I started writing sf about a year ago, and am now on the fifth chapter of a novelette-length story. In the process of writing these few chapters I began to wonder what style is better: fully describing a scene, or instead focusing on action (moving the story forward). It seems to me each style has its own merits.

If you'd like to help me out, read both sections and tell me which one you like better. Feel free to criticize as much as you want. Thanks

Section 1:

The apartment was spartan in appearance. At first glance it looked comfortable enough, with all of the necessities that were required in a modern home: stainless steel food dispenser, wide display inset on one of the walls, and a small shower cubicle. But on closer inspection it was clear the place was never lived in - the carpet was still plush, not having yet been beaten into submission by so many treading feet. The desk in the corner was empty. The computer terminal was a newer model; the black ink letters on the keyboard had not faded from use. A small cleaner robot sat forlornly in the corner, watching the vast expanse of spotless carpet, hoping for a fallen crumb, or spilled drink. Anything.

Section 2:

The apartment came to life in turns. An alarm clock went off. The dome light overhead flared brightly, then dimmed to a comfortable level. The shower cubicle turned on and hot water began cascading against the sliding door. The man laying on the bed came awake with a start, his blanket tangled around him.

Does the reader need to know this to understand the story?

Does the description add some kind of helpful atmosphere and feeling, or does it just distract from the important issues that are happening?

Take your example with the apartment. If some important event is going on and you drop example A right in the middle of it, the reader is probably going to be eager for the pointless description to end so they can get back to the events that matter. If story events rely on the reader knowing in detail what kind of apartment it is, though, example B would probably not suffice.

I lean toward #1 for the exact reasons you mentioned. Varying your level of description according to the events happening in the story is absolutely necessary. Since this is the first paragraph, the world needs to be fleshed out before the reader can feel comfortable in it.

The rule for me is: No lengthy narrative unless its deserved!

You have to drag the reader in, grab him so tightly that he can't escape. Every time you use long description you're giving him a chance to escape.

This also starts as a camera's eye viewpoint, and unless you plan on doing the whole story in it, you might want to do it 3rd person. If the man laying on the bed is the pov character then start with him waking up. He can look arround, and some descriptions of his environment can be added. This gives you a chance to show important items or features as he goes through the process of getting up and whatever he starts doing. As he wakes you have an opening to point out anything important or unusual that is on the ceiling or one of the walls (if he is laying on his side). You can also use the fact that some people are not as with it when they wake up, if that would fit the man.

There is a lot of things you can do with it, but you will not boar the reader as quickly when you start them with the main pov character. One of my favorite books starts off with the main character waking up in a hospitol. He doesn't know who he is, or what is going on. The author brought the reader into the story with the main character. I loved it. The point is that the book started with the main character waking up in a bed. The description of the room was breif and details were thrown in with the action.

The problem with trying to descript the entire sceen at one go is like reading a list. Not just a list, a list that "I" the reader have no motivation to remember. If I am seeing it through the eyes of the pov character, then I get shown the items in the room that the pov character notices. People tend to only notice items that have importance to them. When I wake up in the morining I notice the alarm clock buzzing away, annoying me to no end. Do I look at the answering machine right next to it? No, it isn't annoying me. When I go to take a shower do I look at every item my wife has on the bathroom counter? No, at most I might notice there is makeup and other hygene items there, but they are blured into one thing...nothing specific.

At this moment I could not tell you one item you listed in either paragraph you wrote. I read them, I wasn't board (the writing wasn't exactly dull), but they did not stick with me. The second one is better, but still needs to be rooted in the pov of the story.

Okay, I'm always the one saying that, but in this case DS mentioned it first.

Both passages are unacceptable, though the first passage is somewhat more interesting. But it's longer, and it's still boring enough that longer is worse.

What POV would you recommend as effective and engaging? The majority of writers on this forum seem to favor first person. Personally, I would rather massage my eyeballs with sandpaper than read first person, so omniscient feels right to start describing the setting.

How about writing your ideal first sentence, so I can compare it to mine?

Also, remember that the opening paragraph of the story is set in an apartment. The man sleeping on the bed is the sole occupant. He hasn't woken up yet, so from whose point of view could I start from? An initial detached description of his immediate surroundings seems to be the only way to get him outside and moving the story forward.

...jerk.

So is the apartment the center of the story? Will important action take place there? To me this statement indicates that you may be trying to document every moment of the character's life. Unless is moves the story forward in a meaningful way--leave it out.

As to POV, I don't think most of this board prefers first person, it seems to me that they prefer third limited.

The most popular POV with new writers is first--most figure they can write from that POV by putting themselves into the role of character, second is all knowing (omniscient)--because they see now other way to let the reader know what is going on--they have to tell everything. (not tell as in show don't tell, but that is the result.)

First is very hard to write--yes, it's easy to bang out the I went to the store. I bought food. But to do it well so the reader walks away feeling as if they were the "I" character so much so that they cringe when the "I" stubs his toe--it is an art form and a style that is very rare (done well) and difficult to do.

