quote:

---

4. Don't do in medias res. Just don't. The cost is very high. Story is the ordered presentation of causally-related events, so it is best to start at the beginning and work through to the end chronologically (of course, all rules are meant to be broken, but every rule breakage has a cost you must understand and pay).

---

An online drama dictionary states this as

quote:

---

Beginning a story with a major event and explaining the background to it at a later time.

---

I would like to know:
1. Is this an appropriate definition? Because I have seen many stories (good ones too) start at some sort of hook action, but the background and greater meaning to the story only developed later.
2. What is the cost that Verloren suggested will have to be paid?
2. Does this "rule" conflict with the "rule" of starting at the critical point of change/realisation/action?

I would say "don't use it" is going to far. Absolutes are rarely a good idea. Rather, I would say don't use it unless you are a very experienced writer who knows what you are doing.

There certainly are costs. If nothing else, you are pretty much forced to use flashbacks which most readers have a very limited tolerance for. You run into the issue that it is somewhat considered an outdated technique so you'll have resistance from editors.

Edit:

quote:

---

Does this "rule" conflict with the "rule" of starting at the critical point of change/realisation/action?

---

No, it doesn't, because with the in media res you start after the critical point instead of at it. But as I said, I think you have to be very careful with stating "rules." And this one has been broken by nearly too many great writers in the past. It is simply a technique not to be used by the unwary.

Let me say that I wouldn't do it, not at this time. I simply don't think I have the skill to pull it off.

On looking at your definition, I realize that it is inadequate. I think (I'm willing to admit others might define it differently) that a better definition would be starting in the middle of the story.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited September 06, 2007).]

Some great novels have used this structure. Two issues come to mind, both related to suspense:

Character arc: usually I associate character arc with the whole span of the story. But you might want a substantial arc from the beginning to the crisis point, to launch the resolution. When the crisis point is presented first, you can still develop the arc when you return to the earliest part of the story, but there is no suspense or surprise in the arc, which sometimes can be a major feature of a story.

Plot suspense: this is too obvious to mention, but that won't stop me: if the Martians zap Congress on page 1, it will be no surprise on page 150.

The part about IMR that bothers me is you often have to do a flashback to catch up. If you're just going to do a flashback as soon as you start, why bother? I agree its worked for lots of novels, but it's probably to the point of being overdone. So I won't ever do it unless I'm sure I'm doing it right.

However, if one could do an IMR opening without needing to flash back and fill in story, I think that would be better.

The biggest problem with most people's understanding of IMR (I like that abbreviation, thanks) is that they think it means to start in the middle of some kind of action scene (a fight, a chase, etc), but when they start like that readers are usually not given any reason to care or want to keep reading.

Damon Knight always said that you should start the story when things start happening, not after they've been happening for a while.

However, the question was specifically about In Medias Res, and general discussions about beginnings can be expanded in the original topic (Where do I begin? by Tisiphone).

So far, what I have gleaned from this discussion is:

1. In medias res is starting after the critical point
2. In medias res is starting in the middle (a bit different to point 1 and to the original definition)
3. In medias res can require flashbacks, which comes with their own baggage
4. In medias res may be something that editors dislike (I assume for the same reason as flashbacks)

I hope there is more, because having three different definitions makes the issue really quite vague, particularly if editors make it a criterion for rejection. Do editors reject on this basis?

(Edit: Sorry Kathleen, I hadn't seen what you said when I wrote this. Now that I have, I'll say more.)

I have a story that has a scene structure like this

Present* - Past - Past - Past - Past - Past - Past* - Past - Present - Present - Future

Now it could be written straight through, however, there is a key relationship that begins briefly at the Past* scene, but is not established until the Present* scene. This relationship has a critical impact on the MC, so I want the audience looking for its beginning throughout the story. Further, the only real place for (IMO) a satisfying hook in this story is in regard to this relationship. Is this a reasonable candidate for using the IMR approach?

But that's only if you put the climax at the opening. Say the martians zap congress. So, when you reach that point you discover that congress had been taken over by Jovians and the story goes on to places you didn't anticipate.

I'm writing a short story right now that opens in media res as a guy is crawling around on the outside of a space station with people shooting at him. Then we go find out how he got in that situation and why. After that the full problem becomes apparent: he's going somewhere to do something...but then there is a plot twist. So, just knowing why he's out there and being shot at doesn't ruin the story. There are plenty of surprises left.

quote:

---

Damon Knight always said that you should start the story when things start happening, not after they've been happening for a while.

---

quote:

---

Lehollis suggested that I was asking about beginnings in general, and then gave some interesting advice on how to understand where the beginning is. The advice is great! However...

However, the question was specifically about In Medias Res, and general discussions about beginnings can be expanded in the original topic (Where do I begin? by Tisiphone).

---

Actually, I wasn't suggestion you were asking about beginnings in general. At least, that wasn't my intent.

My thought was that any question about IMR also included some question on beginnings in general. IMR is a beginning, so I think it's natural for a conversation on IMR to wander into beginnings.

