posted
I've done a lot of reading lately, and one of the books I read was "Creating Short Fiction", by Damon Knight, SF author/editor, who should know what he is talking about. He says about the opening of a short story : don't try to grab the reader by the throat. He'd rather see a gradual engagement of the reader's interest than cheap tactics (he mentions using a hook sentence as part of those cheap tactis). He even went so far as saying that he would reject out of hand those stories as the work of amateurs. And on second thought I must say that I agree with him; I give a short story time to unfold in my head before I toss the book away. The question is: are there many people like that out there? Is a hook really that important, or do you just have to pique the reader's interest rather than savagely grab it? [I know editors obviously don't all work like Damon Knight]
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Sep 2004
|
posted
I will read through a slow setup gladly, if... if... if.. it's written really well and the information given is intriguing. I don't necessarily need a strong hook -- I just need one thing to care about.
That said, Damon has his opinion -- so when we submit to Damon, we'll write slower starts.
posted
Be careful not to misinterpret what he's saying. He's saying that blatant hooks are cheap. Goiing into a book and dropping a crazy bombshell on the reader to keep them reading is cheap. What he did not say, and what I am sure he did not mean, is that he does not want anything at all to interest him in that opening. The line between creating interest and creating a cheap trick to get the reader to keep reading is fine indeed, but it's there.
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.
posted
I think it would be nice if we didn't have to shoot the sheriff on the first page, at least not all the time, but I doubt many other editors will agree.
Posts: 2830 | Registered: Dec 2004
|
posted
Christine, I think you're right on target when you point out the distinction between a "cheap" hook and an effective one. And the hook has to be integral to the story, not just an attention-grabber. (I had this pointed out to me over the weekend in a critique group I belong to. I had a hook, but it left people confused because its importance only became obvious later in the story.)
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.)
posted
From what I've heard, you got quite lucky. I have seen this repeatedly listed under "What to do/not to do when submitting to WOTF" by people who have won/been published in their anthology. They reportedly got it straight from the source when they went to the awards ceremony/winner's retreat.
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.
posted
Someone said there's no such thing as a stupid question, but I'm afraid this one might be pretty stupid after all. What do WOTF and F&F stand for?
Posts: 179 | Registered: Mar 2005
|
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."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
