quote:

---

On the first Monday of April 1625, the market town of Meung, the birthplace of the author of the Roman de la Rose, was in a wild state of excitement. The commotion could not have been greater if the Huguenots had arrived to make a second La Rochelle of it. Many of the wealthier citizens, seeing the women running towards the High Street and hearing the children screaming on the doorsteps of their houses, hastily buckled on their cuirasses and, to give themselves an air of greater assurance than they really possessed, seized muskets or halberds. Thus armed they made for the Jolly Miller Inn, where they found a dense and excited throng of people swarming in from all directions.

At that time panics were frequent and few days passed without one town or another recording in its archives some event of this kind. Noblemen were at war with one another; the King was at war with the Cardinal; Spain was at war with the King. And besides these public and private wars there were other elements which kept the French countryside in a state of almost perpetual unrest, notably thieves, beggars, Huguenots, and rabble of all sorts. The citizens always took up arms against this rabble; they often fought the noblemen and the Huguenots, sometimes even the king, though never Spain or the Cardinal. So, from sheer force of habit, on this bright April morning, hearing an uproar and seeing neither the red and yellow standard of Spain nor the Duc de Richelieu’s livery, the citizens rushed in a body to the Jolly Miller Inn, prepared for battle.

---

Is this a good hook? Would you want to read more?

The first paragraph was ok, but I'd rather have a focus on one character, I think, than a crowd. I was also thrown by "the birthplace of the author of the Roman de la Rose," and thought what? Who cares? And I didn't understand the reference to "make a second La Rochelle of it."

http://www.briankeany.co.uk/First%20Lines.htm

I think it's the lack of any specific character to latch onto. That, coupled with a noteworthy environment, would have me hooked. I generally like being introduced to people in the beginnings of stories, so I wouldn't continue reading.

Beth, that's quite a quiz: I only got one! Ulysses.

What this opening does, IMO, is create a larger setting for the novel; which is important.

Because this is a classic novel, orignially serialized in a Paris newspaper, some of the references (more obscure to non-French, modern readers) go a long way to giving a setting.

We know something is happening; there is a disturbance. We also know that this isn't an uncommon occurance, in fact, it has become a reflex for the country folk of France to come running, sword in hand, to fight whomever might be imposing on their town (unless it is Spain or the Cardinal).

Although we are not overtly introduced to any characters, there are subtle hints that play an important part throughout the story. We are told about the King of France (who is at war internally and externally; and has limited respect from his citizens) and Cardinal Richelieu (who is at war with the King, but has little or no resistence from the citizens of France).

I agree that this isn't a hook that reaches out and screams, "READ ME!!!", I do find it has a way of pulling a reader in until the next thing you know you've barely slept in three days because you have to read just one more chapter before going to bed.

------

Thanks for the quiz. I only got a couple of them, but then again, I have't read most of the books on the list.

I wonder if Dumas read the opening lines of some contemporary fiction, would he be aghast? Would he think we rushed into the story too quickly? Politics can be complicated, and may require a broader setup, even in today's fiction.

We're so used to 3rd person limited, that if we don't get our character introduced immediately, we feel lost. I did, anyway. I really wanted to know who was watching all this action? Who was going to do something?

Speaking of which, I just looked up the begining of Les Mis and it ain't so steller either, at least not according to what Hatrack prefers:

quote:

---

In 1815, M. Charles-Francois-Bienvenu Myriel was Bishop of D---- He was an old man of about seventy-five years of age; he had occupied the see of D---- since 1806.

Although this detail has no connection whatever with the real substance of what we are about to relate, it will not be superfluous, if merely for the sake of exactness in all points, to mention here the various rumors and remarks which had been in circulation about him from the very moment when he arrived in the diocese. True or false, that which is said of men often occupies as important a place in their lives, and above all in their destinies, as that which they do. M. Myriel was the son of a councillor of the Parliament of Aix; hence he belonged to the nobility of the bar. It was said that his father, destining him to be the heir of his own post, had married him at a very early age, eighteen or twenty, in accordance with a custom which is rather widely prevalent in parliamentary families. In spite of this marriage, however, it was said that Charles Myriel created a great deal of talk. He was well formed, though rather short in stature, elegant, graceful, intelligent; the whole of the first portion of his life had been devoted to the world and to gallantry.

---

I realize it may depend slightly on the translation. Does this hook you at all?

So, are there any books that do not start out with a character introduction that are "good" in today's fiction? Can't think of any offhand, will look.

>It was said that his father, destining him to be the heir of his own post, had married him at a very early age,

(yes, yes, I know).

I like this one, actually. We're introduced to a character (although I'd prefer to see him doing something) who sounds interesting, and the part about

> Although this detail has no connection whatever with the real substance of what we are about to relate,

made me laugh a little, and I'm now curious to read a little more to see if the author can pull that style off. Between marrying his father and authorial intrusion I am skeptical, but willing to give it a few more paragraphs.

But here is a (very slightly edited to disguise it for those who haven't read it) beginning from roughly the same time, and this one completely works for me:

Some years ago -- never mind how long precisely--having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen, and regulating the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people's hats off -- then I account it high time to get to sea as soon as possible.

