[tab] I knew he wasn’t real from the first moment I saw him. I heard the door open and his footsteps drift down the hall, walking toward the kitchen where I was making lunch. Growing louder with each step and closer. He killed my friend.

The sandwich flipped in the pan, and I tried not to get any cheese on the pan so I wouldn’t have to clean it later.

I looked up. The first thing I saw was the red cap. I’m not sure why he ever wore that cap, but it was always on his head. It was a demonic, obnoxious thing that made me want to vomit, only I hadn’t yet eaten anything. This was because the sandwich was still in the frying pan.

He wondered into the kitchen, and I next saw his shoes. Muddy dirty things that were leaving footprints wherever they went. I turned back to my lunch.

[haha edited the [tab]... not bb code here I guess]

"The sandwich flipped in the pan." This conjured up an image that made me smile. The sandwich flipped in the pan? Only if it is alive. Otherwise we need to know if it was flipped by something else.

"...I tried to get any cheese on the pan so I wouldm't have to clean up later." Not convincing since I have a hard time believeing the MC would concern himself with cheese in this situation.

"...only I hadn't eaten anything. This was because the sandwich was still in the frying pan." If you hadn't eaten anything we know you haven't eaten the sandwich so the last sentence is not needed.

I have a hard time with this opening because if this guy killed your friend, would the MC really be so concerned about his sandwich? If the MC wanted his friend dead, we should know this, but then why would the MC want to vomit? Many loose ends here to tie up. I'm curious to know just what is going on here though.

Also, watch the spelling - "drempt" is spelled "dreamt". (right arriki - thx for catching that!)

[This message has been edited by nitewriter (edited April 19, 2007).]

Maybe you're writing a time-warp type of story, in which case this is par for the course. If not, be warned - one of your readers was confused!

The stuff about the sandwich in the pan was a little distracting. Was it meant to be? The bombshell about imaginary man killing MC's friend made me not really want to concern myself with the trivialities of cheesy sandwiches (which, LOL, as another poster pointed out, may be alive...maybe they're Evil Robot Monkey food!! Oh the horrors!)

Nit: What on god's green earth would make you want to vomit about a red cap? I think if it's vomit-inducing, you need to hang a bit more description on that cap. Or something. And yeah, we get it, hasn't eaten - his sandwich is still doing backflips in the frying pan.

Nit: did the imaginary bad guy wonder into the kitchen: "Hmm...am I in the kitchen?" or did he WANDER into the kitchen..."Aha! I've reached the kitchen!"

quote:

---

[tab][<--What is this all about?] I knew he[Who?] wasn’t real from the first moment I saw him. I heard the door open and his footsteps drift down the hall, walking toward the kitchen[,] where I was making lunch. Growing louder with each step and closer.[<--fragment.] He killed my friend.[Huh?]

[tab] The sandwich flipped in the pan[On its own? Is it possessed?], and I tried not to get any cheese on the pan so I wouldn’t have to clean it later. [What about the killed friend?]

[tab] I looked up. The first thing I saw was the red cap. I’m not sure why he ever wore that cap, but it was always on his head. It was a demonic, obnoxious thing that made me want to vomit[Why? Does the MC have something against the color? Shape? Is it made of human organs?], only I hadn’t yet eaten anything. This was because the sandwich was still in the frying pan.[What about the killed friend]

[tab] He[I'm annoyed by the fact that your deliberately keeping something from me.] wondered into the kitchen, and I next saw his shoes.[The MC missed every detail between the mysterious stranger's hat and shoes? I don't believe it. I CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE this, without a damned-good explanation. How is the MC seeing him, if he was looking at the sandwich in the frying pan?] Muddy[,] dirty things that were leaving footprints wherever they went. I turned back to my lunch. [Do you ever get back to the murdered friend?]

