A fair few people seem to like to start short stories with a summary of the situation--no dialogue or action. An example would be as follows:

When King Smith died his youngest son, Prince Bill was away in the Land of Vordor on a secret peace mission. His eldest brother was named King, yet before the coronation he died of a mysterious stomach complaint and, in the absence of any public knowledge of the whereabouts of Prince Bill, the old King's senior advisor stepped in and declared himself regent. The Regent mobilised the army and struck at Vordor leaving the Prince stuck behind enemy lines.

The above is obviously not pretty prose which could improve it...but in my opinion it is the wrong way to start a short story. I think all these details can be woven into the story during an active scene.

I don't find summaries hooky and think also they suggest the writer is a new one. Were I an editor, I would move on to the next story.

There was also a comment that there are published short stories out there that do start with a summary. I wondered if this was more common before, but less acceptable now.

I understand I may be be in the minority and wondered what others may think. Certainly if people thought it was acceptable and wouldn't hurt the publishable nature of a story, it would make writing my own stories easier rather than the headache of getting weaving everything in as I currently try and do.

Thoughts? Opinions?

I remember a plain description of a character that went on well past the first 13 lines in one of CS Friedman's novels. That's what drew me in. What was it? IN CONQUEST BORN? TO CONQUEST BORN? something like one of those.

I don't know the author of whom you speak, but it is a novel--I am talking about short stories, as that was where the question evolved from. Novels may start with summaries but should a short story (should a novel?)?

quote:

---

Cool ideas can come out in narrative text as well as in action text.

---

I don't doubt it, the question is whether it is a good idea to start a short story with a summary.

With regard to being dull and boring--I find summaries generally fall into this catagory, as they don't create the engagement with the reader that introducing a character and situation in an active scene does. Admittedly some writers are able to produce summaries that very well written/funny etc. that may keep you reading, but they are few and far between. These also seem to exist in novels rather than short stories, which was the focus of my question.

Prologue+ My opinion= Novel

Novel > Short Story

Of the three ways to start short stories( Information, Dialogue, Action) Information is the least attractive to me. I prefer to have critical information blended in as exposition.

quote:

---

So, if we were to eschew summary/narrative openings and also openings that begin with dialogue (discussed elsewhere here), what is left on the palate?

---

Starting just before the catalyst that causes the tale to take place. You can start with dialogue, so long as it's not un-tagged, confusing dialogue--and something is happening.

I agree with skadder. An info-dump is not the place to begin a short story (IMHO a novel, either). By all means, give me a character to start with, but don't make him/her lazing around the house/office/park/classroom. If the character's there, give us the reason--and make it relevant to the story. Like OSC says, you're making a contract with me about what kind of story it is, and I don't want to read about a librarian assigning dewey decimals to a stack of books--I don't much care why (unless by doing the math and adding up the numbers he/she accidentally stumbles on the Creation Equation...)

Just like I said during the discussion about "hooks"...its going to depend entirely on each individual person. My interest is attracted primarily by subject matter for instance. I don't really care whether you start with dialogue, action or narration. Nor do I care much how its aproached. I care if the story contains elements that are interesting to me.

But then others are pulled in by other things. So, as usual, it just depends on what your trying to do. I think the story is what matters. I too have seen plenty of published stories opened with what you call a "summary." I think it works fine especially if you are starting a story right in the middle of whatever is going on, and wish to move quickly to other events while still letting the reader know earlier on what all is going on.

quote:

---

I agree that that this a sub-optimal way of starting a story, but could it be a consequence of the first 13 mentality? People may be trying to cram in enough detail to hook someone to keep reading.

---

quote:

---

People may be trying to cram in enough detail to hook someone to keep reading.

---

That someone being an editor.

In WotF there are thousands of entries (let's say 2000) and only one person reading and judging the stories (in the first place) and this is all done, pretty much during a six to eight week period. Let's say she does it 4 days a week (she writes too) so approximately 20-30 days of reading (let's say 25 workdays). That means she is reading 80 manuscripts a day. These obviously vary in length from 2000-17000 words. An impossible task if you were to read all of them--she doesn't. She says that if she finishes the manuscript then you pretty much get an HM (or better--GO SNAPPER)the rest get 'you didn't win' letters. Presumably some of these are cast out on the basis of the first 13 lines.

A 'sub-optimal' way of starting a story puts your story at an immediate disadvantage compared with a story starting optimally.

I don't think you have to start a story with loads of detail (although I do in the competition--a weakness!) but starting with an 'active' (not action necessarily) is much better than an info-dump summary.

quote:

---

I don't think you have to start a story with loads of detail (although I do in the competition--a weakness!) but starting with an 'active' (not action necessarily) is much better than an info-dump summary.

---

That mostly depends on the nature of the story, and the tastes of whoever is reading.

quote:

---

That mostly depends on the nature of the story, and the tastes of whoever is reading.

---

And when you are trying to sell to a particular editor, such as K.D. Wentworth (first reader for Writers of the Future), a really good way to figure out her tastes might be to get copies of stuff she has edited (such as previous years' anthologies) and stuff she has written, and study them.

How do the winning stories start? And how does she start her own short stories? Don't just look at what they're about, though, look at how what they're about is introduced.

[This message has been edited by annepin (edited May 21, 2008).]

This is what I've been trying to say for two weeks. I even started a thread on Saturn in G Minor to dissect the formula over in Hooks and Books. The cold hard truth is we're dealing with an individual with individual ideas and tastes. But you're right Anne, every story in the anthology she liked and put into the finalist category. That's why we SHOULD discuss them - it's not a waste of time.

I think it's the same with information in stories. We won't read information unless there's a reason to do so. That's why, typically, we weave information in with the development of the story itself. We absorb the information because we see it's necessary to understand the action. For me, that's a delightful part of the craft of writing which, in the hands of a master, brings an aesthetic quality to the story.

It is possible to write a summary as the start to the story if we give the reader a reason to read it. That reason could be that the concepts are novel or intruiging, that the imaginary world is enticing, that the history of characters and their past conflicts promises even more delightful turmoil, that the dramatic possibilities are exciting, or simply that the prose itself is a pleasure to read.

As others have said, whether a summary works as a hook depends critically upon undertanding the audience.

That reason could be that the imaginary world is an enticing one, that the history of the characters promises delicious conflict, that the consequences of an imaginary technical device are intruiging, or simply that the prose itself is a delight to read.

Since that's difficult to pull off we often weave information in with the action, delivering it when it's needed and clearly relevant, thus giving the reader a reason to read it. (Do you remember those interminable histories of characters and their interrelationships in LOTR? I skipped them.)

I think that weaving information in with the story is a fascinating part of the craft of writing. Writers that do it well bring an aesthetic quality to their stories that others lack, and which for me is a delight.

As others have said, a critical aspect of starting the story, whether with summary, action or whatever, is knowing one's audience and what hooks it.

Cheers,
Pat

quote:

---

It is possible to write a summary as the start to the story if we give the reader a reason to read it. That reason could be that the concepts are novel or intruiging, that the imaginary world is enticing, that the history of characters and their past conflicts promises even more delightful turmoil, that the dramatic possibilities are exciting, or simply that the prose itself is a pleasure to read.

---