SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Hey Everyone,

I am working my way through writing my first Fantasy novel. I'm 8 chapters in. But I'm worried it's starting off a bit too slow. The world building, character introduction is taking up a fair few pages.

I started with an action packed prologue, but then then tempo dropped as I brought the hero in, offered him a call to action, and dropped him in a new, strange environment.

So I have a quick question to Fantasy readers out there.

How do you prefer fantasy novels to start? Do you like to begin straight in the action or do you prefer a slow and steady build up?

I would love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks
Mark

Personally I like my novels to sprint out of the starting blocks. Saying that however, I don't want the stuff I read to be totally devoid of world building. So I suppose it's a matter of balance between action and world building. Good luck with your novel mate. PS well done on the Riftrider. I loved it, hope this turns into a series. I especially found the surfer angle interesting.

I prefer my reads to start in the middle of SOMETHING. Doesn't need to be on the fast track to main story, but should be something that gives me the feel of the character and story while knocking down the first domino.

Start in the shit, and use flashbacks throughout if there is back story you need in order to develop characters. That's not to say you can't slowly build the tension, but you'll need to give your reader SOMETHING to latch onto, otherwise they'll put it down and think you're nothing more than a soap opera.

Perhaps maybe a fast paced, adrenaline jumping scene that's loosely related to the problems your hero will face? It doesn't even have to have your main hero in the scene, perhaps a larger supporting character, and the scene helps to round them out, but also illustrates why your hero will be needed.

Just a thought. But, even your slow burns give something up front.

I find it goes both ways for me; I enjoy either being dropped in the middle of the action or a slower introduction - as long as it goes somewhere. However, being dropped in the action does require an explanation at some point, or you get confused. I read one book that started out with a great action scene, which actually turned out to be a dream the main character was having, and then the author built up on that.

I don't know if this would help any, but equal parts of engagement and explanation (I believe) are very important. It's all about a balance.

Start me at some kind of action maybe it doesn't involve the main character maybe it's the trigger for the event that eventually leads into the main character getting invovled. Personally I don't care to read another 100+ pages of some farmboy/girl getting there character developed when stuff is still mostly peaceful, I want to see their character develop after/while everything is/has fallen apart and they are in the thick of the plot.

It depends on the book.

That's not helpful, is it? Then have a look at this: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainm...

In which William Gibson tells you about first sentences.

I've found that a good writer can make brewing a cup of coffee interesting. On the other hand, bad writing can make all out action scenes boring. So, for me, it's all about the quality of writing.

I'm going to just say what I don't like:

SF/F stories that start in every day, hum drum suburbia until (unknown event!) thrusts protagonist into fantastic, neon rainbow world of wonder. Just start with the world of wonder.

And,
Stories in which the first 10 chapters are describing the map printed after the title page, or the genealogy in the appendix. Those pages are in there so you don't have to spend time on those things - just get into the story, whether it is fast paced or slow - the contrived framing mechanics and infodumps are ways NOT to start a fantasy story.

Because it's fantasy, there's not really a "right" way, but there are plenty of wrong.

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. Some great tips.

Sabrina wrote: "I've found that a good writer can make brewing a cup of coffee interesting. On the other hand, bad writing can make all out action scenes boring. So, for me, it's all about the quality of writing."

I'll echo this. Good writing trumps everything else.

Brenda wrote: "It depends on the book.

That's not helpful, is it? Then have a look at this: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainm...

In which William Gibson tells..."

Great article. "Handshake" is exactly the right word.

For me, I just need an interesting voice describing someone I care about trying to get what they want. If all I needed was a magic sword fight or a complicated space battle, I'd go boot up Steam.

A hook's needed. That can be a terribly exciting set of things, or it could be a very charming/sarcastic/witty character of whom I want to read more.

Thaddeus wrote: "A hook's needed. That can be a terribly exciting set of things, or it could be a very charming/sarcastic/witty character of whom I want to read more."

I agree, Harry Dresden's sarcasm and banter with his friends or enemies as maybe the case is what keeps me coming back to the series. Of course that's not the only thing. I second Sabrina's point that good writing makes all the difference. Without Jim Butcher's good writing, Harry would come across as just some guy who was trying too hard to get a laugh out of the readers.

give me an interesting character.

