I think maybe part of why is that, as a reader, I don't even hardly notice "hooks", and never really thought about it until I started writing. And even then, I never REALLY thought about it till I started submitting.

For me as a reader, the main thing that causes me to read and complete a story is the subject matter...whether its about something I am interested in. Obviously there are other factors, but thats usually the big one, and style/mood is probably number 2. And in some cases, like with specific authors I am likely to read pretty much anything they write.

quote:

---

So I am curious...are you hooked by hooks, or drawn in by other means? or both?

---

What "other means" are you referring to here? Whatever draws you into the story _is_ a hook, by my definition. Anything that entices you to read on is a hook. Based on your description, a specific subject is your hook.

So, how are you defining "hook"?

I think that this is why the first thirteen is so valuable. I read ALOT of short stories. Sometimes more than three a day. I have seen stories or heard stories, that if put to the thirteen challenge, would get picked apart, due to lack of speculative element or "Hook Appeal" I can guarantee you that one of the following things happened.

1)The name and publishing credits of the author was enough to clear the slush pile.

2)The prose was good enough for the editor to turn the page.

I have yet to see a published short that didn't shine in one of those areas.

Granted, there are a few cases where I have no idea how or why a story was published, but that is relative. Someone deemed it worthy. My opinions are my own, and I am not the Editor-in-chief for Analog

Take Poe's Tell-Tale Heart. The very first sentence:

"TRUE! nervous, very, very dreadfully nervous I had been and am; but why WILL you say that I am mad?"

Conflict? Absolutely. He's going to try to prove wrong those who say he's mad. We know what the piece is about, we know that somebody thinks the main character is mad, and within the first thirteen lines, we're compelled to read on because we need resolution of some sort.

You read hooks, and they are why you read on, Merlion. Just look out for them as you read short stories.

If you read back on other posts, you'll see a lot of people don't have action-packed, loaded beginnings. Most of mine don't. I'm not sure what you mean by "subject matter" so I can't say if I'm like you in that regard.

I'm turned off by action-packed beginnings because it makes me wonder, where can the story go from here? The story seems so focused on getting the character out of the mess he's gotten into that I'm skeptical as to whether there's going to be room for anything else. If the story starts out with a scream, there can be no crescendo.

So, what I'm drawn to is emotional richness, which includes a promise of emotional or personal conflict/ tension of some kind, and that quality of story promise/ potential. It's hard for me to pin it down. It's the sense that the story can expand multi-dimensionally, and I while I have a sense of where it's going, I have no idea how far and deep it can take me. James Tiptree's Brightness Falls from the Air is a great example of this. The story kept growing and growing, even while it closes in on some inexorable ending.

Writer confidence is also a big turn on for me. There's nothing better than entrusting yourself to a master story teller.

However, while stories that start off with intense action tend to turn me off, I do think the opening needs to be dynamic. This is where the story potential comes it. A static opening quickly becomes stagnant, and gives no hint to where the story might take me. For instance, I would probably not read on in a story opening with a girl bored at her office on an ordinary day. I think some writers think the set up implies something is about to happen--a knight in shining armor will come riding up to her office window and offer her an ice cream cone (sigh... oops, sorry, got distracted) and whisk her away to some other universe. But the implication is not enough. There's got to be some hint of change in the opening, or something else--maybe the girl is busy stealing paper clips because she's planning to make a chain to climb out the window of her office building. So, even if she's bored stiff, suddenly she's doing something unusual and different--in other words, the opening has become dynamic.

Okay, have rambled on way too long. Hope this helps.

Case in point, the novel Elantris by Brandon Sanderson. The very first sentence is the hook:

quote:

---

Prince Raoden of Arelon awoke early that morning, completely unaware that he had been damned for all eternity.

---

quote:

---

You read hooks

---

I'm sure, yes.

quote:

---

and they are why you read on, Merlion

---

I dont think so...I read on because I am interested in what the story is about, or I like the pictures its painting in my mind or the mood it evokes. Now maybe these themselves are hooks but...

quote:

---

A hook is any element that entices a reader to read on.

