First of all, I *think* what I am understanding you to say is that you like to begin by giving the reader the setting and a brief description (dEscription) of what is going on. This is a common tactic for new writers of science fiction and fantasy. Fear not, for you are in good company.

The thing is that even in a bizarre world it is not a good idea to drop description on the reader without some relevance to the *story*. Here's a thought: Pick up a few of your favorite science fiction and/or fantasy stories. Read the first chapter of each and think about how much time is devoted to providing background information. When it is provided, look at the context. Were we introduced to BizarroWorld first or were we introduced to Mr. Hero X, the protagonist? Were we given a scenario, a devastating evil that is looming over the world or were we told about the geography?

One of the most difficult things to get right in scifi and fantasy is exposition. Exposition includes, but is not limited to: descriptions of setting in a strange world, explanation of the magic, a history lesson for the world, character background...basically anything that is not in the *now* of the story.

The hard truth is that the reader simply does not CARE about any of this until you have hooked them in somehow. So while you're off telling us everything that your wonderful imagination has come up with about BizarroWorld we're thinking...What is this *about*? Try starting with chapter 2. Introduce Mr. Hero X and tell us how he has to throw the magic er...bracelet into the er...fire (creativity stalling...must be the paint fumes...just painted my study) or else the evil sorcerer will take over the world. Now we're interested. Now you can tell us all about the last time the sorcerer tried to take over and how bad it was.

Don't get upset, you are in good company!

Among other things you might do, please do a search here on the forum on "prologue" and read some of those threads.

Keep on writing!

You can effectively start with scene building if you want to do this. I know Stephen King sometimes does this at the start of his novels, dwelling on the surroundings, telling us exactly what street where on, where the house is located, which cars are parked in the drive and on the street, how many kids are playing, ad infinitum. You get the point.

Still, taking too much time to setup a scene may turn people off.

Write your scene as simply as you can, in the simplest language you can. Say what you want, as concretly as possible and with as few words as possible.

I went back and read what you submitted and it's not bad. In fiction it really isn't necessary to show a lot of detail for characters the reader will make that up as they read.

Let me give a poor example:

Janice ran through the trees. She darted from shadow to shadow avoiding the patches of burning sunlight. Branches clawed at her clothes and scratched her face as she ran. She glanced over her shoulder. I don't see them, but they're out there allright. And they're gonna kill me. Keep running. Night is coming soon and when it does I'll be safe. No one can catch a dark elf in the night's sweet darkness. Especially not this dark elf. Janice grinned a wicked grin. And when it's dark we will see who chases who.

Take notes. (That's what the pen and notebook are for. ) What works? What doesn't? Which one was best? Why? What made the opening scene particularly interesting for you? What specifically about the opening made you either want to check the book out or want to leave it on the shelf? That right there--that last question--is really the key to writing openings. You can get away to some extent with dumping information later, but that opening's got to grab the reader by the heartstrings/throat and drag them right into the pages of your story. Otherwise it'll never sell. Otherwise it'll never find immortality on the musty shelves of a library.

What I like to do is spend some time writing all that descriptive stuff and then filing it as "backstory". Then, I can write the main material without feeling I have to explore all those issues. This way, I've got well realized details to refer to "as necessary within the context of the story" and I never end up with inconsistent details.

Another rule to remember is the issue of engaging the reader's imagination. If you tell him where everything is and what color it is etc., what does HE/SHE get to bring to the party? Saying "Dave entered the run-down train station." get's the reader actively engaged in filling in details. Nobody wants to hear YOUR interpretation of what a run-down station is like. They have their own. You only provide relevant details as necessary so that they can modify their image to fit the details of your story.

And if you aren't in a standard environment, you might still be tempted to explain every detail. Dave has entered a plain of shimmering light, populated by winged glass snowmen whose bodies are filled with a sloshing, effervescent fluid. If your POV is Dave, you'll need to talk about some of the details. Not because it's weird, but because that's what is occupying Dave's attention. In such a situation, only the most important features are going to catch his attention. So just explain those. The longer he stays there, the more time you have to flesh out the lesser details as they become more apparent TO HIM.

Finally, if your POV is the blueish-green flying snowman, you don't explain much at all. The snowman isn't preoccupied by the environment because it is perfectly natural to him.

I'm sure others will disagree with this summary, but those are MY rules for environmental description in my projects.

Jefficus

[This message has been edited by Jefficus (edited January 20, 2005).]