We're also dealing with two different artistic sensibilities from two different periods in time. Dumas was more of a popularist, and the American you quote above is at the trailing end of the paradigm-shattering romantic movement. American romanticism evolved differently than the original European flavor, but Dumas' work wasn't considered part of the romantic aesthetic (at least, not that I know of).

Since we are products of a different age, have different sensibilities, and bring to the text our historical baggage regarding the text itself, there's no way we can read these except as 21st century people. Dumas did not have such an influence on American writing as the author you quote--his influence is felt to this day and some might say he still has no equal (I think Hawthorne was one of the best American writers, ever).

Because we're basically all still imitating him (originally pub. 1881) and not Dumas (1844), and because he's American and sounds "more like us," and--most importanatly of all--because he's an infinitely more talented writer than Dumas, you're darn tootin' he's got the hook! I mean, could there be a more famous first line? (the one you left out ) It strikes you like the voice of God.

I could get slammed for suggesting this, but he just might be the guy that practially invented "the hook," forty years after Dumas and his prim & tweedling little opening paragraphs. You could not have come up with a better example.

mb, I did a quick survey of the books on my shelf last night, and found some evidence for your hypothesis. The Americans(and I didn't pay too much attention to dates, just vaguely mid-19th cent)generally started with a person; the Europeans generally started with scenery/the general environment. And I liked the American openings a lot more than the European openings.

The two exceptions (beginnings I liked) were Anna Karenina and Pride and Prejudice, but they start with sweeping social pronouncements and then move on to characters promptly. They don't fit the pattern.

The negative exception was Wuthering Heights, which starts by introducing a character, but in a way that seemed really dull to me.

quote:

---

It was a feature peculiar to the colonial wars of North America, that the toils and dangers of the wilderness were to be encountered before the adverse hosts could meet. A wide and apparently an impervious boundary of forests severed the possessions of the hostile provinces of France and England. The hardy colonist, and the trained European who fought at his side, frequently expended months in struggling against the rapids of the streams, or in effecting the rugged passes of the mountains, in quest of an opportunity to exhibit their courage in a more martial conflict. But, emulating the patience and self-denial of the practiced native warriors, they learned to overcome every difficulty; and it would seem that, in time, there was no recess of the woods so dark, nor any secret place so lovely, that it might claim exemption from the inroads of those who had pledged their blood to satiate their vengeance, or to uphold the cold and selfish policy of the distant monarchs of Europe.

Perhaps no district throughout the wide extent of the intermediate frontiers can furnish a livelier picture of the cruelty and fierceness of the savage warfare of those periods than the country which lies between the head waters of the Hudson and the adjacent lakes.

---

This is the opening of a famous American novel published in 1826. The author, as is his custom, begins with description; using words to paint a mental picture. No characters to be found.

While I love the book, I have to admit this opening drags a bit. But how important is that really? This sort of connects with Lorien's thread How much patience?. If we are willing to read beyond the first couple of paragraphs; if we are willing to read past the first couple of pages; if the language draws in long enough to ease us into the story; then does the hook have to jerk us in? If the language is sound and the writing is good, why can't we take things a little slower?

I don't know if it is an "Era issue" or a "Cultural issue". It is probably a bit of both. Perhaps we've gotten so used to a "Wham, bam, thank you, ma'am" style, that if we don't get to the heart of the story within seconds, we just aren't interested.

As for Hawthorne, he is a good writer and though I've only read The Scarlet Letter, I don't find his style much different than his contempories. In fact I'd say the opening to Letter isn't much different in style from Musketeers.

quote:

---

A THRONG of bearded men, in sad-colored garments and gray, steeple-crowned hats, intermixed with women, some wearing hoods, and others bareheaded, was assembled in front of a wooden edifice, the door of which was heavily timbered with oak, and studded with iron spikes.

The founders of a new colony, whatever Utopia of human virtue and happiness they might originally project, have invariably recognized it among their earliest practical necessities to allot a portion of the virgin soil as a cemetery, and another portion as the site of a prison. In accordance with this rule, it may safely be assumed that the forefathers of Boston had built the first prison-house, somewhere in the vicinity of Cornhill, almost as seasonably as they marked out the first burial-ground, on Isaac Johnson’s lot, and round about his grave, which subsequently became the nucleus of all the congregated sepulchres in the old church-yard of King’s Chapel. Certain it is, that, some fifteen or twenty years after the settlement of the town, the wooden jail was already marked with weather-stains and other indications of age, which gave a yet darker aspect to its beetle-browed and gloomy front....

---

For Beth, I must admit that I have not yet read the novel you are alluding to, but it is one of the many I want to read some day. The opening is strong and the author has my attention. I have heard, though, that sections of that book are extremely technical and difficult to read.

My apologies for rambling so much, but I'm finding this to be a stimulating discussion.

on the other hand, one of the greatest books i have ever read sold me in the first sentence. sells most people in the first sentence. now i'm gonna be like the rest of you and make...you...guess.

“When I finally caught up with Abraham Trahearne, he was drinking beer with an alcoholic bulldog named Fireball Roberts in a ramshackle joint just outside of Sonoma, California, drinking the heart right out of a fine spring afternoon.”