---

The trouble with this definition is, due to there being lots of different people all with different tastes, almost any element is going to entice someone...probably more than a few...to read on.

I guess its kind of a strange thing...because of course also, especially as a reader, one can scan the whole true first page or two to see if it looks interesting and the like (although, I'm reasonbly certain many editors probably do this as well.)

Lets see if I can express it a little better. It seems to me, that when people talk about "hooks" or not being drawn in, its on the level of the writing being...technically un-catching? Or because it lacks immediate conflict or something of that nature.

But for me, generally its the subject matter...but which I mean the overall point and content of the story. I dont' really care for zombie stories, for example, but I do like stories about dragons. I like stories with heavy "speculative" elements, rather than romances or character studies with a little fantastical element thrown in or set in the future.

"Jordan the Dragon smiled and helped the old lady dragon across the street." is not nearly as enticing as "Jordan the Dragon winced as the Council of the Dragons debated his sentence."

Of course, you can begin with the first as long as there is conflict soon.

"Jordan the Dragon smiled and helped the old lady dragon across the street.
'Oh, dear, you're that nasty Snake Dragon that kills men and eats them for fun,' she said. 'But you're very kind, you know.'
Jordan was awaiting his sentence, but he hadn't done anything. They knew he was innocent. How could they not?
'I know. The Grand Jury of Reptiles will see reason, and I will be able to get back to my fire-brewing factory.' His love and passion."

No action, but it shows an obvious conflict and desire by the primary character. It also provides characterization for a potentially intriguing character.

Examples are wretched ideas as I'm far from a good writer, but that's my take on how hooks work. As well, don't judge me by that. I wrote it in around thirty seconds.

EDIT: Also, annepin is right. As you read it, just see if it bores you. If it does, it's going to bore your audience.

quote:

---

The trouble with this definition is, due to there being lots of different people all with different tastes, almost any element is going to entice someone...probably more than a few...to read on.

---

quote:

---

Lets see if I can express it a little better. It seems to me, that when people talk about "hooks" or not being drawn in, its on the level of the writing being...technically un-catching? Or because it lacks immediate conflict or something of that nature.

---

quote:

---

I read on because I am interested in what the story is about, or I like the pictures its painting in my mind or the mood it evokes.

---

What you are describing here, Merlion-Emrys, is what hooks YOU. Exactly. No more, no less.

Subjects hook you or they don't.

Images hook you or they don't.

Moods hook you or they don't.

But you have clearly stated that you need to be hooked in those ways in order to keep reading.

(As for magazine stories, well, if I've bought the magazine the stories are already there, hooks or not.)

I can appreciate a dynamic hook, but I can't say it's influenced my purchasing choices.

But, what I was more interested in is that, its seemed to me...and I may be wrong...that there is some underlying concept of things to include or ways to present that tend to have that grabbing of attention factor for most or all people...basically, trying to write in such a way as that it'd be difficult for most people not to be caught.

However, even when I've read things that seemed to be like this, I didnt much notice it, nor did it really affect my reading, because for me one of the main things that makes me read something isnt any aspect of how its written, but is largely what its about. And I am curious as to the views and aproaches of others, as readers.

Cover art is interesting, title fresh, back blurb suggests an intriguing plot (which means I wonder how the author gets from the HERE to the THERE). Inside blurb has some drama.

I'm not so much with the "it has to be on the front page" folks. But I do like some early allusion to the THERE stuff. For instance, if there is magic, I like to see some traces of it, early. If its a murder mystery, I want the basic premise pretty quick.

Granted, sometimes you might be allowed with novels to write your own precis, but not so much with 5000 word shorts.

quote:

---

Yes, that's all fine and dandy -- to buy a book based on its cover, back blurb etc. However, the very first sale of all for people in the slush is to that first harried, bored (so I'm told over and over again) reader who sees the story naked. No pretty cover, no back blurb. Just a title, an author whose name might as well be John Doe, and those 13 lines are all the sales tools you get.