Think of a story, or a life, as a sandwich -- one of those six-foot-long subs you get at Subway. It runs from birth to death. You cannot write the entire sub sandwich. You have to give a reader one slice. Pick the best slice!
George Lucas did that -- note that the first movie, a.k.a. "A New Hope," is actually part 4 of what was alleged to be 9 parts. So we got the middle 3 slices and they were yum! Turns out the first three were pretty poor, and it was good that Lucas did not start with them.

Brenda wrote: "Think of a story, or a life, as a sandwich -- one of those six-foot-long subs you get at Subway. It runs from birth to death. You cannot write the entire sub sandwich. You have to give a reader one..."

That's a good point Brenda, but oh how we wish it wasn't so.

I've taken on board some of the comments. Now I'm toying around with the structure now to make sure the novel comes screaming out of the traps and grabs the reader by the lapels.

Hooks are important. Most people will give you a couple pages, but the quicker you can catch someone on your line, the better.

Steel Beach by John Varley starts off with a presentation/infodump, which in the hands of most authors would be snoozeville, but the opening line immediately makes you want to read more: "In five years the penis will be obsolete."

Sabrina wrote: "I've found that a good writer can make brewing a cup of coffee interesting. On the other hand, bad writing can make all out action scenes boring. So, for me, it's all about the quality of writing."

*nods*

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Good openings come in all shapes and sizes. It can be backstory, dialogue, exposition, action - doesn't matter to me. A good writer can make any of those things interesting.

Good writing is what I look for in the opening for a novel of any genre. Stories sometimes disappoint after an intriguing opening, but the caliber of writing tends to stay consistent.

Brenda wrote: "George Lucas did that -- note that the first movie, a.k.a. "A New Hope," is actually part 4 of what was alleged to be 9 parts. So we got the middle 3 slices and they were yum! Turns out the first three were pretty poor, and it was good that Lucas did not start with them."

This isn't actually true. Lucas never had a "trilogy of trilogies" in mind when he wrote Star Wars, what would later be rebranded and retconned as "Episode IV."

He was pretty much just making it up as he went along, which became glaringly obvious when we got to "I am your father," which completely flips everything from the first movie on its head. Lucas' longtime collaborator and friend, producer Gary Kurtz, who was in from the very beginning, later confirmed that this stuff was made up on the fly, and Lucas just took stuff he wanted as he went along.

You can read the graphic novel The Star Wars which adapts the rough draft. It's a hot mess which is really only interesting by comparison to the finished movie. This is the story Kurtz always said was the only thing that existed from the beginning.

All that said, the larger point still stands -- put your best foot forward, you only get one chance to make a first impression, etc.

As they say in screenwriting circles, you want to enter a scene as late as possible and leave as early as you can. That way you distill the essence of your story down to its most important bits.

That doesn't mean you have to start with a slam-bam action scene. I just started reading A Natural History of Dragons and she hooks you right at the very beginning with a letter to the reader that's done in the style of Victorian literature. She starts off innocuously enough, but then sets the hook by the end of the very first sentence.

"Not a day goes by that the post does not bring me at least one letter from a young person (or sometimes one not so young) who wishes to follow in my footsteps and become a dragon naturalist."

Boom. I'm in!

Brennan then goes on to list imaginary places that never existed, artfully mixing and matching these things with a familiar writing style. Right from the jump you can tell we're in the hands of a writer who is doing a masterful job at giving us "the same but different", which is hook enough.

The other true thing, for the OP, is to finish writing the thing. Once you have the whole thing under your hand, you can see where it ought to begin.

I don't like "hooky" beginnings or beginnings that start off with a bang, because there's so often a letdown afterwards, or the beginning so often turns out to have nothing to do with the actual story. I also don't like reading action scenes right up front where I don't know what's going on or who the characters are or why I should care.

Give me an interesting character in an interesting situation where their life is about to change and set them on the story path, give me a reason to care about them and what happens to them, and build from there. Slip in the backstory and worldbuilding in small bits and pieces as you build, instead of dropping it all in at once in big chunks.