---

I'm probably way off base, but I think the mysterious stranger IS your protagonist, just another of his/her personae. And, I AM a bit bothered by the fact that I can't tell anything about your protagonist, except for he/she likes mexican-flipping sandwiches and doesn't like red caps.

First, I don't want to come across like I am picking on him, because he comes across to me as someone who is trying to be very helpful to the other aspiring writers, and he sacrifices a lot of his time to provide feedback to other writers in this forum. (I must also entertain the possibility that he knows better than me.)

That being said, I think that some of the feedback contributors have a very low tolerance of mystery. I personally think that mystery is a good thing in fiction – even at the beginning. So when musthavebeenmykarma introduces us to "he" on the very first line, I don't mind that I don't know who "he" is. It is obvious to me that musthavebeenmykarma is presenting me with a mystery, and musthavebeenmykarma further verifies that with the "demonic" allusion. And I am not at all annoyed that he is keeping something from me (or waiting to reveal it). This happens in literature all the time.

"He killed my friend" is a bit problematic for me, mhbmk, because I don't know if you mean he killed him while you were making the sandwich or he killed him at an earlier time. The first read seemed like the former, while the second read seemed like the latter. If you clear that up, I don't mind that you don't explain it, yet. There is something psychological going on here. Your protagonist at the stove is taking some pretty sinister stuff in stride as is emphasized by worrying about the cheese on the pan, so I'm getting some characterization out of it, too. (This has more impact if the demon-guy actually just got through killing his friend. Regardless, I am learning much more about this protagonist than just the aversion to red caps and the sandwich flipping obsession.)

I also have no problem with him wanting to vomit because of the red hat. Just because my limited experience doesn't respond to red caps in this way, doesn't mean someone else might not be so compelled. When I read the line, it gave me the impression that the cap represented far more than just the red cap. The red cap was associated to some demonic presence that made him want to vomit. Or so it struck me.

I don't have any problem with him noticing his shoes and skipping all of the in-betweens. The protagonist is already established as being more concerned about his cheese (whether he is using it to avoid facing some terror, or he is simply that uncaring – another mystery) so he may just be throwing glances out of the corner of his eye toward the other guy. That is, in fact, the impression it gave me on the first read.

You have my attention, and I personally would like to read further to find out what you care to reveal about these mysteries.

I did not at first get the impression that the demonic character was a manifestation of the protagonist at the frying pan. That may or may not be part of the mystery of the red-cap guy. Whatever the case – I don't care at this point. When I watched the movie of Chuck Palahniuk's "Fight Club," I was fairly convinced through a lot of it that the supernatural Pitt character was a manifestation of the Norton character. It was interesting watching with that impression, but it was just as interesting when I picked up on something (that was clearly deliberate) that made it crystal clear to me that Pitt was a separate supernatural entity. I read the book just to see if the book did anything similar, and sure enough – throughout the book it was just about impossible to tell that the supernatural character was or was not a manifestation of the protagonist – but there was *one* line in the book that made it clear that he was not. In both cases, it was easy to miss. (No one else with me caught it in the movie.)

And – because I've been thinking about "Fight Club" as it relates to musthavebeenmykarma's first 13, I thought it would be interesting to compare it with Palahniuk's first 13. Here it is:

quote:

---

He leaned forward, his breath smelled of whiskey drunk straight from the bottle. His mouth never all the way closed. His blue eyes never more than half open. His one hand held a coiled loop of rope, the old hemp kind, blond as his hair. Yellow as his cowboy hat. The cowboy kind of rope, and he shook the rope in my face as he talked. Behind him, an open door showed a flight of stairs that went down into the dark.
He was young with a flat stomach, wearing a white T-shirt and brown cowboy boots with thick heels. His hair, blond under the straw cowboy hat. A belt with a big metal buckle holding up blue jeans. His skinny white arms, tanned smooth as the pointed toe on each cowboy boot.
His eyes veined with a forest of little red lines, he says to

---

Other than some good description, Palahniuk's first thirteen lines does nothing more than introduce mystery. Who is the "He" of the first line? What is he talking about in line 7, and why is he shaking the rope in the POV's face? Who is the POV?