---

Well, no. The whole story is still the whole story. I do not believe that all editors make all decisions based solely on those 13 lines, or that they must be "super hooked" to look at any of the rest.

I don't know that it has to be in the first 13; for stories, probably yes. For novels I suspect there is more leeway, so long as there is something very appealing in that first 13. How does the query letter for novels play into that? Which item does an editor read first?

Joe Blow doing nothing interesting won't do it for me, even if the setting and mood are appealing. I care more about characters, who they are and what makes them tick; setting and mood are not what does it for me. And that applies to mythical beasts and people alike.

IB, I love that quote from Brandon Sanderson. Now that's a hook (and a geat book)!

quote:

---

Joe Blow doing nothing interesting won't do it for me, even if the setting and mood are appealing. I care more about characters, who they are and what makes them tick; setting and mood are not what does it for me. And that applies to mythical beasts and people alike.

---

This is more what I am looking to know. When it comes down to it, editors are people like everyone else. And everyone is drawn in or the interest piqued by different things. I know what aspects of a story I pay the most attention to as a reader, but knowing that about others is helpful.

This leads me to a bit of doubt about the whole "hook" concept. Just as with the stories themselves, some are going to like some types and some others...whatever you write might be a great hook for one editor, but totally uninteresting to the next.

So to me, its better to focus on overall craft, and making the story as a whole work and fit, then trying to "hook" people right away.

Also, I think as far as those sorts of issues go, in the end its largely going to come to finding the right market/editor for the right piece.

quote:

---

So to me, its better to focus on overall craft, and making the story as a whole work and fit, then trying to "hook" people right away.

---

quote:

---

And I would argue hooking people is part of the craft... but then you seem to have rejected my definition of a hook

---

There cant really be a single definition, because of people's varying tastes.

quote:

---

There cant really be a single definition, because of people's varying tastes.

---

Even considering people's various tastes, the definition still stands. A hook is anything that compels a person to keep reading.

I've been hooked by interesting characters, beautiful writing, quirky writing, action, setting, etc. There are countless ways of hooking a reader, and different readers will be hooked by different things.

quote:

---

Even considering people's various tastes, the definition still stands. A hook is anything that compels a person to keep reading.

---

That isn't very helpful.
If a slush pile reader is opening your envelope and reading as little as he/she can in order to find some reason to discard it and go on to the next and the next so that the pile of mss to read goes down -- and I've heard them admit that many times -- if there is nothing outstanding on the first page (or, stretch it: two pages) do you really think they are going to keep reading?

quote:

---

Then every beginning is a hook.

---

quote:

---

But some hooks are stronger in that they hook more people

---

Ahh but how to determine this..

quote:

---

or they hook a target audience more adeptly.

---

I think this is often a better aproach. If you know even the basic nature of your story, you may then know what types of readers/markets/editors/whatever will find it appealing. And you then try to begin in a way that will "hook" them, and give a decent idea what story type it is.

quote:

---

Merlion-Emrys said that then every beginning is a hook.

---

Well, if you define a "hook" as something that gets a reader to continue reading and/or piques their interest, then as annepin says, pretty much everything is going to be a "hook" for someone. And I'd add, probably at least a decent number of people...considering how many people there are.

This leads me to think that either a more specific definition of "hook" is needed and/or that hitting your target audience may be more useful than trying to create an "all purpose hook."

quote:

---

If a slush pile reader is opening your envelope and reading as little as he/she can in order to find some reason to discard it and go on to the next and the next so that the pile of mss to read goes down -- and I've heard them admit that many times -- if there is nothing outstanding on the first page (or, stretch it: two pages) do you really think they are going to keep reading?

