posted
Ok, here’s a question. The start of any second serial book is hard. How do you get enough facts in that first chapter to make the book understandable, without sounding like an info dump or a preacher---- always a hard thing. I’ve read them where they start off with a huge intro, I’ve read them where they simply start where the last left off (almost in mid sentence from the last).
How about this idea. Once you got to marketing your book (to a publisher or agent) you have to write a stellar synopsis. And even once you have an agent you have to improve that synopsis. So, why not start book two with the synopsis? A “What has gone before” chapter much like a prolog but longer?
posted
I have read one like that... For the life of me, I can't think of the book title, but it was by Louise Cooper (the "Indigo" series??). Basically, there was a series synopsis prefacing each book (7 in series). I wouldn't say it was a prologue, perhaps, more like a bard telling you what's come before. It worked for me. I can tell you that how JK Rowling does it in the Harry Potter series irritates the crap out of me, though she puts in everything a newcomer would need to know as they would need to know it. But, as an HP junkie, it's over the top for me.
Ulitmately, it's a hard call. You might consider inserting what I'll call "partial history chapters." I'm sure you've seen it before where the author inserts like a page or two from a "fictional" text. This provides information but in a more creative, narrative way. It appears like you're "fleshing" out your world, giving us a glimpse of something that we wouldn't have ordinarily seen, but in reality you're giving us a needed info dump.
posted
If I remember correctly Anne McCaffrey did that sort of things with in the first two sequels (Dragonquest and The White Dragon) to the original Pern book Dragonflight. It went after her usual prologue, and was pretty much a blow-by-blow of important plot points from the previous books. I didn’t really read it since I was reading them in order, back-to-back and didn’t need the refresher. It was nice to skip the review, but from what I skimmed of it, would have filled in the appropriate facts if you hadn’t read the first ones.
The fictional history insert idea has promise to it as well, especially if it exposed something new (even just a new perspective) on the old info.
posted
Stephen King discusses this in On Writing. He recommends that we read the Harry Potter series to see an example of solving the "what has gone before" problem.
I haven't read any Harry Potter boks, so I cannot vouch for this advice.
posted
As I read the Harry Potter books in order, I can't say how well Rowling's tactic works for people who jump in in the middle of the series. However, I can't say that it ever bothered me the way that some books do when relating past events...
I imagine the hardest part of this would be striking a balance between providing enough information not to confuse new readers, and yet making sure you don't bore the people who read the books before.
Perhaps it would be best to make the first scene something new even to the first novel, so that at least the begining is interesting to anyone that's read it. Then once you have the readers hooked, you can be a bit more free to give backstory.
Due to the fact that I haven't even written a first novel yet these suggestions are mostly made as an attentive reader, not as someone who's experienced this issue when writing.
posted
I don't think Rowling handled it well, and am surprised that King would recommend it!! She infuriates me... I think if you were completely new to HP, then her method is fine... BUT is so excessive to those of us who have read the books. If anything happened in any previous book-- from an event, to a character, to the introduction of a new word/concept-- then she rehashes it in EVERY SINGLE subsequent book so that no matter which book you start with, you've got a basis. And she does do it well for newbies... But if you follow along, you find yourself skimming over it. Posts: 306 | Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted
Obviously, this is a case specific issue of how and when to divulge information that has gone on before.
My own personal preference is simply to deliver as background info in the form of little details raised periodically.
As a reader I would think myself simply concerned about what happens in the book I'm reading. If anything really relevant has gone on before, then surely the characters involved would make reference to it?
Just a sentence here, a sentence there. Never a long descriptive passage, unless it didn't detract from the style of the book.
posted
I'm currently reading Tom Clancy's Sum of All Fears and he's got a very interesting way of handling it. He just writes his story, starting when he wants to start, and gives absolutley no background.
Throughout the book, Clancy makes tantalizing allusions to other Jack Ryan stories. I recognize the references to The Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games,[i] and Clear and Present Danger[/i], which I have read. But others I do not recognize. So far, these references have given me a strong desire to read Red Storm Rising and The Cardinal of the Kremlin. Characters in Sum of All Fears refer to those earlier plots as containing very important and exciting events . . . but they do not tell the reader what those events were!
You don't need to read the earlier books to understand the later books. But by the time you finish a later book, you want to read the earlier books. It's like built-in advertising!
That is a very good trick which I would love to use myself. The problem is that this might not be suitable to speculative fiction. Clancy does not need to explain how his world works every time he writes a book.
posted
I think part of the problem I am having is the first book is from a first person POV, so the second will be as well. First person is hard enough, to work in descriptions, and to do without the overuse of the word "I". But in the second book---ouch because to get the info in from the previous book, the “I” character has to have a reason to think about it or talk about it.
I thought about the diary kind of prolog, but that turned out boring as all get out. I tried a prolog written from the antagonists POV--shot down by 5 out of 5 who read it. And I agree with them. Then I did the first chapter, it is good, and works but alone it doesn’t draw the reader into the book, no hook. It offers the facts form the previous book that the reader needs to have to understand this book. I just need to figure out how to get the hook in there.
Perhaps I need a hook chapter that has noting to do with the first book, and only this book, to set the hook then go into the set up chapter (the one offering the info from the first book).
Hmm, off to give it a try after I dump that old prolog.
posted
What are you trying to achieve? Are you telling one story that is three books long or are you telling three stories in the same Milieu? In one case, the expectation is that you have read the earlier works. In the other, that assumption cannot be made. So, the question really becomes, do you want to assume the reader read the first books or not?
If not, I would treat each story as if all other stories were never written for others to read. [This is what Clancy has done.] The facts and events of the previous stories do not act to further the plot of this story, they only act to add to its characterization. In that sense, they are no different from any of the other events that occurred in the character's past and should be lent equal weight. You would not, for the first book, tell the life and times of your main character? There is no reason to do it in the second one.
[This message has been edited by Chipster (edited July 12, 2002).]
posted
Why not just start off where you want to start? If the backstory is necessary, I suppose you could put a non-prologue, just introduction type thing. But it is NOT unreasonable to expect people to start with the first one when it's a single story over 4 books. And if the story and characters are memorable enough, the reader will be drawn in anyway, and the characters would probably at least /reference/ the other book, in little snippets. They can figure it out as they go.
Does anyone think it's unreasonable for people to start with book one? Even on closed-book series, I always start with the first, it just bothers me not to.
posted
SK does a backround prologue information thing at the beginning of each one of the DT stories. It's a nice little refresher...basically he just tells the story really fast. This probably wouldn't work for books with more complex plots but it works well enough for him (that's not saying much seeing as how I read the back of cereal boxes). If all else fails you could put a chapter in the beginning before the prologue (what he's doing) and label it 'for the unintiated.'
Also, just starting the story and having the main characters think back to the previous events would work also. This is what a lot of series do. What happens is you don't feel as connected with the characters as you would if you started at the beginning. Just putting there memories in when something similar happens works. Sorta using the first book as written backstory for the first. Now that I think about this is better for different stories in the same Milieu.
In the end of this typed up thought process I think that putting in a 'for the unintiated' chapter would probably work. The people who've read the books before can just skip it unless they need a refresher (in fantasy novels you could make it sound like a bard talking and in SF you could make it sound like a historian from the future. Or just be yourself *shrug*). Using the really nice synops would probably work for writing a chapter like this; although they would probably need a little tweaking.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