And I agree with Brenda. Write the whole thing first; once the manuscript is complete that might give you a better idea where the beginning is. Also, the best beginning in the world doesn't count if the story isn't finished.

Brenda wrote: "It depends on the book.

That's not helpful, is it? Then have a look at this: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainm...

In which William Gibson tells you about first sentences. "

I just skimmed the article, but I think I got the gist of it. It's a great read on one writer's process. He overemphasizes the importance of the 1st sentence. An author might at least have a half page for the hook b/c the reader has already picked up and opened the book. Now, I'm not too sure that one would have a whole prologue to hook the reader, but a prologue seems to be traditionally accepted in fantasy--and it can serve the reader well by setting up the world--but I'm not a great fan of the prologue. Having said that, though, I really liked the opening line of the prologue of (was it Game of Thrones (sorry, i'm too lazy to go look it up)): "The air was dank with the smell of man".

Talking about the hook, it seems like it can be different things to different audiences. Regardless, I agree that the hook for your targeted audience has to be there early on; otherwise, the reader will put your story down.

To answer Mark's query directly, I think it's okay to start w/action first and then have it slow down for some explication and set up for the coming adventure, but the first action should have enough snippets of the main character's character, the world's unique characteristics, and the adventure. In fact, I like being thrown into the action better--but that, of course, is only one reader's preference.

Congratulations on publishing your first novel, Mark! That's a great achievement.

Alex wrote: "Brenda wrote: "It depends on the book.

That's not helpful, is it? Then have a look at this: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainm...

In which Willi..."

Thanks Alex.

I'm toying with the idea of introducing the protagonist in a fantasy world, minutes from execution with his final request being to tell the story of how he got there. A bit like in one of the tales of the Arabian nights.

I thought this might be a good way of dropping the reader straight in middle of story and then having the opportunity for a bit of backstory. Also I've written 8 odd chapters already so want to at least use some of it.

The trouble is getting the backstory in in a fast-paced way. Guess I have plenty of thinking to do.

What I like is for the start to establish some sense of what kind of book it will be. At times, this means a bang (e.g., I like that in action novels), but at times it might be a steadier build up (e.g., I prefer that in high fantasy).

Mark wrote: "I'm toying with the idea of introducing the protagonist in a fantasy world, minutes from execution with his final request being to tell the story of how he got there. A bit like in one of the tales of the Arabian nights.

I thought this might be a good way of dropping the reader straight in middle of story and then having the opportunity for a bit of backstory.

Ah, the prologue is in the present and then you go into a flashback in order to provide a bit of backstory. The reader might be more interested in how your character is going to get out of the execution. But, then again, the reader might be so engrossed in your character, his jeopardy, and the fantasy world that they'll read through the little bit of backstory. (Note: Reader expectations differ by genre (see L.G.'s response.) But it also depends on what you mean by backstory (a term which seems to be bantered around somewhat loosely). If it's some kind of monumental tome--a biography or history of your world, then you might want to trim it back. On the other hand, if it's just enough to make sense of the characters and their world, then it's probably fine.

I'm just a wannabe novelist, so I think that it would be more helpful, at this time, to refer you to some successful authors like Jim Butcher. He does a pretty good succinct job of describing "how to write":

http://jimbutcher.livejournal.com

(BTW, thanks, Mark, for your questions. Answering them clarified some thoughts on my own writing.)

There was a story, I think by Ambrose Bierce, which takes place entirely in the instant between the time when the condemned man is dropped through the the trap door of the gallows, and the moment when the noose snaps his neck.
Remember that all stories told in flashback, or in memoir form, or in epistolatory fashion, tend to remove suspense. You know the hero did not get killed in the Battle of Antietam, because he's writing you a letter about the battle. There are some famous ways to get around this, like suddenly having the last letter written by a friend who reports that the narrator has died -- see SORROWS OF YOUNG WERTHER or HER PRIVATES WE.

I write like I enjoy reading so....