---

But something that editor doesnt find outstanding may be very much so to the next editor. So how does one know?

quote:

---

I'll admit. The "hook" could be just super fine writing. Or an unique insight to something. But something has to make the mss stand out from the crowd. Something has to intrigue them. Maybe it's a quirky narrator's voice. How about an interesting character? But something.

---

In the end its going to boil down to the opinion of an editor and/or the guidlines of their particular publication.

If you read through the various posts and people's comments you'll see how many different ways there are to hook readers, and how some readers aren't necessarily hooked by the same thing, but some hooks work better to reel in more readers. It's not necessarily action--I won a few weeks ago with a very slow piece (was it week three? wow, so long ago now).

Again, there's no magic formula. No one can say, put action in your piece and it will be popular. As writers, we've got to use our sensibilities in determining how best to tell the story we want. And yes, hooking the reader somehow in the beginning is a necessity--of you don't, no one will read. At least, by my definition of a hook. It's all part of the craft.

quote:

---

In the end its going to boil down to the opinion of an editor and/or the guidelines of their particular publication.

---

It's going to boil down to their taste, yes. So how do you know?

If there's a magazine you want to be published in read it. Read every copy you can find. Try to figure out what the editor's taste might be.

Then you write. You solicit and consider comments. You rewrite. You experiment. You submit. If it gets rejected, you submit elsewhere. This is why many people have to submit the same piece to multiple publications before it's accepted.

There are plenty of different tastes out there, and yes, much of it boils down to finding the right market for your piece.

[This message has been edited by annepin (edited April 24, 2008).]

I'm one of the staff readers for Flash Fiction Online magazine - http://www.flashfictiononline.com/ (a bunch of Hatrackers and other online writer's group members banded together to create a pro-level market for flash, under 1k words, stories.)

We don't get gazillions of submissions, but we get plenty. We are set up so that each story is read by several staff readers.

I'll be honest. I'm *looking* for reasons to reject stories, to not read past the first few lines. There are a lot more stories than we have space to publish, and we all want this online magazine to be the best possible online zine it can be. We want to publish only the absolute best.

Some of my reasons for rejecting a story are as superficial as finding typos in the early lines. I also have a strong bias against second person. I choke on pronoun main characters (He and She, who are never given other names.)

I'm just one of a pool of staff readers. I'm not the final word, but the editor is looking to our accept/reject input to help him keep his workload reasonable.

While I don't use hook as a specific criteria for accepting or rejecting a story (and I, like the original poster, have certain subject matters and genres I strongly prefer, and others I do not care for, though I try to be objective) I can tell you that in most stories I reject, there's a point at which I start to skim. I believe if I look back I could target those stories where the hook is light or non-existent as the reason I start to skim.

To switch gears, a lot of what I hear in this post is talking about the feedback one gets when one posts fragments to F&F here on Hatrack, specifically feedback that says something like "I didn't feel hooked." As writers, we all have to weigh that feedback and figure out what to do with it.

When I first started posting fragments, some posters said it was a terrible idea to ever start a story with dialogue. Or that they were skeptical when they saw a story start with dialogue.

To me, that was a style point. I believe a good story can start with dialogue so long as it is properly attributed (dialogue early in a story where it's hard to know who is saying what can be a real problem.) I am sure there are a lot of terrible stories that start with dialogue. Perhaps someone's misguided attempt to follow suggestions that say a hook is important. Sure, a hook is important, but it's not more important than good mechanics, good story construction, etc. And for me, some stories do start with the dialogue. I want to drop the reader into a scene where people are talking because I tend toward a cinematic-style, where I "see" the movie of the story I'm writing in my head. But that's me and my style.

It's the basic premise of Hatrack. If I wasn't, at least to some extent, I wouldn't be here.

If a hook is as Annepin defines it ("A hook is any element that entices a reader to read on.") then yes. And for me the "other means" are hooks.

If a hook is "Something that is written to grab attention, either heavy action, something thats immediately large and glaring and begs for attention, and is otherwise obviously written for the purpose of drawing the reader in quickly by action or attention related means," then no. That would be clumsy--unless the story is a melodrama.

