meaning for 'strongest start'? (Page 2 of 2)

You say that I am confused.
I say that I disagree.
And, unfortunately I may not have the time to carry this discussion with you through.  But you deserve to know that I have not accepted your definitions and instruction.

Strong-start opening paragraph ... or not?

Before he entered that intersection of X and Y, in a moment—so brief as to be unremarkable to the conscious mind— a flicker of light, a light so small but so intense, distracted him from the traffic light ahead that had turned green in his favor. He did not enter that intersection after the light turned green as was his right to do; and at that moment, so brief and insignificant to the driver of the semi that he should think the light having turned red against him before entering the intersection of X and Y of no consequence, did a semi-trailer truck and a car not collide.

Why I think it is objectively SS is that it (1) shows there will be strong thematic content to the book and (2) foreshadows the sort of characters and story and style (effectively genre-less construction ) which will follow. Clearly.

What a subjective judge may say: This is confusing sh**.

A subjective judge hanging on to some objective criterion may say: although does this does show (1) strong thematic content to the book (to those who have the intellectual capacity to discern) and (2) foreshadows the sort of characters and story which will follow, it is unsellable.

Or this one:

Who is John Galt?

Or the very least a mission statement. All contests are like beauty contests to some degree or other where the winner shor do look mighty purdy.

I wanted to throw in my two cents here, because "What constitutes a strong start?" is such a critical question for aspiring writers in all genres. Charles -- I certainly agree that judging fiction is intrinsically subjective, but this doesn't necessarily mean there aren't some common traits that make some stories more compelling than others. I've picked up literary fiction or romance novels that I couldn't put down, and scanned through some YA, sci-fi or fantasy that didn't hold my interest past the first paragraph.  As for action, many of the best sci-fi or horror novels and movies have very little in the way of "cinematic" spectacle, and way too many big budget blockbusters are just plain boring because they bludgeon you with non-stop action and special effects without bothering to craft characters and stories to care about. If I had to break down what hooks me, I'd point to three things: 1. Craft, 2. Voice, and 3. Conflict. Here's what I mean:

1. Craft: this is akin to the "compulsory" exercise figure skaters perform before the "long program"; without skilled writing, even the most creative ideas will fall flat. If the writing is choked with grammatical errors, tense and POV shifts, purple prose or rambling asides, pretentious musings and other author intrusions, I won't make it past the first few paragraphs. On the other hand, beautiful, tightly constructed prose will hold my interest even when the subject material isn't something I'd usually be drawn to. There's no short cut to honing writing skills. There are no "naturals." It takes thousands of hours of writing and reading well into the night to become an amateur, and a lifetime to improve.

2. Voice: this is a huge draw for me. If I'm not drawn to the character(s), then I probably won't read past the first few pages. I plowed through Catcher in the Rye (cliché, I know, but there's a reason this "first YA" novel is so popular) because of Holden Caulfield's voice. He had me hooked from his first jaded "If you really want to know about it" comment. Same with Rick Yancey's "5th Wave." I didn't buy the book because it features aliens exterminating humans. I loved Cassie Sullivan's voice, from the first line when she says: "Aliens are stupid." Whether you write fantasy, sci-fi, romance or literary fiction, your story (or movie) will be easy to put down if you don't create compelling characters. This is especially critical for literary fiction, where most of the hook lies in the writer's craft and ability to create fascinating and realistic characters worth investing time in getting to know.  If you wouldn't want to hang out with someone in real life, why on earth would you spend hours reading about them?

3. Conflict. Without conflict, there's no story. This may sound obvious, but many aspiring authors seem to lose sight of this fact, or they just don't seem to care. You need to create characters that we love, then put them through hell. This hell may be emotional or through a complex and tumultuous relationship, or it may be a "Hunger Games/Battle Royale" type life-and-death struggle. Conflict needs to be present from the first page, preferably the first few paragraphs, and conflicts need to evolve and change, driving your characters' arcs. This holds as true for romance and literary fiction as it does for sci-fi and YA. In a page-turning romance, the protagonists must endure all sorts of emotional baggage, near-misses, false starts and obstacles before they earn their "happily-ever-after." In literary fiction, characters must grapple with a myriad of challenges (emotional, social, economic, sexual identity, physical disability, substance abuse, traumatic childhood, etc....).

So that's how I'd down what draws me in: writing craft, voice, conflict. I realize this may be a simplification, but these same principles apply for all genres (with the possible exception of Children's picture books and early Middle Grade). What do you think? Gray

Somewhere within this discussion you will find that I prefer objective criteria, not subjective taste-satisfaction. There is, however, in the brief contest description a wholly subjective mission statement to the effect: "stuff that makes a reader go on past the first three chapters."

You have identified three such criteria that could be objective but choose to go in a different direction. (1) "craft," as you describe, I think is a given, but suppose one asserts that the technique of italicizing internal dialog -- a technique that infests TNBW like a virulent zombie virus -- is not in the CMS?

(2) Voice, as you describe, not quite the way I describe it in a narrower way, in a novel written wholly omniscient third has only the "voice" of the author in narration, and a reader liking or disliking any character is something removed from that. Moreover, a reader liking or disliking a character (in omniscient third or anything other than limited 1st, perhaps) is to me an irrelevancy, but that is a different topic. On the other hand, suppose a novel is about a psychotic gender dysphoric -- let's call zim Caityn Jenner -- whose personality dysfunctions and antics is loathsome to many readers, ought a judge base his SS criterion on that? Or only if he has a disliking for the MC but the hypothetical reader does not, or vice-versa?

(3) Conflict - yes, I cannot disagree with that, but that is objective. "Without conflict, there's no story." Indeed, there are basics of every story arc that should be in SS - except those that involve the quest/climax/resolution - that should be introduced in the first three chapters or 10% of the book. These can be objectively identified.

I say that SS should include indications of impending conflict (the trigger, the reason for making a critical choice), scene-setting (stasis), and finally the "surprise" - and the reader is off in journey to the resolution through the rest of the book.

What I find failing in many TNBW novels is a timely (if any) presentation of the stasis for the ensuing story -- all the bits of information a reader can set his mind to the context of what is and will happen. In fact, there are those who ridicule  the notion as mere a "info dump." There is a right way and a wrong way to "info dump" a stasis, but it is always wrong to ignore the task in SS.

Thanks for the response, Charles. This is a thought-provoking thread, so thanks for starting the discussion. Part of the challenge is that writers must compete with so many "instant gratification" stimuli and distractions today (internet, TV, social media, etc...) Commercial fiction is being driven into a more compressed format, where a reader expects to be grabbed by his or her collar and pulled in from the first paragraph. Scene setting, for instance, is often relegated to a few carefully chosen words, and backstory gets "trickled in" a few lines at a time to avoid disrupting the all-important "pace" and "flow." Whether or not you like these trends, they're pervasive, at least in the commercial fiction I've been reading.

In many of these 'starts' the reader is presented with the character and jeopardy first, sometimes in a setting that will be absurd if not quickly explained.  In the extreme cases, I find it unsettling and unsatisfying, almost like the book cover that says, "Buy this book or I will shoot this dog."

So I think I agree with this thesis in principle.  In practice, our language is expressed in a linear sequence of words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, etc., and it is necessary to put one thing before the other.