As a reader, I like the bang from the beginning. But it has to relate to the story a bit or kick off the larger picture. I seriously dislike stories that put the hero in the middle, then goes to back story, then goes to finishing. A linear read is definitely my enjoyment.

Now, I also like books that start out with the antagonist plotting an evil action of sorts as well. So I'm not about just the protagonist or antagonist being introduced first, but I definitely need a *situation* to be presented which creates a curiosity.

For example, The Crystal Shard started with the demon Errtu trying to look for a magical item of sorts. Then the protagonist (Drizzt) was introduced. The fact that an evil demon was trying to find an object to bring down civilization made me care enough to read further. After that, Salvatore made me care about Drizzt, Bruenor, Catibrie, and Regis. He even went as far as making me care about a drunk barbarian with less-than-honorable actions throughout his series. (I was hoping Wulfgar wouldn't become some lost soul in the end!)

I'm one that can certainly do without the Jordanesque 120-page prelude/introduction, but that's just me.

Mark wrote: "I'm toying with the idea of introducing the protagonist in a fantasy world, minutes from execution with his final request being to tell the story of how he got there. A bit like in one of the tales of the Arabian nights."

Reading something like this, I'm going to be more interested in how the character gets out of being executed rather than how he came to be in that situaiton.

I've done that sort of thing, as an experiment, a very brief prologue showing the character later in the book in a difficult situation, but it was just as a teaser, not as a setup for the story, and I'm not entirely sure I'd do it the same way if I were to do that book over again.

Mark wrote: "I'm toying with the idea of introducing the protagonist in a fantasy world, minutes from execution with his final request being to tell the story of how he got there. A bit like in one of the tales of the Arabian nights."

I think the "minutes from execution" bit is going to be a hard sell unless he has extraordinary information to impart. Even then, why wouldn't they just torture him to get the knowledge he's dangling?

If, on the other hand, he's among other prisoners in a dungeon awaiting execution and they have nothing else to do but pass the time, why not tell a story?

Mark wrote: "I thought this might be a good way of dropping the reader straight in middle of story and then having the opportunity for a bit of backstory. Also I've written 8 odd chapters already so want to at least use some of it."

This is a potential trap you have to be careful to avoid. As George Lucas once mentioned, people create these elaborate worlds and these amazing sets for their sci-fi movies and then they waste time showing them off instead of getting to the story.

They also talk about this a lot in the Writing Excuses podcast, where you need to be on guard against falling in love with the world-building. You may think it's super cool, but few readers are going to agree. Most of that stuff is better served by putting it in an appendix or on a website supporting the book.

If the character backstory is really that compelling, maybe you should break it up into different books so he can have various adventures.

Jason wrote: "As a reader, I like the bang from the beginning. But it has to relate to the story a bit or kick off the larger picture. I seriously dislike stories that put the hero in the middle, then goes to back story, then goes to finishing. A linear read is definitely my enjoyment. "

I often reference Raiders of the Lost Ark for this sort of thing. It starts off with a slam-bang action piece with an active protagonist who nonetheless fails in his objective, then slows down to give us a bit of character work and get the plot going properly, then picks up again with increasing action and tension, meanwhile filling us in on the character's backstory as we go along.

And that backstory is among the most efficient I've ever seen in either films or novels. When Indy sees Marion for the first time in a long time, she slugs him and in four lines of dialogue we get a summation of their entire relationship.

There you get a linear story and a plot with increasing stakes, but you also get verbal flashbacks as the character stuff is filled in.

Great point on Raiders, Trike!

Trike wrote: "Jason wrote: "As a reader, I like the bang from the beginning. But it has to relate to the story a bit or kick off the larger picture. I seriously dislike stories that put the hero in the middle, t..."

Thanks Trike. Nothing like Raiders to put good story telling into perspective. Lean and mean.

While I like it when books start with an action, I don't have anything against slow build ups as long as they're not painfully slow. I mean, books that start with some sort of mythical prologue that has nothing to do with the story at all and is not relevant but to show that the author made an effort on myths for their world (still doesn't say anything about the rest of the world). Or books like Lord of the Rings (which I did like reading a lot!) where the author explains in detail about the hobbits (of course I can see that the beginning was probably a good place to put the information since we get hobbit protagonists right away).