I, too, had not understood hooks until I met Hatrack. I found the concept immediately attractive because it explains how to attract a reader and keep him or her turning the page. Indeed, I think most fantasy, science fiction and thriller books are a series of hooks--or cliff-hangers--so I try to sprinkle hooks through the story to keep the reader engaged.

As others have said, a hook can be a fantastic line, a puzzle, a conflict, an unexpected juxtaposition, an enticing scene or visual, or simply an attractive turn of phrase. There is no rule, no simple definition of a hook, but "something that hooks"--tautological but true.

When I first found Hatrack I tested the hook idea by offering to crit several stories, including some that had not hooked me in their first 13s. Almost invariably, the impression I had formed from the first 13 was confirmed when I read the story. Indeed, I read one despite finding the first 13 repulsive, imagining that it could not possibly get any worse: it did, considerably.

And yes, it's subjective, a matter of taste. That's one reason Hatrack is so valuable. By sharing your first 13 you can learn how many people are hooked by it, why (or why not) and something of the kind of person it hooks--the kind of person who comprises your potential audience. If it doesn't appeal to many people, or they tell you your first 13 moves too slowly, they're right--for them, it doesn't appeal or it moves too slowly. That does not mean the piece is bad, necessarily, it just means that if it has an audience it didn't find it at Hatrack. (Or, Hatrackers who would have liked it were busy elsewhere.) Mind, I'm hard pressed to think of many genres (though there are a few, granted) that accept stories without hooks or that move too slowly. Speaking purely for myself, I'm not going to crit such material because I like stories that hook me and move not too slowly.

"editors are people like everyone else"--Very few of us get the privelege of editing books or magazines. Very few of us decide which stories to buy. Very few of us bet our reputation, and that of our market, on every buying decision. While they read for pleasure in leisure time, and maybe in professional time, when an editor assesses a story he or she is thinking of market potential, on the basis of experience and information which very few of us have. They are most certainly not like everyone else. And some are geniuses.

When a story is submitted to a market by an unknown writer, a slush reader--not the editor--gets it. The job of the slush reader is, not to read the story, but to assess it. The reader has a whole pile of slush to get through, too little time to do it, and is sure that a very, very high percentage of unsolicited stuff will be pure rubbish--simply not worth reading. So before reading a piece, a slush reader will first assess it to decide whether to invest time in reading it. One simple, time-efficient way is to scan the first page--the first 13--and use that as the basis for the assessment. If there's nothing enticing, no hook, he or she will move on, to find something worth investing time in reading. The slush readers do not have to find all the good stuff, just enough good stuff to satisfy the market, so this is optimal use of time from the slush reader's perspective.

Editors and slush readers are also professionals. They read copiously and see the common patterns amongst writers. They know the chances are that, if the first 13 is slow or not enticing, the rest of the work is likely to be so--especially with new writers, because all us newbies make the same, predictable mistakes.

So while the first 13 perhaps does not always have to contain a hook, or the hook may be simply a nice writing style, it must certainly not contain anything that encourages the slush reader not to look at the second page, or dip into the work.

Cheers,
Pat

quote:

---

I guess to sum up my points - Hooks are important. Engineering a hook by using mechanics and styles that don't fit with your natural way of writing is a bad idea. Don't over-engineer a hook just because you've been told it's important. But don't ignore the need for a hook because you generally don't notice them in things you read.

---

Yes, thank you KayTi. Thats pretty much what I've been getting at, but you put it much more clearly than I.

quote:

---

Very few of us get the privelege of editing books or magazines. Very few of us decide which stories to buy. Very few of us bet our reputation, and that of our market, on every buying decision. While they read for pleasure in leisure time, and maybe in professional time, when an editor assesses a story he or she is thinking of market potential, on the basis of experience and information which very few of us have. They are most certainly not like everyone else. And some are geniuses.