Maybe you could post an example of something and we could see better what you're talking about.

(Ditto pretty much all of what Jefficus said.)

I can also say you're in good company. The first drafts of my WIP novel had about 5000 words of geography and history (and even philosophy!) in chapter one, followed by a very detailed description of the setting in the opening scene. Writing those 5000+ words was useful because it helped to solidify some concepts in my head. But I recognized that it was not the least bit entertaining to read. Now, I'm starting with a scene -- with dialogue! -- and the whole thing is (IMO) much easier to get into.

I think it's easier for a reader to get into dialogue/action first, because on page one, they don't care enough about "your world" to want to go exploring with you. "Hey, another made-up fairy land with thousands of years of backstory. Great, but what's in it for me?" they say. The trick is to introduce the setting and conceit in as few words as possible, get into the story/conflict, and then work the rest of the detail into the story.

When it comes to scene-setting, here's what I do. FWIW. YMMV. IMHO. etc.

1. I write the description of the scene in painstaking detail. I don't worry about whether I should be writing description or not, or how much is appropriate, or even what is appropriate to the POV character. I just see the setting in my mind's eye and report it, like a journalist. I try not to use flowery language or metaphor; I just make a note of everything that I can see/hear/taste/touch/smell as simply as I can. If you have a natural desire to write lots of description, you can exercise (exorcise?) it here.

2. Then I make a drawing or diagram from that description and put notes on it. Where's the door? How high is the ceiling? Is it raining? Are the walls made of wood, or stone, or skulls embedded in mortar? Are there curtains, etc. Then I also try to "block" the beginning of the scene by placing the characters and props. Who's standing? Who's sitting? Who enters halfway through, and where does he/she/it enter?

3. Then I cut the initial scene/setting description altogether and set it aside in a separate computer file (cf. Jefficus, "file it as backstory"). Usually this leaves my scene starting with either dialogue or action. Sometimes I will keep a single, short paragraph at the top of the scene that gives the most salient details, as quickly as possible: It's a snowbound forest, a throneroom, a thatch hut, a stock yard, an expensive hotel lobby, a what-have-you. Most of those things are evocative enough that they don't require a lot of detailed description (cf. wbriggs and offices). Then I usually add one or two details that make this location stand out in the mind: what makes it special or different or interesting.

4. When I draft, I tend to write long strings of unbroken dialogue, without any intervening description or action. So, at this point, I go back through the dialogue and I add the important or interesting details from the original description (step 1) and work them back into the scene a bit as a time, usually as "beats". Oftentimes, this gives me an excuse to have the actors in the scene interact with the scenery. If there's a window open, and curtains fluttering, maybe one of them feels cold and gets up and closes it. If there are garish tapestries on the walls, perhaps the POV character makes a passing note of it. Maybe his dislike of the wallcoverings helps to explain some of what he's saying.

This is also when I elevate the language, if it needs elevating. I think about metaphor and simile, and I break out the thesaurus and dictionary and look for just the right words. This is also where I look for passive sentences and edit them. E.g., "there were curtains of silk fluttering beside the open window" becomes (at the very least) "silk curtains fluttered beside the open window". As often as not, however, the description remains just as I wrote it in step one: simple and straightforward. It's spread throughout the scene, so it's less intrusive.

I almost never re-incorporate everything that I write in step one. Most of it is superfluous because it is obvious. Of course there were verdant green leaves on the trees. It's spring. It's a forest.

5. Oftentimes, my first draft of a scene doesn't have a clear POV character. So I go back and choose one and edit through one more time, looking for things that the POV character shouldn't be able to sense or know, or wouldn't be interested in. (Sometimes I miss things!) If the POV character really isn't aware of the history of the building's construction, for example, then there are two choices: a) leave it out, or b) if it's really important, have someone who does know tell them.

BTW, all of this can apply equally to character description as to setting.

First off I want to say thanks for all the help it has helped me somewhat. Sorry if I haven't been to the boards much to post, like I had planed to. I want to put into this forum as much as I am getting out of it, but the other day I suffered a 2nd degree burn to my left wrist and arm making it hard to type. It pains me to post this, literally. Needless to say I have had to resort to my old notebook and pen way of writing and I am not happy. Maybe I have become too dependant of my PC and Laptop.....

First off one of the above posts asked if I could post an example of what I was talking about. So here it is....