Well. Don't make it dull and it will probably work out.

Build-up.

You have to start with action enough to hook us, or with some other substitute (a fascinating narrative voice or a marvelous setting), but if you start out at too high a pitch, you have nowhere to go.

An additional detail is that if your plot puts the world in danger, don't tell me until halfway through the first volume, even if it's the only volume. That gives you enough time to build the world substantially enough that it doesn't seem made of cardboard when you announce it's in danger.

I definitely shy away from a slow start to a fantasy novel, but that doesn't mean I need an explosion of action right at the start. I just need tension. Tension can be conflict between characters or in a hard decision that the protagonist needs to make. It shouldn't have an obvious solution.

I'm a little wary of the scenario of the protagonist starting the story at his execution. There's a danger that the reader knows where the story is going to end up, so then any threat to that character might have less impact. There's also a danger of having a too-obvious ending. Either the protag wins and escapes execution or he loses and gets his head whacked off. In contrast, The Kingkiller Chronicles features a storytelling flashback, but we don't really know how its going to end. There are piles of tension on how everything is going to resolve in the third book.

It's really, really, really hard to tell a story in flashback. I've done it -- sold the stories, too -- but it's hard.

And those were short stories.

You need a real burning question to have the readers asking "How did this happen?" and curious enough to read a story where they already know somewhat of how it turns out.

An execution may not be sufficiently dramatic.

Depends on the essence of the story. Subtle beginnings may be the first atoms causing a cascade, a fission reaction, a nuclear explosion.

It depends on if the writing is good enough to support a long opening, but when you've already got a prologue, you're already putting things off, so the reader can sense you're going to take awhile. I personally would lop off the prologue (yes, sight unseen I'm making that judgement) and get on with it. I no longer read fantasy novels in general because they take forever to get anywhere. I don't mean a war in the opening chapter, but a STORY has to be moving along, moving forward. Prologues are the kiss of death for me and a book, but that's just me, I'm not your target audience.

Have to agree with the ideas many have expressed about needing tension - not necessarily action.

I - like most - don't want 100 pages of back story, but action needs to have me caring about the outcome. If I don't know these people, I don't care if they die.

I also agree that too great an action scene to start it all off can have a wet blanket effect on the rest of the book. If you blow up the death star FIRST, it makes it hard to have a satisfying ending that doesn't look weak by comparison.

I've been thinking about this question recently, because tone and setting expectations early on are important. You can't promise one thing and then deliver another. A wordy prologue is fine if you're intending to do a giant Epic Fantasy, but something with more action may be called for if you're going to have some sort of Death Star-explodey stuff happening at the end.

At the risk of referencing too many movies, I just rewatched the excellent High Fidelity, and I think the last lines of the movie apply here:

"The making of a great compilation tape, like breaking up, is hard to do and takes ages longer than it might seem. You gotta kick off with a killer, to grab attention. Then you got to take it up a notch, but you don't wanna blow your wad, so then you got to cool it off a notch. There are a lot of rules."

But then Brandon Sanderson isn't wrong when he states, "I don't think it's a length thing, it's a matter of immersion. When you're reading the Epic Fantasies, you're immersing yourself in this world. This is kind of what Tolkien did and others have done: the idea that you make it real. If you're reading a mystery, then the question you want is 'Whodunnit?' What's the ending? And with our stories, it's less the ending and more the sense of immersion and realism and world that you get when you sit down and read about these characters, you get to enter a new place."

There's more here at the SDCC panel: http://youtu.be/9vm6ttFHDTE

Patrick Rothfuss kind of udnerscores it in the first couple of pages of The Name of the Wind where a character tells a kid, "Hush now, you'll get your answers before the end."

I've enjoyed fantasy/sci fi that started with he slow buildup, and I've enjoyed the type that jump starts the action from the first word. All that matters to me is that the story is well-told. I can usually tell from the first few paragraphs if this is a writer who knows what he/she is doing, and also whether or not this is a story that will work for me. If I feel like I'm in good hands and in for a good ride, then I'm a happy reader.