hooks

[truepenny]

Rather than type the same response three or four times, I thought I'd just make a new entry, because I've hit an interesting problem of nomenclature.

pameladean, matociquala, and papersky have all said basically the same thing: the first line had better catch the reader's interest. Which, yes. I agree with Pamela, though, in not calling that necessarily a hook--or, at least, what people mean by hooks when they tell you your story doesn't have one. By the definition of hook that includes Possession, Watership Down, and Spindle's End, I'm in clover, because that kind of thing I can manage.

What's tripping me up now is that I can't quite figure out how to define what I meant by "hook" when I said I was worried about not having one. It's something to do with the idea of starting the story at a dramatic moment and then using flashbacks to give context ... what is that called, and is it a good thing or a bad thing?

(Yes, I know, it's a situational sort of thing, but I guess I'm asking another structural question. I don't know. I have a headache and am not at my best, so if anyone can untangle my tangle, I'd be grateful.)

Comments

high drama

[matociquala.livejournal.com]

Actually, that's exactly what my post was arguing against--regarding starting with blood everywhere, or drama, or a fight. If you;re not connected to the character-- yawn. *g*

And especially that start with drama and flashback for context thing. While it *can* be done well, more often it's a sophomore mistake. And I can say that, because it's a softmore mistake I've made. Over and over.

Re: high drama

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

Thank you. Because I've never been able to come up with a coherent argument against that kind of "hook," and it's a relief to have someone else come out and call it a mistake.

Re: high drama

[matociquala.livejournal.com]

The coherent argument is that it's boring. Seriously. *g*

Okay, it can work in a movie, but more usually even an action movie will take a few moments to establish the protagonist and make you like him before they blow stuff up.

But if you don't care about a character, you don't care that he's in peril.

[innerslytherin]

You mean it doesn't start in media res - in the middle of things - like an epic? Even though my novel does start like that, and fill in with flashbacks/backstory later, I enjoy stories/novels/etc that "begin at the beginning, go on until the end, and then stop". ^_^

I also like it when I get drawn in quickly, as long as it's not confusing.

I like both types! (How's that for wishy-washy answers?)

[pameladean]

I am not sure that extending the metaphor will be very helpful AT ALL, but it occurs to me that you don't need a hook, but you might need a net. Something all-encompassing that sneaks up, rather than a sharp pointy thing that jabs the reader in a tender spot and drags zir along.

Yes, I know, this is not literary terminology.

I think the point about beginning in medias res is well taken, though. Because one of the things about epic is that the audience probably already knew the characters.

Pamela

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

Because one of the things about epic is ...

And you said that, and I suddenly thought, Why on earth are we assuming that the narrative structure that works for epic is even remotely appropriate, either to novels or to short stories? Because epic is a different tradition, with different needs, and it does the things it does (like the in medias res) for reasons germane to epic, and not necessarily to anything else.

It's like the commentator on Aristotle's Poetics I read, who pointed out that the only extant play for which Aristotle's model of tragedy works is the play he chose to discuss: Oedipus Rex. And that probably, even if we had access to the entire corpus of Greek tragedy (pardon me while I go wipe the drool off my chin), no more than 10% of them would match that model anyway. An indefensible generalization has been made and shoved down the throats of every high school student in America.

The Aeneid begins in medias res because Virgil knew that was how epic was supposed to begin. He knew that because he'd read Homer. But the thing about Homer is that the texts we have are merely the written record of hundreds of years of oral traditions, and we don't know how the scribe or scribes made the choices that they did. Not to mention that we have no way of knowing how much material has been lost, even after the stories were written down. In other words, it wasn't necessarily a decision made from carefully thought out artistic principles. It might not even have been a decision at all.

And, in any case, epic and novel are not the same form, despite the penchant of modern publishers for calling novels "epics." It's like saying that, if you can mount cavalry on horses, you can just as easily mount them on sheep.