------------------------------------
It was a pleasant spring day in the great forest of Faedendria. A light breeze blew, stirring the treetops and underbrush as the wildlife went about its daily chores. A lean framed female wood elf made her way through the trees. Her soft eyes searched for a path through the forest as her slender figure gracefully strolled forward,
the wildlife undisturbed by her passage.
---------------------------------------------

Some said I should disreguard the discription but I feel that it helps set the mood with the reader. I want the reader to feel calm and peaceful when this story starts, so when I get to the charater and speak of the troubles the reader experiences the feeling the character experiences. Is that a bad idea? To read more of this story it is on the feedback forum under "Looking for Feedback"

Also this story was a prologue for the story series and not the first actual story/chapter. Now I do not know what the popular idea of a prologue is as I have seen them done many ways. There are two of the types that catch my eye and grab me the most. The first is the type that has part of the story that is compelling. The second I liked was one that gave some background to the story along with some of the action of one of the characters in the story. I do not know if these grab most people like me (Maybe I am weird or something).

I do the same thing with most of my stories. The people that have read them in the past like the way I had done them (Maybe they are weird too?).

The story series is called "Tavern Tales" it is where the bard that is in the prologue I asked for feedback on, has two unique gifts to aid her storytelling abilities and the endings of these stories always seem to have a strange twist too them (Ever watch the 80's TV series Amazing Stories?). But in the stories I give a breif discription of the tavern the bard is in because most of the stories happen in a tavern, but each tavern is different. So I am stuck with the delema that if I do not discribe the tavern right off the reader may be shocked to find the taverns are not as they imagined when they started reading the story. And I have to start the story before the bard starts the tale so that I can set up the story twist. So it has become difficult for me to decide how to start the story. This is what I am hung up on.

As far as what you posted Mekvat. I have already tried what you suggested, and I liked how my latest story came out. Thanks!
But anyway, any suggestions as for my delema?

(If you have read this far you get two cookies, chocolate chip. The soft kind! )

I'm not sure how this thread took a turn towards disregarding critiques. That didn't seem to be the question. It seemed that W. Rought was looking for a better explanation of what several people all saw as a problem in his/her story. Of course he (I'm just going gender neutral until you tell me otherwise) can ignore critiques! BUT...that's won't make him a better writer. Neither should he obsess over what other people say all the time but this seems to fall under one of the two broad acceptance categories for listening to what a critiquer has to say: 1. Many people say it (this is the category it seems to fal into. 2. It resonates with you. If one of these two things is true then you should probably make a change, but when it's the first one that's true you're not always sure what change to make. Critiquers are not always good at explaining what a problem is, only that there is a problem.

I felt the need to address that because I felt to the depths of my soult hat this thread had taken the wrong turn. Now, I will try to address the actual question, which is, in my mind's eye summary form: What is the problem with up-front description.

The trouble with your paragraphs (I went to F&F and read them both) is simple. Of course, you do not have to take mine or anyone else's advice but I do urge you to give the explanation it's due consideration. The trouble with the paragraphs is they're boring. I don't care.

When OSC suggests how to provide feedback he tells us to use the "wise reader" approach. I love it. Instead of going off on tangents and trying to help you in ways that end up hurting you, he suggests that we try to pick up on times when we ask the following questions: "Huh?" (I don't get it) "Oh yeah?" (I don't believe it) and "So what?" (I don't care...the spot on the wall is more interesting.) All readers ask these questions from time to time. A wise reader notices when it happens and tells the reader about it.

So your paragraphs gave me a resounding "So what?" That's the important part, knowing the reader's specific reaction to your piece. Now, I will try to explain.

You suggested that you were trying to create a sense of peace. But nobody wants to read stories about peace and tranquility, we want action, romance, drama, tension, violence, mystery, mayham, weirdness, etc. The finecky thing about readers is we expect to see some glimpse of that right away! With a short story you have maybe a page (13 lines even, which is part of the rationale behind F&F's limit). With a novel you may have up to 3 pages but there is another problem with this particular opening that may preclude a reader going so far as 3 pages.

It's the "So what?" Even in the first paragraph of a novel a reader should care about something. They don't have to be *hooked* yet, but there should be something. People care about people. They do not care about trees or birds or forests or music playing in the background. (By people I am including sentient creatures.)

You introduce a person in the first paragraph, an elf-type person, but not in any way that creates a connection. She feels like part of the scenery. Then, in paragraph two, you did precisely what I suspected you did when you started this post. (See my comment above.) You threw in exposition before you had any current action to sustain us. You're telling us things that are background to the actual story without showing us an actual story.