You find yourself asking how the heck do I describe the apartment?

Third is not so different other than you get rid of the "I" problem. And third is an easer POV to write well.

Rule of thumb of any limited POV--your reader, you as the author, can only know and see, (use the character's senses and knowledge) to show your story.

quote:

---

The apartment came to life in turns. An alarm clock went off. The dome light overhead flared brightly, then dimmed to a comfortable level. The shower cubicle turned on and hot water began cascading against the sliding door. The man laying on the bed came awake with a start, his blanket tangled around him.

---

In First--

Serpents hung onto me. I twisted away from them, first one way then the next. There didn't seem to be any escape. Rain poured down from an impossibly bright dawn lit sky. A distant beast screeched in warning.

I jolted wake--the snakes now my blanket twisted around me. The rain the automatic shower splashing against the door of the bathing cubical. The dawn lit sky of my dreams only the auto overhead lighting, now dimmed to a comfortable level. The alarm clock stopped once my feet hit the smooth clean surface of the floor.

In third, with a lot less words--I'm tired, spent the weekend with 26 girl scouts camping in 20 degree weather. Anyway here goes--

John came awake with a start, his blanket tangled around him. His alarm clock stopped screeching, its recently repaired auto sensor working. The dome light overhead flared brightly, then dimmed to a comfortable level. The shower cubicle turned on and hot water began cascading against the sliding door. Freeing himself from the aggressive bed covers, John's feet touched the surface of the smooth clean floor.

Why did I add recently repaired clock? It gives the character a reason to care about the clock going off--this would be an everyday thing the character was used to so would not have a reason to "speak" of. The smooth clean floor indicates that the apartment is clean--unless the fact that robots do it is important to the story--then add that they were fixed at the same time the clock was, or have him step in something left there the night before and make a note--perhaps to another tech wonder device to get the thing fixed.

Of course I know nothing about you story--so these details etc., are only an example of how to do the opening in third limited, and First person.

Hope it helps.

Shawn

Anyway, omniscient is ok, too, if you want to write that way, but after more careful inspection of the two paragraphs I have to say that a human element is missing from both. If this si a short story I would have already put it down. If it was a novel I would already be wary and you wuold have to win me back, although I'd give you a couple pages to do it. (How many depends upon whether I got the book from a library or a book store. )

The truth is that so far this story does not eevn seem to be written from an omniscient viewpoint, but rather from a cinematic viewpoint. That is, it's as if you were describing what a camera would see and record. But if you do that you are getting away from the greatest power of the written word....to get inside people's heads and show motivation and attitude. Movies can't do that, but if all you're doing is showing us what a camera sees then you're not even doing what movies do best....showing it to us in real time.

By the way, thanks for the props, BudHaHA. Glad you learned something. I've learned a lot from various posts on this site as well, which is why I keep coming back here. (And because I like to pontificate and sound like I know what I'm talking about).

The human element is important--it keeps you interested. And no matter the POV if you want the reader to keep reading it has to be there. And even if your story is totally devoid of humans--that same element has to be there, or we simply do not care and become board.

Thus, passive voice is not what puts a person to sleep in technical writing, but the lack of a person to identify with--hard to feel concern for an amoeba.

Now, I do prefer first person in my own writing. I read both, but will only read first if it is done well. I didn't start out liking first, I went for omni in my first books--tried to find an agent, tried to sell them--no dice.

Then I went for third limited--liked it. But I ended up with novels in 300,000 word range simply because I would switch POVs using different characters to tell the story--switching by chapter then going back again.

With first I stay in one characters head and came up with a reasonable word count--since the editing with my agent 120,000 words, 90,000 when i finished.

You have to write what you do best. I didn't start with first but I've ended up there--and people who have read the ms have even said--no wait you can't be talking about that story it wasn't first person.

As Christine pointed out--you have to make the reader have empathy for the POV character or why would they read on?

quote:

---

Another question. Would anyone be willing to read the entire first chapter and give their opinion?

---

quote:

---

The rest of the story has a lot more POV than the first paragraph.

---

Huh?

Umm, well---a lot more POV? I don't understand that. Do you mean the POV is clearer? You mean it's not in omni or bird's eye?

The POV in a story has to be from the start--not in fits and blurbs. I can understadn a lot more description--but how do you have a lot more POV?

I recommend Third Person Limited Omniscient as a general rule. I don't believe that there is any such thing as an ideal first sentence (particularly when I don't know anything about the story) but I will lay down a few guidelines.

The first sentence should probably be an active voice structure in which the POV character, identified by the name you will use throughout the work for this POV, actively does something. Alternatively, something else can do something to the POV character. This action--whether the character's action or some other entity's action--should bring the POV character into a change of venue (for example, waking up, entering a room, meeting or seeing someone for the first time...that kind of thing) which the POV character will then explore with the reader.

srhowen gave a fairly good example

quote:

---

John came awake with a start, his blanket tangled around him.

---

=

third person (as opposed to omniscient)

Sorry about that, Administrator. I'll post another thread in Fragments and Feedback.