From what I read, musthavebeenmykarma's leaves us with far less mystery than that, yet in both cases, I want to read on.

So I am having some difficulty with InarticulateBabbler's criticisms, but that does not mean they are not valuable. As a writer, I should be concerned with the way he reacts to the work, and realize that there are probably many other readers who have the same problem with it. In addition, I think a diligent writer would experiment with both ways *and* some intermediate ways. (Lot's o' mystery/some mystery/little mystery)

Again - I know I'm picking on you IB, but I do appreciate all of the contributions you make.

This post, then, serves two purposes. One – it lets musthavebeenmykarma know that there is a different kind of reaction to his work. Two – It raises the question: How does/can mystery fit into the first 13 lines?

Do either of you (InarticulateBabbler and musthavebeenmykarma) have any objections to me reposting this on the Open Discussion About Writing group?

Write On,
Mark

[This message has been edited by mfreivald (edited April 21, 2007).]

quote:

---

So I am having some difficulty with InarticulateBabbler's criticisms, but that does not mean they are not valuable.

---

If this is a true statement, mfreivald, then you have failed to elaborate. All I see of your difficulty is that you had a problem with my comments on mystery in the first 13 lines. Frankly, you're not the only person to "single me out" for a critique. Every time, the ONE point that is challenged overshadows everything else. If I mentioned ten things and you agree with nine, don't profess to have a problem with my criticisms - it's not true. This is annoying. I never make just one critique. Even if that is my original intent, when I start, I always notice more. So, if you have a problem with one point, I would appreciate it if you SAY it is only one point.

Everyone has the right to their own opinion. I won't dispute yours, however, I stand by mine.

This story isn't a MYSTERY. If it was I would have no problem with mystery at the start. If you're in first person POV, you can't start the book with the protagonist seeing a killer and not noticing anything but his hat and shoes. How does he know that he's a HE? This doesn't build suspense, it is confusing -- unless alternately explained -- and it makes you OBVIOUSLY WITHHOLDING necessary information. IT WOULD MAKE ME PUT A BOOK DOWN.

I can't name one single character from this thirteen lines. Three are mentioned. I don't know what any of them look like, but I do know that the INVISIBLE man wears shoes and a red cap. So, in turn, I pose this question to you, mfreivald:

Can the story be as -- or more -- compelling by NOT withholding important details from the reader?

Unless it is a mystery novel, withholding information is:

If musthavebeenmykarma's first lines read something line "I knew the moment I saw him that he wasn't real. He was locked away on Death Row," then I'd be able to handle the mystery that comes next. As it is, I'm left trying to decide if the man is real (the MC hears his footsteps, etc.) and the MC is wrong or if he really isn't there, so why is the MC hearing and seeing things?

I hope this makes sense and was somewhat helpful.

I've been reading a few books on the craft of writing lately, and they are unanimous in the assertion that it doesn't pay to deliberately obscure information from the reader. Readers feel cheated when this happens. There are examples across the board - from openings like this where no MC name is mentioned and too many mysterious questions are raised and then ignored by the author. There are examples where the author is writing in first person POV and deliberately hides key facts from the reader "I remembered from the conversation with Delia earlier that she xxx fact that I didn't tell you about when I wrote the Delia conversation dialogue." Etc.

So, I'd suggest that it's generally not a good idea to hide key facts about your story from the reader, unless they serve some plot purpose. Example: If the MC has amnesia and doesn't know his name, fine, don't name him. OSC does an interesting thing w/not naming Bean until he's named by another character in Ender's Shadow. But, well, that's OSC. The fact that it's mentioned in more than one book on writing, and by more than one author tells me that it's a common mistake made by less experienced writers.