Now, your concept sounds fascinating: the seires of short stories told by the bard. But I assure you, almost nobody will care at all that one tavern is different from another. Description is best told when it becomes relevant to the story. If you need each tavern to be different give them a different name. In this story the bard walks into the Horse's Head and in that one he walks into the Flying Stallion...whatever. If you need to set up a twist then do it through the course of action, not description. This may require you to come up with a new way of thinking about the story. I found that I had to rethink my very approach to storytelling when I started receiving critiques and learning how people actually received them. Well, I suppose I could have just written for myself, and that's a valid thing to do, but if you want to write for other people then there is exactly one rule you must understand: Writing is all about emotion. People have emotional reactions to the words on the page because of the manner in which you weave them. There are many "rules" that will help you weave those words effectively. They can be broken to good effect in cases, but they always have consequences when you do this, and before you break them you must at least *understand* them and understand why someone thought of it. In this case, you must understand that we need a person and a compelling situation. It is often easier and better if you start us out inside that person's head (this is called limited third person point of view and is for another topic).

Ditto what Christine says. The real problem isn't the level of description, it's that the description doesn't connect with me as a reader.

The actual *amount* of description you have in the second version of the opening isn't really overdone. It's just that the details aren't that interesting.

At the risk of exposing you to more negativity can I read a little more of the story?

Communicating a feeling of peace and security to the reader is just as paradoxical. Ignore this, and the audience will merely be bored. To get readers to appreciate the abscence of trouble in the character's life, you first have to get them to identify with the character and feel an investment in that person's well-being. There are a variety of ways to accomplish this. It would appear that the criticism you've recieved indicates that this opening is not one of them.

Look at it this way. You are setting up a romantic dinner for a lover and you want the mood just right for the evening. Do you...

a. nuke the food toss it on the table and call that dinner.

or

b. dress up the table, spend two hours cooking, light some candles and play some music.

Sure, sometimes it works. Sure, people get long descriptive openings published. Sure, it's one approach. But it's also often badly done and boring and enough to make me, and many other readers, hurl the book across the room.

If the writing's particularly evocative, maybe I'll stick around for more. But usually, in a beginning, I'm looking for a character, in a location, dealing with some kind of situation. Just the location isn't going to interest me.

Not trying to attack anyone in particular or be rude. But seriously I am looking for some to explain this point to me so that I may not be so confused.

Typically a beginning gives me a good idea of whether I'm going to enjoy the rest of the book or not - if, for example, the author goes into a lot of description in the opening, that lets me know that the author has probably made a lot of other decisions that I'm not going to enjoy.

I would also put down a book that had a beginning that had writing I thought was really cliched and awkward, or that clearly established the book as belonging to a genre I don't enjoy (westerns, say, or romance novels), or a number of other things.

If you see a preview for a movie, you can usually tell if it's a movie you want to see - you don't need to watch the first half hour of it before deciding. same thing with openings.

One argument that is commong and yet does not work for me is the argument that "many aother authors have done this..." Well, if many other authors jumped off a clifff...?

Seriously, though, I've read more horrible crap in fiction than I care to remember. I'm not saying that you write horrible crap, but I am cautioning you that just gecause it's published, doesn't mean it's good. Neptism abounds in the publishing industry, and some people's tastes just differ.

There is a problem with you romantic candlelit dinner anology, and I think that clarifying it may show you the point. You see, a romantic candlelit dinner does not come out of the blue. You don't just make one and hope someone will show up at your door to enjoy it.

I made a romantic candlelit dinner for my husband last Friday night. Now, I could start by describing the two hours I spent cooking, preparing, and picking out the perfect dress, but why should you care? It's not interesting. There's no conflict, and you don't even know my husband or myself or understand the conflict.

But what if I told you that we purchased a house in late December and that ever since then we've fought more than we fought in our entire year and a half of marriage combined? We fought over moving, over unpacking, over decorating, over money. We did not cuddle or even kiss. We were so stressed that we were blaming one another for everything that went wrong, real or imagined.

So when I made my husband a candlelit dinner last Friday night, there was more to it. While I chopped the vegetables, basted the pork loin, and seasoned the potatoes I prayed that we could find some way to relieve the stress of our recent move and get back to what made our relationship so great.