---

Yea, in the end, they are like everyone else. In that they make their decisions based on the information they have at the time (which is of course usually considerable), filtered through their personal perspectives and opinions. And when it comes to entertainment/media sales and markets, there is no way to be absolutely, objectively sure wether something is going to sell or not. In the end, its still their opinion, even if a very well educated one. And I think the taste/opinion factor gets more pronounced the smaller the market is...I think many small market editors probably realize they are never going to be Random House or whatever, and so maybe concentrate a little more on printing what they want to print.

quote:

---

When a story is submitted to a market by an unknown writer, a slush reader--not the editor--gets it. The job of the slush reader is, not to read the story, but to assess it. The reader has a whole pile of slush to get through, too little time to do it, and is sure that a very, very high percentage of unsolicited stuff will be pure rubbish--simply not worth reading. So before reading a piece, a slush reader will first assess it to decide whether to invest time in reading it. One simple, time-efficient way is to scan the first page--the first 13--and use that as the basis for the assessment. If there's nothing enticing, no hook, he or she will move on, to find something worth investing time in reading. The slush readers do not have to find all the good stuff, just enough good stuff to satisfy the market, so this is optimal use of time from the slush reader's perspective.

---

Now let me be very clear here...I am not doubting this, arguing with you, or anything of the kind. I'm sure this is generally the case.

My personal albeit it relatively limited, experience since I've been submitting and communicating a little with editors does lead me to believe that at least in the case of some of the smaller online markets I've been submitting too, these things are handled more directly by editors.

But either way, it remains the same. Whoever looks at it is going to make a decision about it thats an opinion, based on the guidlines of the publication, filtered through their personal perception.

Point being, there isnt some magical "please the editor" trick one can use to somehow automatically greatly up your chances of getting accepted...other than to try to write the best story (the whole thing) that you can.

All of this is a big part of why I like to talk to people about my stuff. Having someone tell me their not hooked is a piece of information that can be used...even more so if they tell me why. But its still just one persons opinion. Much the same with 2 or 3. However, if I talk to them and find out why...and, find out what their preferences, tastes and viewpoints are, it gives me a lot more in the way of understanding how people read, what they like, what does grab attention for what sort of readers etc.

Words fail me.

When people talk about "hooks" to me it sounds like they mean something artificially constructed within a story just to grab people quickly in the early portions.

To me, writing in such a way as to attract the attention and interest of your target audience is assumed. It doesnt need a word. So when people start giving it one, i get a little confused.

For as long as you believe your own definitions of terms and ignore those that helpful Hatrackers write for you, or refer you to in the FAQs, you will remain confused.

For as long as you believe that Hatrackers believe in "magical 'please the editor' tricks" you will remain confused.

Sure we believe in magic--but in our stories, not in their writing and selling ... well, okay, a little bit of pixie dust helps in that, too.

quote:

---

If you think you can learn to write without giving techniques and concepts names, you're a better person than I.

---

They are often necessary. But some times a necessary evil. As we are all different, some times those things can lead to confusion.

Thats what discussion is for.

quote:

---

For as long as you believe your own definitions of terms and ignore those that helpful Hatrackers write for you, or refer you to in the FAQs, you will remain confused.

---

I'll remain confused until I'm not anymore. I'm not ignoring anything. You confuse lack of immediate understanding with ignoring. Again, this is why I discuss things...and it often takes more than one try. Its a learning experience.

quote:

---

For as long as you believe that Hatrackers believe in "magical 'please the editor' tricks" you will remain confused.

---

I said that it seemed that way to me. Seeming isnt the same as is, or believing.

And now, through this discussion, I am gaining a better understanding of the concepts, the techniques, and other peoples views of them.

quote:

---

Point being, there isnt some magical "please the editor" trick one can use to somehow automatically greatly up your chances of getting accepted...other than to try to write the best story (the whole thing) that you can.

---

and

quote:

---

When people talk about "hooks" to me it sounds like they mean something artificially constructed within a story just to grab people quickly in the early portions.

