Wu (edited December 17, 2003).]
quote:
The "it" in the story is the cave.
Huh! And here I was thinking that, because of the snowstorm and the footprints, they had found the Abominable Snowman or Bigfoot and the cave was it's home.
Oh, well.
quote:
Huh! And here I was thinking that, because of the snowstorm and the footprints, they had found the Abominable Snowman or Bigfoot and the cave was it's home.
Hey, that's better than the original storyline. You don't mind if I steal it, do you?
Be my guest, Louis Wu.
The only real problem I had was confusion over who was doing what. The scene seemed unclear in my mind.
Further note, though: Too many references like "his friend," "the doctor," "the pilot" instead of an actual name reference when it's known can be considered amateurish writing. Keep those in check.
If people are getting confused over that, though, it needs to be rewritten.