One last point: I think it's perfectly fine for critiquers to disagree with each other's critiques (in whole or in part.) It's up to the writer to figure out what to do with the feedback (including IGNORING some of it because they feel the poster just didn't get it, or the rewrite has addressed poster's concerns in another manner.) Just because we may disagree with a crit doesn't mean the other crit's points aren't valid. They may highlight something to the writer that he/she hadn't noticed or considered before. We should be cautious in singling any one crit out (other than, as I have just done in short story F&F forum with Inarticulate Babbler, to say "On this point, I disagree with xyz specific poster, or previous posters who said...")

I sense that some newer or less experienced posters get frightened away from offering their critiques by a perception that there's too much drama in critiquing...which cheats us ALL! We could all use as much feedback from as many individuals as possible.

quote:

---

So, if you have a problem with one point, I would appreciate it if you SAY it is only one point.

---

IB, if this is going to turn into an oversensitive quarrel, I have no interest in the discussion. I did not state that I have a problem with all of your criticisms, so please do not put words in my mouth. I specifically keyed in on the problem of *mystery*, and I never stated nor implied that it overshadowed all your other criticisms. It was glaringly obvious, so I'm not sure why I need to spoon feed you the obvious.

I went out of my way to express appreciation for the work you do for the participants here, and my intention was not only to validate your thoughts on the problem of mystery, but also to express gratitude for the other helpful things you do. What else can I do to play the friendly gentleman here?

quote:

---

This story isn't a MYSTERY. If it was I would have no problem with mystery at the start.

---

You are conflating mystery the genre with mystery in terms of the continuum of mystery and knowledge. I am not speaking of mystery the genre here at all, but the issue of mystery in terms of knowledge and the unknown would apply to that genre as well. It applies to all genres.

When a writer explores meaningful things, there are all kinds of mystery to them – no matter how much they explain. There doesn't have to be a crime committed in order to use writing to explore mystery of the mind, of science, of morality, of conscience, or of uncountable other things. Mystery (not the genre) is part of the fun of it and part of the interest I have in reading and writing.

Therefore, there are many possibilities in the range of mystery that a writer might want to maintain, and there are many reasons for doing so. I might not want to reveal the ethnicity of a character, for example, so as not to prejudice the readers' judgments regarding his perspective. But that is just one reason out of thousands.

Furthermore, I don't like seeing an aspiring writer getting discouraged because they do not have the same bias against mystery that some readers and writers do.

quote:

---

If you're in first person POV, you can't start the book with the protagonist seeing a killer and not noticing anything but his hat and shoes.

---

Why not?

quote:

---

How does he know that he's a HE?

---

Why does he have to explain why the protagonist has a particular piece of knowledge? He knows he's a he – what's hard about that?

quote:

---

This doesn't build suspense, it is confusing -- unless alternately explained –

---

It does create a psychological tension – whether you call this suspense or not is up to you, but the beginning of a story does not necessarily have to begin with suspense.

What is confusing about it? It seems very straight-forward, simple, and clear to me.

quote:

---

and it makes you OBVIOUSLY WITHHOLDING necessary information.

---

So what? Virtually every piece of literature withholds information until the writer sees fit to divulge it. In the case of I Drempt of Bees, musthavebeenmykarma is writing the immediate stream of conscious experiences of the protagonist, and that is not the best time to "make introductions." Additionally, a first person singular point of view has plenty of time to introduce his name – if he introduces it at all. I have been studying the masters lately, and very few of them "make introductions" in the first person at such an early point. Probably because it is an awkward thing to do from FPS, and it requires some interaction to git 'er done.

So, I have to ask – what is wrong with withholding information?

quote:

---

IT WOULD MAKE ME PUT A BOOK DOWN.

---

I think that is your loss. Why do you have such a strong aversion to something that is very common among virtually all good writers?

quote:

---

I can't name one single character from this thirteen lines. Three are mentioned. I don't know what any of them look like, but I do know that the INVISIBLE man wears shoes and a red cap.