The last paragraph of my post spoke of openings in general, but it was still intended within the context of looking at IMR as a possibility. My point with that was simply that one should look at lots of possibly openings, including IMR, and not just ask IMR or NOT IMR. I realize now it wasn't very clear, in that regard.

The definition of IMR that I use is from my Handbook to Literature (from my college days): A term from Horace, literally meaning "in the midst of things." It is applied to the literary technique of opening a story in the middle of the action and then supplying information about the beginning of the action through flashbacks and other devices for exposition. The term in medias res is usually applied to the epic, where such an opening is one of the conventions."

The problem with IMR that most beginning writers have is that they start a story in the "present" and then in the next paragraph do a flashback. This is an immediate giveaway that the story should have started with the flashback.

Writers also use it to "hide" important information, assuming that they are creating suspense, when they are instead frustrating the user.

It is also interesting to note that the technique is formulaic for the "epic", which is hardly written anymore. It is an antiquated device that goes against the expectations of most modern readers. Note, however, that I am NOT talking about flashbacks being antiquated. They are still useful and even necessary since you can't tell everything at once (even in an info dump). But, it is still hard to control. From Characters & Viewpoint (pg 111-112): "The most obvious technique [for describing the past] - and the least effective and most overused - is the flashback . . . . A rule of thumb: If you feel a need to have a flashback on the first or second page of your story, either your story should begin with the events of the flashback, or you should get us involved with some compelling present characters and events before flashing back."

You also asked about the cost. The cost of a flashback is that your readers may lose the thread of the "present". There are ways around that, but I've already typed too much and I need to go fix my IMR story ;-)

"Starting in the middle" is the usually accepted definition of the term.

I don't see it done in a lot of novels that are current, but it is done in some. However if you look at both novels and other storytelling such as epic poetry, it has a long and venerable history.

As I think I said, or at any rate it was what I meant, we shouldn't write it off as something that should never, ever be done. But it involves techniques that aren't generally popular and are difficult for a new author to use well.

So I would never advise it for an inexperience author (my own take on the subject). I would seriously hesitate to use it myself. I just doubt my ability to use it.

Let me say why. I don't know how many of you have done a flashback, but in one of the novels I have out now I included a flashback. I really want that flashback in. It is in the middle of the novel, but it kind of explains the relationship between two of the characters and explains quite a bit about how one of them ended up how she is.

But it doesn't work. I read about flashbacks. I tinkered with the flashback. I got advise on that flashback. *sighs* It still doesn't work. Well, I left it in and we'll see what an editor says when they look at it.

But I'm honestly, for the stage in my career, not a bad writer. I have some pretty decent skills, not great but some skills. But that was just stretching my ability. When people say, don't do a flashback, what they really mean (in my opinion) is don't do it unless you're good enough to pull it off. The same with in IMR. (yes good abbreviation)

Ok--end of lecture. You get what I'm saying. If you feel you really need to do an IMR, of course, you should. But don't expect it to be easy to pull off.

Damon Knight also said that writers should test every "rule" they are given against the stories that actually get published, and I add that they should test those "rules" against the published stories that they especially enjoy.

Also, you can break any "rule," if you know why it is a rule, so you know how it can be broken, and if you are willing to pay the price of breaking it.

In media res does not necessarily mean in the middle of a conversation, though it can. So Damon's example did not necessarily contradict the above rule. In media res can mean exactly what Damon was talking about when he said "when things start happening."

The encouragement to start a story "in media res" most likely grew out of frustration with authors who have to spend pages (if not chapters) on set up. If your reader is thinking along the lines of "when is anything going to happen?" or "when is it going to get interesting?" you may need to get rid of some (if not all) of your "set up."

Of course, what the "middle" is can be variously interpreted but I don't think it is usually interpreted to mean when the action starts. It doesn't have to start mid-conversation, of course, but usually past what would be considered a logical starting point.

I have to kind of disagree, Kathleen, about what in media res grew out of. Since many would say that the Illiad is written in media res, it is probably one of the oldest storytelling techniques in existance.

One of the most frequent objections to the technique is that it pretty much forces the writer to use flashbacks. Interestingly enough, right after we started this discussion I just critted a story over at Critters Workshop that was in media res.

I think the author thought that the starting point he chose made a better hook than the real starting point, although there was ample action at both. This is probably why authors are sometimes tempted to use it. The thing is that then about half of the 6000 word short story was FLASHBACK.

He handled the flashback fairly well, but I thought it definitely hurt the story. It's the common problem with the technique. It's hard to maintain tension when for most of the story you already know what is going to happen at an important high point (although not the conclusion).

What should have been an exciting point in the story ended up a bit of a yawn. But I agree that nothing is an absolute rule. Just remember it's a darn hard thing to pull off, so don't do it lightly.

Usually, when I see an IMR opening, I find I've forgotten what the hook was by the time I'm done with the ponderous flashback.

An IMR opening might also give the author a chance to set up a narrator. The flashback can then be told from the viewpoint of a character dangling in peril or something. It might have a "how did this happen to me?" sort of tone, perhaps. I think I've seen this where the IMR-point was set just before the climax.