To me, writing in such a way as to attract the attention and interest of your target audience is assumed. It doesnt need a word. So when people start giving it one, i get a little confused.

---

Now I'm speechless. Isn't this what I said from the get go? Isn't this what many of us have been trying to point out all along? I defined a hook--you redefined it to mean precisely that which you are now saying is a worthless description.

Ai yai yai!

quote:

---

Now I'm speechless. Isn't this what I said from the get go? Isn't this what many of us have been trying to point out all along? I defined a hook--you redefined it to mean precisely that which you are now saying is a worthless description.

---

Yours wasnt the only one offered. My redefinition was based on my perception of a variety of things, not just or primarily what you said.

Admitedly, I do some times even confuse myself...and these issues are hard to pin down, and lend themselves to...cyclcity. Because so much of it is a matter of individual opinions and personal definitions.

Many comments I have seen...not just recieved, but seen...have indicated to me that the ones making them thought of "hooks" as something seperate and specific inserted into the early part of a story more or less solely as a means to grab and get attention. They also gave the impression (some of them) that these "hooks" usually involve action or a sort of "big bam" to get attention and/or that there are things of this nature that can be inserted to grab the attention of more or less anyone.

On the other hand, other comments...yours I see as being somewhere in the middle...speak about something not holding their attention. Not "not having a hook" but not holding attention. Its seemed to me in some conversations that some may see/think of these as (obviously related but) seperate things. Mostly in terms of degree of intensity....and assumption. Like I said, by speaking specifically of "hooks" and trying to define them, it seems like people are/were talking about some specific form, subset or technique of the overall concept of just keeping interest.

Definitely check out the winning "Hooks" on writing Challenges ("Captain Hook's Roll of Honour"). That will be much more instructive than discussing the denotations of the word "hook."

The winners are well written (so the prose isn't distracting) character driven (so we care about or become interested in this POV person), and establish conflict or motivation (so we wonder what he's up to).

quote:

---

Definitely check out the winning "Hooks" on writing Challenges ("Captain Hook's Roll of Honour"). That will be much more instructive than discussing the denotations of the word "hook."

---

Not a bad idea, but I find knowing what people mean when they say things both instructive and useful.

quote:

---

The winners are well written (so the prose isn't distracting) character driven (so we care about or become interested in this POV person)

---

If a writer thinks hooks a irrelevant then he can join all the other unsuccessful writers out there--because if you can't hook readers they will go elsewhere. I am unsuccessful for other reasons.

Hooks need to start at the begining of a story and they continue until the end of the story. If they don't then you have lost your reader.

Some readers may continue to read hookless drivel, but I stop reading when I no longer feel engaged (hooked) into the story.

Annepin has it spot on; a hook is whatever keeps the reader engaged.

quote:

---

But some hooks are stronger in that they hook more people

---

quote:

---

Ahh but how to determine this..

---

Yes indeed. If only there were some community, perhaps even an online community, where one could post the first few lines of their story - say 13 lines- and others could comment on them. One might be able to gauge a reaction, perhaps even count how many people felt a decent hook was present. That would be a good way to determine it.

That's a great idea.

I'm not surprised you're drawing a blank. It'd be a tough community to establish. I mean, you'd--no wait, I'm in--we'd need to find an established author and teacher of authors to sponsor it, and another to moderate. They'd bring credibility and respect to the idea of critting first 13s. New writers would surely be happy to listen and learn at their feet.

And we'd need a FAQ to give prepared answers to questions like, "What's a hook?" and "So what's with the first 13?" I wonder if new members would read it--'twould be a shame to spend all that effort writing a FAQ to have it ignored.

I'm hooked. My interest is piqued. Your dream is enticing. I'd read on.

quote:

---

Like most stories that end up with a man mowing his friend's lawn in a dress, it started out innocently enough.

---

Too many writers think you have to barf up all the backstory and character details in the first 13. That's not necessary. A hook is simply anything that pulls the reader in and makes them want to read more.