Or its 42... if you're a fan of Douglas Adams.

But anyway. Modern fiction, and by that I mean anything written for today's readers, generally falls into the "let's put the hero in action right away" category. It's done this way for a lot of reasons. Cynically, it's because people can't be bothered. We're used to TV and movies. Few people are willing to sit around and wait for something to happen, because they're busy or McDonald's is closing in 15 minutes and they've not gotten five times their daily allowance of fat, sodium, and sugar yet. People have things to do.

So, going on that theory, write something interesting and engaging from the get go. I personally don't mind stories that take a little time to get going. Other people do.

But then you have to consider editors. And editors want stories that people will read, or else why would anyone buy their books or magazines? So they cater to the public, as it is today, and writers cater to that public as well.

I say, if you don't care about selling your story, then write it however you want to write it. But if writing is going to be a part or full-time career, then you'll be forced to cater to the public's desires.

But the same is true when you start with a description ofo anything that does not have meaning. You have to create meaning, it isn't there just because I've picked up your book and if I'm at the library or the bookstore I might only read two paragraphs before putting the book down and picking up something else. Only if a friend recommended it would I potentially go past those paragraphs.

In Christine's example, I really don't need to know more than maybe the name of the forest and the fact that it is a forest and an elf is running through it. After that, lets chase the elf. A description of the forest's history in the first three middle earth wars, complete with topographical maps and lists of who did what there for the prior three thousand years is too much for me to absorb before the story starts.

That said, I have seen and enjoyed stories that started out with heavy description and others with almost no description at the start.

The best book I ever picked up was "The First Five Pages" by Noah Lukeman. It was gratting to read because he basicly says--You wanna sell it you rape it. Cut, cut, cut. And this usually means a part you love. You worded it just right and it's sooo pretty there on the page. But does it further the story? No--a discription of a chair--unless it is the subject of murder or intrigue--isn't gonna be interesting if it's not furthering the story.

Not that you care but I'll tell you anyway...my trick is one that's the same as some actors use. You step into the skin of the character. You feel the breeze in your hair--you taste the water--feel the pain. Now I care. Now I can make the reader care. The first thing I thought when I read your paragraph was "Why do I need to know this?"

Try this: pretend the elf's name is Helen. Cut out most of the adjectives and adverbs and give the elf action.

Helen senced the silence growing thicker. The leaves still rustled in the breeze, and a woodcock nestled in its nest sang its song of spring. But...

I don't know that kinda sucks but you get the idea.

Pleasant, spring, great, light, daily, lean, framed, female, wood, soft, slender, gracefully...
These are all the descriptive words in these first five sentences. I am guilty of this as well--so believe me I won't be pointing any fingers unless I point first at myself--but this is a horrible trap we can fall into as a writer. I heard someone say just a few weeks ago--"an adjective is a writer's back door." It's the sneaky way to describe. I'm telling you, that hurt when I heard it. How else am I supposed to do it then? I asked--a bit irritated I might add.

Well, here's an example:

"A lean framed female wood elf."

That's ALOT of adjectives. Try something more like this:
(Again, give her a name--no one cares about someone without a name no matter how much you do. You can see her--show her to the reader.)

Elisa was the name her mother had given her. A strong, elvish name, speaking of peace; of trees and water. The earth echoed it as it moved benieth her feet. "Elisa"
She was one with these shadows.

Now the first thing I think when I hear elf is tall, slender, long hair--ya know Lord of the Rings. So you just don't have to say that.

Really the answer to this whole thing is: R-E-A-D; read.

If you want to open with a description--go for it...but make me smell it, feel it, hear it, see it. Make me a part of it.

This is all something you'll learn in time. Trial and error. Don't be discouraged. Take the negative comments--like the ones I made--and shove them back in the face of the person making them by doing it better each time. "I'll show them!" No one knows all the answers. But listen, watch, READ, and learn.

Don't let anyone discourage you. You owe it to yourself and all your hard work to push through.

Hope this helps. I know you're probably tired of me now. So, Good Luck!

quote:

---

a. nuke the food toss it on the table and call that dinner.

or

b. dress up the table, spend two hours cooking, light some candles and play some music.

Which of these two will get a better response?

---

The answer is b. of course. Unless you made your date sit around watching you cook the entire time. And that's your problem, you're insisting that your reader sit around and watch you do what you should have already done before you started writing. If you're going to do something like that, most readers would prefer to get fed now rather than wait around.