*steps off soap-box*

[marypcb.livejournal.com]

but of course Virgil had read rather more of the Greek corpus than we have left. If you count Ovid's psuedo-epics and Seneca the gory and Ennius and the other fragments of epics, the in media res is tolerably canonical in practice - although of course they all really begin with the invocation and preface ;-)

and now for some reason I'm thinking of a Soprano character confronting his inspiration: "sing, muse!"

[papersky.livejournal.com]

The thing with the epic isn't that it starts in media res, it's that it is telling one story, and it starts at the beginning of that, not at the beginning of everything that ever happened.

I mean that precisely because the story of Troy was a lot of stories, Homer could start telling his story which wasn't the story of the fall of Troy, or anyone's life story, but the story of the destructive anger of Achilles, at the beginning of that story.

(Virgil was no more writing an epic than a novel, he was writing a saga, he just gave it some of the window dressing of an epic.)

But I think people talk about the epic like that because it is raw story, it's primal, and also because what we have of it is what has survived telling and telling and telling, and so we know it is story as people have liked it.

Anyway, if you look at The Iliad and Cyteen closely you can see that they have precisely the same structure, and the story has exactly the same relation to what is shown and what is assumed and what's already happened, and they also both do the filling in of the past and relevance for those who haven't been paying attention, (or in Cyteen with the illusion that it's for those who haven't been paying attention,) in the same way.

Or take Possession, it starts at the beginning of the story, which is the story of how Roland discovers himself in discovering the story of Ash and LaMotte. It starts with that book, and the place to tell us about Roland's mother and Val and the sea-creatures in bowls around the Yorkshire lodgings and Mrs Ash's reaction to Melusine is later, even though they happened before. You couldn't start that story anywhere but where it does start, with that dusty Vico, though there are a number of other stories it might be possible to tell with that stuff.

[kayselkiemoon.livejournal.com]

'When I was nine years old, I hid under a table and heard my sister kill a king.'
- Frances Mary Hendry, opening line to Quest for a Maid

what kind of hook does this qualify as, in your mind? when you said "It's something to do with the idea of starting the story at a dramatic moment and then using flashbacks to give context ..." this is what came to mind.

-kate

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

I think that qualifies as a great opening line.

The more I try to think about the whole idea of the "hook," the more confused I get. So I've decided to make things simple for myself: two categories, Good Opening Lines and Bad Opening Lines, and not worry about it any more.

Which is not to say that the discussion hasn't been fantastic, just that this is not something I need to be giving myself ulcers over.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

I think one of the classic problems beginning writers have is trying to pick the moment when the story starts.

And then making that moment interesting. There doesn't need to be any major drama about the beginning of the story: take the beginning of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde (http://www.learnlibrary.com/jekyll-hyde/jekyll-hyde_1.htm), which opens with about 400 words describing Mr Utterson the lawyer, and his friend and cousin Mr Richard Enfield. It's nearly 900 words in before Mr Hyde is introduced, and then namelessly, "a little man who was stumping along eastward at a good walk". But it's certainly not a dull opening.

[papersky.livejournal.com]

Sometimes the beginning is in media res. Sometimes it isn't. I don't think there's a rule for it, you have to go with what's right for the mode for that story.

But there is that argument about 75% of that the reader need to know being in the first paragraph.

[vass]

Since this discussion is partly about opening lines, I'd like to take this opportunity to say how much I enjoyed

"The first I knew about the civil war was when my sister Aurien poisoned me."

[papersky.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

I'm glad you liked it.

That's one that was obvious, but it's also doing what matociquala was just objecting to, which is starting with the action and then going back to explain what's going on. Though as it's a sequel, readers can be expected to already know who these people are.

The thing about a first line of mine that most disconcerted me though was when someone quoted the first line of KP, ("What it means to be old is to remember things that nobody else alive can remember",) without attribution, in a usenet discussion where it was relevant. I mean they really quoted it, the way someone might quote, oh, Milton or Douglas Adams, because it felt right. That was deeply, deeply disconcerting for me.

[undeadjournal.livejournal.com]

In media res is good, and beginning-middle-end is good, they both have qualities to recommend them.

I think if you're always starting stories IMR, then yes, maybe you're in a rut and ought to re-examine, just because you don't want to get into a habit.