---

So what? I don't need to know their names to become engaged in what is clearly a very unusual situation. Not knowing their names *enhances* my curiosity; it doesn't damage it in the slightest.

quote:

---

So, in turn, I pose this question to you, mfreivald:

Can the story be as -- or more -- compelling by NOT withholding important details from the reader?

---

I would say it depends upon the story and the objectives of the author. Of course, I cannot claim to have some omniscient perspective that knows all possibilities about how to tell all stories; however, I would wager there are many stories that can be made less compelling by "NOT withholding important details from the reader." Whether I Drempt of Bees is one of those stories, I cannot say at this point. I would encourage musthavebeenmykarma to try both ways and decide which way was more compelling – but I certainly wouldn't discourage either.

quote:

---

Unless it is a mystery novel, withholding information is:

...cheating the reader.

---

I think that is an absurd thing to say. How does withholding information "cheat" a reader? I would challenge you from the other direction – Could denying the reader a gradual revelation of mystery cheat them of the opportunity to find value in the story that can be gained by speculation and wonder?

quote:

---

...destroying the writer's credibility

---

How in the world does withholding information destroy a writer's credibility?

quote:

---

...violating POV.

---

Exactly what rule of POV is being violated by withholding information?

quote:

---

So, by all means, keep them guessing who your characters are and what your story is about. That'll keep the readers turning pages...

---

Your hyperbole and sarcasm does not help us to explore the issues. Let's keep a healthy perspective here – We are talking about the first 13 lines. The importance of the first thirteen is to grab the readers' interest. That does not require that all mystery is dispelled in that small frame, and it doesn't condemn the readers to a story of guessing. musthavebeenmykarma succeeded in getting my attention to some degree, and I have no reason to believe at this point that the critical information won't be revealed when I need it.

quote:

---

PS - I don't care if you use the subject, but don't take anything out of context. If you use this situation, include everything.

---

I don't know what you mean by "include everything." I'm certainly not going to cut and paste this entire conversation. I will include what is relevant. However, with your level of sensitivity, I think I will avoid using *your* words at all.

quote:

---

The first 13 lines of the Fight Club leave you confidant that your questions will be answered. It's clear that the author is in descriptive mode, and I'm assuming he'll explain the situation when he's done describing the man.

---

Well, to me it is clear that the first 13 lines of I Drempt of Bees is in stream of conscious mode, and I assumed that musthavebeenmykarma would explain what was necessary of the situation when he was done streaming through the immediate action. I really had no less confidence in musthavebeenmykarma than I did in Palahniuk.

quote:

---

However, musthavebeenmykarma raises the major question of why the MC is so concerned with his sandwich when his best friend's murderer has just come in and then holds off answering it.

---

I didn't think there was any question to be raised about the concern for his sandwich. The question in my mind was what was so frightening about the other guy that made him go into a denial mode and obsess on a silly, meaningless sandwich. Another possibility – depending on how you read it – is to wonder what kind of person this was who was so extremely apathetic about the presence of this potentially demonic character that he remained self-absorbed with his culinary pursuits. I don't think there was any special meaning to the sandwich. On the other hand – it's a mystery that gives me no pain.

quote:

---

And then more questions are raised. By the end of the first 13 lines, I don't have great confidence that musthavebeenmykarma is going to answer these questions anytime soon because so far we've only been given hints and questions.

---

I guess I don't see much difference with your problems with musthavebeenmykarma's story and Fight Club. More questions were raised in Fight Club, too. Why was the guy shaking a rope in his face? Why is he being dragged? As I read further, Fight Club raised more questions and just got really weird. It wasn't until about 35 lines into it that he got to the point he was trying to get to – and Palahniuk didn't explain the significance of the point until several pages later. What's more – he didn't explain any of the preceding stuff about the original scene. We don't learn their names. We don't learn where they were. We don't learn how he got there. We don't learn what happened afterwards. We never learn the purpose of him being there. In retrospect – I have more confidence that musthavebeenmykarma is going to answer my questions than Palahniuk is. And quite frankly, I have a much better feel for the psychological condition of musthavebeenmykarma's character (at least speculatively) than I do of Palahniuk's for several pages.

