That said, Damon has his opinion -- so when we submit to Damon, we'll write slower starts.
Conflict is still a good opening, even for someone who says this. The difference is that the conflict doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be) life-threatning, someone's about to die any minute. This is something I've tried to point out on F&F a couple of times. Every so often we get an opening that is interesting, that introduces character and a problem that the character has, but doesn't put them in mortal peril, in a mutant zoo, or otherwise doing something that is so out of the ordinary that for some it forces you to keep reading and for others it makes you think the reader is trying a cheap trick.
Personally, I think anyone who dismisses either kind of opening as amateur in unworthy is a close-minded fool. If I know of a specific preference, I will watch what a send to an editor but it still won't mean I like them all that much. I have increasingly less and less respect for WOTF, for example, who won't read a story if the speculative element isn't present in the first pargarph, preferably the first sentence.
I have to respectfully disagree with you about WOTF, though. I had a story place in the quarter finals with nothing speculative until most of the way down the third page. What gives you the impression that they won't read it if the speculative element isn't right up front? (I'm sure you have a good reason for saying this, and I'm curious as to whether I was just lucky and they kept reading because they were in a really good mood or something.)
That said, several items on the list seemed to have been violated at some point or another by at least one winner. I can only suppose that the judge doesn't have the list sitting next to her and ocassionally finds something else in the story good enough to keep her going.
It took me the LONGEST time to figure out what IMO meant. I should have just swallowed my pride (was that a breeze from the cliche storm?) and asked.
Anyway, F&F stands for the Fragments and Feedback forum.
WOTF is Writers of the Future--check out their website. It's a bigtime contest for new up and comings in the speculative market.
[This message has been edited by djvdakota (edited March 28, 2005).]
Don't be cliche
Don't be lazy
Don't be boring
To me the abosutely most boring topic available is sharecropping, farming, or agricultural life. I would not willingly choose to read a story about farms.
But with that said in the hands of John Steinbech, The Grapes of Wrath seizes my attention, holds me bound, and makes me give a d*** about a subject I don't care about.
A good hook is not necessarily a "drama" moment or a cliffhanger. A good hook is "I WANT TO READ MORE."
His opening was about dust! how exciting is erosion? Do you really want to go about talking about erosion? But I dare you pick up that beginning and see if it doesn't build a compelling sense of impending doom.
He breaks conventions of writing time and time again yet I am hooked by the story. he especially loves POV violations showing you the viewpoint of several characters simultenously. Describing things that people could not possibly see. For example:
Tom saw the figure down the road. The dust rose around it like a red fog. The person must be at least a mile off. The approaching figure slouched as he walked wearing a dirty coat, worn boat shaped shoes, under a filthy ruined cap with a flopping brim. Tiny stern eyes burned with fierce blueness from under the brim. Thin lips stretched across large crooked teeth.
How could Tom possibly see this a mile off especially when the man was obscured by a cloud of dust?
Why do we forgive and even love this type of writing? Because the story is d*** good.
Your hook shouldn't be cheap and easy- it should be "damned good."
JB Skaggs