I'd like to know what people think are the situations which justify each approach.

I mean, for example, if you've got to explain something quite detailed or complex, does it make sense to start

"Buffy could smell the hot breath of the demon-aardvarks on her neck as she raced for the door of the flooded planetarium. 'This is the last time I use someone else's enchanted toothbrush!' she grunted as she reached for the door-handle -- and found it was locked"

simply because you know you've got a long way to go and you want to promise the audience that if they stick with you, they'll get the payoff?

And, conversely, if your'e writing something where the concept is pretty simple, perhaps you don't want to bounce readers backwards and forwards, just get in gear as soon as possible.

And what about starting in media conversation res, so to speak?

"Giles, you can't be serious! You're moving to Nepal?" Buffy was almost in tears.

That doesn't start in the middle exactly, it starts exactly one speech in, but it's more fun than starting

"'Buffy', said Giles, as he fastened his backpack, 'I have something to tell you'"

kind of thing.

Yizazy speaking

[(Anonymous)]

I came across your LiveJournal the other day and have been fascinated ever since. I'm not a LiveJournalist myself, though, so I seem to be relegated to the anonymous darkness with the wailing and the gnashing of teeth.

So, anyway, I do think a first sentence should have a certain draw, like a magnet if not like a hook. I agree, though, that it doesn't have to throw you into the middle of the action, like, you know, "There was a screech, and a swordsman fell down the stairs," or what have you.

Well, actually, now that I look at it, that's a fun line. But it's fun, I now realize, not because the action is instantly involving, or because I care about what happens to the hero -- what hero? -- but because it raises questions about the setting that I'd like to see answered. I think that works well as a story opener: A first line that evokes a certain mystery about the environment in which the story happens. That's intriguing; a first line that makes you wonder what's going on, and why you should care, isn't so much.

Maybe it's the difference between starting in the middle of the story, and starting in the middle of the plot.

- Yizazy

Re: Yizazy speaking

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

The difference between story and plot is another one I can never keep straight. E. M. Forster confuses the heck out of me.

But I think you're right. If the opening line sparks a question, the reader is likely to go on to the second line. And for good readers (as opposed to those who are too lazy to do any work when they read) it doesn't even have to be a big pyrotechnical question flashing GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS in bright pink neon. It can be a quiet question. And I prefer the quiet to the loud.

And I'm glad you like the journal. Listen to my ego purr. :)

Re: Yizazy speaking

[papersky.livejournal.com]

I have no idea about plot, which people seem to use as shorthand for working everything out in advance, which is much too hard for me.

Story is the shape, it's the direction you're going and it determines things like where you start and stop.

Re: Yizazy speaking

[(Anonymous)]

This is the overly simplistic breakdown I worked out some years ago (in film school, as it happens):

Story: A happened; then B happened; then C happened.

Plot: A happened; therefore B happened; therefore C happened.

In other words, the plot is the causal chain of events that propels the story forward.

Yizazy

Re: Yizazy speaking

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

That's Forster's distinction, too, and it means absolutely nothing to me. Possibly because when I come up with a story idea, the causality is already attached? I don't know. But I can't figure out why you (hypothetical, generalized "you") would care about or bother with a sequence of events that didn't include their causality (or deliberate lack thereof).

Maybe I'm missing something.

Re: Yizazy speaking

[(Anonymous)]

I think of story as including elements of setting and tone, whereas plot is just the sequence of events. The fact that the story happens on a dull grey Sunday afternoon may not be causally linked to the things that happen, but it's part of the story.

I agree with you that a story without a plot is generally like a pile of flesh without a skeleton. Of course, at the time Forster was writing the plotless story was in big demand in Literary Circles, which is perhaps why he thought it necessary to write about the distinction in the first place. The modernist novel is all about unplot.

But then writers like Italo Calvino, my fave, also don't spend a lot of time with plots. Which I guess makes Calvino's stories a particularly interesting breed of invertebrate, like a rare jellyfish. Aaand that's about as far as that metaphor will go.

- Yizazy