Once I've made enough of a commitment to actually open the book and start reading the novel, I give it a few pages before I make any judgments.

quote:

---

I'm almost never hooked by the first 13 lines of a novel.

---

Just about everything I read has a poor beginning. I read past it. I try to get through the first chapter at least. What the first 13 would do for me is show if the writer has a basic grasp of grammar, sentence structure, and can use the spell check function on their word proccessor. I don't expect a lot of plot, and as long as I'm not introduced to the weather or someone's description of their bedroom, I'm pretty okay (unless it's a damn good weather phenomenon/bedroom; or if there is some sort of weather phenomenon going on IN the bedroom).

"When lightning flashed across her bedroom, Darla knew something was up..."

I like to give at least some hint of coming action in the first paragraph or two. (My curren NiP has someone gallop up) and give an idea of the type of novel it is. When someone gallops up it's a fair guess it's probably not SF.

Beyond that I try to start introducing the main character.

I don't think you can expect much in 13 lines for a novel. Even for a short story a page is more reasonable.

You want to see perhaps some grace of language or an idea of the author's voice and see that she can put a reasonably grammatical sentence together. Beyond that, I agree with Matt that I just don't even try to judge on so little.

There is no magic in the first 13 lines. Kathleen picked that number because she wants you to post a small enough portion of your work that you are not giving up first electronic publishing rights.

It is only meant to try to tempt volunteers to read the rest, which you can then send by e-mail.

If you can show competence in those first 13 lines, then that's the measuring stick I use to judge them.

In a novel, in particular, you are very unlikely to "hook" me in 13 lines. You should have something going on in about the first 3 pages...something to interest me and keep me reading the next 3, but the only reason I'd put your novel down in 13 lines is if the writing just sucks or isn't my preferred style.

I agree that most novels I read based on recommendations.

Even in a short story, you don't necessarily have to have a full hook in 13 lines. Just convince me that you know what you're doing!

quote:

---

...you don't necessarily have to have a full hook in 13 lines. Just convince me that you know what you're doing!

---

I think part of the answer to your question lies in the answer to another question: "What's a hook?"

As others have said, by posting the first 13 we avoid blowing first publication rights, and we attempt to get the prospective publisher to turn to page two -- and to achieve the second objective, we need a hook, a reason to turn the page.

(In a sense, we should be writing hooks all the way through the story, to keep the reader turning the page. For example, thriller writers put a cliff-hanger at the end of each chapter by including a hook in the last 13 or so lines of the chapter.)

The opening hook could be the seeds of a conflict--the core conflict of the story, or a lesser one that leads up to it--or a likeable character, or an evil villain, or a captivating scene, a mood, anything that's interesting.

I think a story, whether novel length or short, is a series of hooks, some small, some huge. The writer has to keep the reader turning the page with a series of hooks; perhaps not every 13 lines on the button, but certainly every page or two.

It's true that when I'm in a bookstore I flick through the book to sample random paragraphs. (I've learned to treat recommendations on the cover by authors I respect with caution.) I do look at the first page too.

Critically, I rely on the publisher as well. I trust certain publishers because I know their taste aligns with mine: it's one of those "filters" that Kathleen referred to in the Golden Compass thread.

But I'm mindful of that slush pile reader with a big pile of slush and not a lot of time. He or she has no filter, no idea of which writers are good and which not. As new writers we have no track record, no "name", no kudos. And that slush pile hides a few nuggets amongst a lot of dross.

It seems to me that if a writer can't write something interesting in the first 13 it's a good bet the rest of the offering is poor as well--not a certainty, but a bet worth taking to make the best use of available slush-reading time. (That must be such a boring job!) Sooner or later the slush pile reader will find a hook in a first 13, and that's the story that will most likely get attention.

If a few nuggets are missed in that process because the first 13 didn't hook, well, that's a risk the slush pile reader takes knowingly, to avoid having to read each offering for several pages: there's probably a law of diminishing returns, and first 13 is optimal--not guaranteed to find all nuggests, just optimal use of time and guaranteeing filling the publication schedules.

