I like, usually, what I read first to take place before what I read next. Sometimes this intuitive expectation is broken by flashback sequences, or prophetic dreams, or something and that's okay.
But in my new WIP I open with a scene that happens directly after the following scene. No explanation is given, I just happen to think it's a better opening.
Imagine you open up to a reader watching a shooting star streak upwards into the sky, wondering about it. And in the next you're the astronaut about to blast off and you become the "star," the initial pov witnessed.
Would this kind of thing work for you, or would it confuse you?
Posted by Wolfe_boy (Member # 5456) on :
Personally I would think that the author started the story in the wrong place. Or I wouldn't necessarily connect the two events without a significant signpost (like a chapter title that says Seven Hours Ago" or somesuch).
It sounds like the opening scene is vestigal, from the brief description you're giving. If it was done well I night not notice it, but done poorly I could be very confused. Tread carefully.
Jayson Merryfield
Posted by Gardener (Member # 7948) on :
I think it depends on the relationship built into the paragraphs. To use your example - the shooting star. If the first paragraph describes someone witnessing it and wondering. Then the next paragraph describes a similar visual, but we come inside the shooting star to discover the astronaut is the previous witness, then you have tied them together.
Does that make sense?
Posted by Jo1day (Member # 7800) on :
From my point of view it would depend on the overall length of the two scenes, and how well you connected them. For example, if you just plunked down someone looking at the shooting star or whatever, and the next moment you were at the point of view of the person in the space suit, that might be jarring.
Also you want to ask yourself, what's the purpose of the first scene? Does it establish anything important for the story, like the setting that the whole story is going to be in? Or does it just "look" pretty. If it just looks pretty, scrap it and try to find something else to hook the readers in.
Posted by Doctor (Member # 7736) on :
The first scene establishes the setting in a way that the second POV cannot. Which is why I want it to be the first "thing" my reader will encounter. It would work beautifully, if not for the lapse in chronology.
Posted by Wolfe_boy (Member # 5456) on :
Well, why not give us a few more concrete details, so we can give you a better answer that just "if you do it right it could be good." Based on the shooting star example you've given us, I can't see how the POV of an on-the-ground observer has much if anything to do with the astronaut who is piloting a spaceship being launched into the heavens.
Jayson Merryfield
Posted by annepin (Member # 5952) on :
I think there'd have to be a better reason than aesthetics (ie that it's just a better opening). By putting the later event first, I think it puts an emphasis on that later event and suggests a strong meaning in character a's witnessing of the star, more than just as an entry into the piece.
Posted by Jo1day (Member # 7800) on :
Which is more important to the story? To establish the setting or to keep things chronological? My suggestion is you try outlining your story, keeping track of how one event leads to another, consequences, that sort of thing, and then make your decision.
Posted by KayTi (Member # 5137) on :
TV shows do this a lot. Start with a teaser scene, then "24 hours earlier" or some such.
The thing is, though, they have the visual thing on their side.
If you were to use a TV show as "permission" to do this, I'd suggest following the quasi-standard I've noticed, which is that once you do the jump BACK in time, you then proceed to tell the story forward in time (in past tense, of course) from there. No more back and forthing along your timeline. Too confusing for the reader. That kind of stuff will take them outside the story, give them another reason to put down your story or to feel like they're reading instead of being lost in the story you're telling.
Posted by Doctor (Member # 7736) on :
Good point Wolfe_boy,
Well, the first pov is the viewpoint of someone who lives in the setting that will host the majority of the story, and in whose mind already knows the "threat" (hook) and from whose perspective I can launch the story. She sees "clouds" (which are sails) and thinks of a prophecy that magic clouds would mark the end of the curse. The second is a traveling newcomer, on a ship, which ends up getting stranded there against his will.
It is important that the first character witnesses the crash, but also important that the second character experiences the crash. I want to form expository on both scenes. Since they are the same event a redundancy occurs.
Posted by Wolfe_boy (Member # 5456) on :
Doctor, from what I'm reading, It's not that the two scenes take place at different points in time, but that they are essentially simultaneous, which is a-ok in my books. Nothing quite like a little hint of Rashomon-style POV's to pique my interest.
Jayson Merryfield
Posted by Doctor (Member # 7736) on :
Oh ok good. Just to make sure I was clear though. The first scene is the girl watching the sky and seeing the sails, and the shipwreck. The second scene is the crew sailing, they run into a storm. And they experience the shipwreck first hand.
Would that be too much overlap? There's a reason why I want to show it from two points of view, but I just want to avoid confusion too.
[This message has been edited by Doctor (edited May 02, 2008).]