So I'm still searching for an answer to this mysterious question.

quote:

---

I've been reading a few books on the craft of writing lately, …

---

I have read several lately, and it is rare that they have made issue of this.

quote:

---

…and they are unanimous in the assertion that it doesn't pay to deliberately obscure information from the reader.

---

On the other hand, I am not making any claims that you shouldn't be judicious about it. Some of the instructors on the craft of writing probably frequently come across aspiring authors who hide information to produce a cheap stunt. They want to create some kind of simple-minded surprise that reveals that the author purposely deceived them. But we aren't far enough into I Drempt of Bees to be concerned about that at all. And there is a world of difference between withholding information to trick the reader and withholding information for the purpose of leading the reader into the mystery of a situation.

quote:

---

There are examples across the board - from openings like this where no MC name is mentioned…

---

For all we know, the MC name is mentioned in the 14th line. Or the 23rd line. That is plenty early.

quote:

---

…and too many mysterious questions are raised and then ignored by the author.

---

An ignored question might be annoying. However, an author cannot possibly address every question that might occur to the reader. The author needs to be judicious in addressing the questions he raised. Still – even if the author does not ignore a question, he isn't obligated to provide an explicit answer. (An explicit answer might even *ruin* the story.)

quote:

---

There are examples where the author is writing in first person POV and deliberately hides key facts from the reader "I remembered from the conversation with Delia earlier that she xxx fact that I didn't tell you about when I wrote the Delia conversation dialogue." Etc.

---

This comes across to me as a lazy author who realized he missed something, and revealed it in conversation so the story makes sense, instead of knitting it into the earlier part of the story where it belongs. That's annoying because it is just plain crappy writing. But it has little to do with deliberately maintaining mystery by withholding information.

quote:

---

So, I'd suggest that it's generally not a good idea to hide key facts about your story from the reader, unless they serve some plot purpose.

---

I think it does musthavebeenmykarma a disservice to assume there is no purpose for maintaining the mystery in the first 13 lines (or beyond). It is also possible that musthavebeenmykarma has bigger priorities than filling us in immediately.

A longer read of the story would undoubtedly tell us more, but I certainly don't think we should be intolerant of the level of mystery in musthavebeenmykarma's first 13 with the little we know right now.

Write On,
Mark

quote:

---

And this has suddenly become your thread.

---

quote:

---

You have my permission to start a topic on "Putting mystery into the first 13 lines" or some such, mfreivald, if you need it.

---

Thank you, Kathleen. I think I will do that, but I need to find a different way to formulate it with examples. I don't think it would be constructive using the comments here any more.

This is a bit too surreal for me. I don't mind not knowing who the "he" is but i did mind not knowing why the MC knew "he" wasn't real. Also with first person, I didn't mind knowing who the MC was because he/she hasn't interacted with anyone yet but would want that resolved shortly.

You have a flashback in the first paragraph. First the MC sees "him" and then remembers hearing the footsteps. It's distracting to me. Either start with the footsteps and the reaction or the moment "he" comes into the MC's line of sight.

The "he killed my friend" is just hanging out doing nothing for me. If "he" killed the MC's friend, whether or not he is real, isn't the Mc going to react by doing somthing other than grilling a sandwich? Is seeing people who are not "real" so normal to the MC that s/he is blase about it?

How is a cap demonic?

How does the non-real person leave muddy foot prints?

The MC seems to be focused on very odd things. I could go along with those perceptions if I understood why.

Give me a bit more to go on. Right now you haven't hooked me. I don't trust that the questions this 13 raises will be answered.

Also - "wondered" should probably be "wandered."