Just 2c,
Pat

I'm beginning to think that the crit should be no longer than the piece it crits.

I did the first 13 thing here for a little while but people try to make writers put too much in those 13 lines. Their demands just aren't logical, so I stopped doing it. As someone here said, if you could do all that in 13 lines, it would be "flash fiction." ;>

A "hook" is an ambiguous thing; we all hook in for different reasons. I think "unhooks" might be easier to define. My list of "unhooks" that cause me to put a book/story down:

1) The writing is too florid (awash in adverbs and adjectives) (A lot of romance or fantasy).
2) The story is a copy-cat of other well-published works. (Sword of Shannara.)
3) The writing hits me with too much indecipherable jargon without first doing enough world-building so I can place it into context. (A lot of science fiction, Clockwork Orange.)
4) The story meanders through meaningless backstory or set-up, and doesn't give me a character to care about up front. (James Mitchner's Centennial, where the first 100 pages he describes in detail the geological formation of the land.)
5) The main character(s) are despicable -- my rule of thumb is that if I wouldn't care to associate with these people if they were real, I see no value in spending my valuable leisure time with them via reading/movies. (I'll never read or watch Pulp Fiction.)
6) I'm splatted in the face with gratuitous violence. (ditto)
7) The story is boring, ie, no conflict, no character growth, or too much non-essential stuff in between the few vital scenes. (I'd site some examples, but they were so forgettable that I've forgotten them.)
8) Repetitive phrases or characterizations that become annoying. (One of the reasons I put down the Wheel of Time series half-way thru Book 2 was that if one character didn't quit "pulling her braid" I was going to scream.)
9) It doesn't match my personal taste.

quote:

---

Do you prefer that the first 13 lines to have the conflict introduced or do you prefer character background?

---

I don't see it as an either or thing. I like conflict, but if there's no character in the conflict, then I'm not necessarily hooked. Similarly, if a character is well sketched, but is just boring or wandering around aimlessly, then I'm not hooked either.

A good example is Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe's Truimph:

quote:

---

It was not Sergeant Richard Sharpe's fault. He was not in charge. He was junior to at least a dozen men, uncluding a major, a captain, a subadar and two jemadars, yet he still felt responsible. He felt responsible, angry, hot, bitter and scared. Blood crusted on his face where a thousand flies crawled. There were even flies in his open mouth.

But he dared not move.

The humid air stank of blood and the rotted egg smell made by powder smoke. The very last thing he remembered doing was thrusting his pack, haversack and cartridge box into the glowing ashes of a fire, and now the ammunition from the cartridge box exploded. Each blast of powder fountained sparks and ashes into the hot air.

---

By the seventh or eighth sentence I was hooked enough to turn the page, but bang he threw me into the action, too. He gave me enough conflict and character to hook me. That was less than his first page. (In the next partial-paragraph and paragraph, you find out where he is, that he's disguised as a dead body among slaughter victims, and his diversion distracts enemies that are stabbing random bodies with bayonettes to make certain they are dead. Within the next two pages, you know what happened to cause the massacre and who the antagonist is.)

...first on hand, George Railroad Martin's twin collections, Dreamsongs, Volume I and II. I bought 'em both, one a couple of weeks after the other, 'cause I like Martin's work, most of the stories are old favorites, and the writer's commentary looked interesting at a glance.

...moving on to the next thing, Schulz and Friends, a recent biography of Peanuts cartoonist creator Charles M. Schulz...a long anticipated volume, a long-standing intense interest in things Peanuts and Peanuts-related...naturally I snapped it up at once. (Of course I had to return the first copy I bought for double-printing a range of pages.)

...below that is Vincent Bugliosi's massive tome on the JFK assassination...let's see, well, a pathological interest in the facts of the case, plus the idea that it's weight alone might make it an authorative study. (A couple of SF writers get a passing mention---apparently Kennedy's assassin was a fan.)

...then there's Steve Martin's Born Standing Up, Martin's commentary on his stand-up career...remembering how funny I thought his stand-up was in the olden days, a long-standing wonder as to why he stopped doing it...oh, and a discount sticker (forty percent off with my membership card).

*****