We’re continuing to critique first paragraphs of my loyal blog readers which were posted here as comments a couple of days ago. Yesterday, we critiqued Patty and John, and there was a question worth answering from a reader today on that:
Andra asked:
I have a small comment. I found starting with 2nd person then jumping to 3rd person a bit jarring. Maybe that was the intent?
Randy sez: The first sentence was the following:
Balancing a live goat on the back of your bicycle has its challenges
This is not actually second person. Instead it’s simply an observation that is a truism, and using this form is common. We are zooming in to the POV character from the author’s POV, so this actually is in danger of being authorial intrusion. I’m OK with it however, since it’s fairly common to do this at the very beginning of a novel. Janey Austen did it in Pride and Prejudice, and it still works, as long as you keep it short. I think it works here, which is what really matters.
Now, let’s critique Camille. Here is her first paragraph:
Ian MacLean nearly escaped.
He made it to the edge of the lamp-lit street with only four hard strides bridging the gap between him and his freedom: Maggie’s farm truck. Even in the pallid streetlight, his Granny’s old rattletrap never looked so good.
“That’s far enough!”
Randy sez: This is a pretty strong opening. The first sentence hooks us right away in only four words, telling us who the POV character is and setting up the first part of this scene by telling us in advance that Ian is going to fail. That’s normally a little dicey, but you have to jumpstart a story somehow, and it’s common to “cheat” a little at the beginning.
However, I think Camille is “cheating” a bit too long. We need to know pretty quickly who or what he’s escaping from, and we don’t. The modern reader is impatient. You can hook her curiosity and make her ask “Huh?” but you are not allowed to be coy with her. If Ian is “escaping” then we need to know (from within his POV) what he’s escaping from. We don’t need the whole meal, of course, but a little snack would be good.
OK, so Ian is striding along, which is good, but now we get two more characters introduced in quick succession: Maggie and Grannie. Or are Maggie and Grannie the same person? It’s not clear, and clarity is what you need here.
Understand that there is a time and place for being slightly mysterious and obscure. But references to people is not the place, and the first introduction of characters is not the time. We need to know RIGHT NOW how Maggie and Grannie are related.
I’m reminded of an example from an old Writer’s Digest that spoofed a Tom Clancy novel, in which a particular scene had somewhere between 2 and 7 characters. It wasn’t clear, because the author kept calling them “Mr. Smith” and “Chuck” and “the Executive Officer” and so on, all in an apparent attempt to avoid repetition. But lack of clarity is worse than repetition. Clancy often lacked clarity on this score.
Final point: The closing sentence really needs a tag. Is it Ian who speaks? That is the normal convention when you have an unattributed quote–the dialogue is understood to refer to the last character shown in action, (in this case, that’s Ian).
But a moment’s thought immediately tells you it can’t be Ian. Somebody is talking to Ian, and we need to know who it is. Why? Because we barely know this character and we’re confused, and dad-gummit, there are 99,999 other books in Barnes & Noble, and if THIS book is fuzzy and unclear, well the one next to is likely to be better. So that first paragraph better be a snapper.
I won’t revise this opening. It’s quite strong, but it needs a bit of sharpening to bring it into focus. I will say that I read the first 20 pages of this book on the plane coming home from my last writing conference, and I thought it was stellar writing. So it sharpens up pretty quickly. Good job, Camille! Go ahead and post your revision here if you get it sharpened up.
Now, we’ll turn to Daan’s submission:
11 February 1990 – Thousands of people were gathered outside the gates of Victor Verster Prison just outside Paarl, a town surrounded by the vineyards of the Western Cape. The air was filled with excitement and anticipation as Nelson Mandela was about to be released after he was sent to prison 27 years ago.
Randy sez: I’m delighted to see that Daan is writing what he knows. Daan lives in South Africa. It makes great sense to write a novel about one of the most influential South Africans of all time–Nelson Mandela. At least, I hope Nelson is a key character in this novel. Since this is all I’ve seen, I’m going to guess that he is.
First point that needs rethinking: This paragraph is “telling.” One can get away with “telling” if it is excellent. See the beginning of A TALE OF TWO CITIES or HARRY POTTER #1 or countless other books that start off with a fresh and new way of “telling.” But this example isn’t.
How can Daan improve this? There are a thousand ways to “tell.” Here are a couple:
Focus on Place. One simple way is to focus on interesting and unique details in the place itself. The scene in THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS in which Clarice Starling visits Hannibal Lecter is a prime example, in which the prison comes alive in stark detail. Tom Wolfe brought the world of aeronautical engineering alive in THE RIGHT STUFF by doing this also–beautifully rendered detail.
Focus on Character. See Book #1 of Harry Potter, in which J.K. Rowling spends the first page telling about the horrible Dursleys. By the bottom of the page, when you discover that they have a secret that they’re terrified people will learn, you want nothing more than for that secret to make Time Magazine.
Personally, I prefer not to start with telling. OK, honestly, I do it all the time myself, but then I kick myself and fix it in the second draft or the fourteenth, or whenever it is that the fumes of the first draft fade away and I realize that I’m fooling myself and really I should have started this book by showing, instead.
So if this were my novel, I’d focus in on one person in that crowd, show us what he sees, make us hear what he sees, make us feel what he feels. Within a few paragraphs, I’d let my reader know what my POV characters desperately wants. I’d show why he can’t have it, and isn’t likely to get it. And the story would be launched.
That’s what I’d do. Daan, what are you going to do? I’ll be interested to see if you can turn this from “telling” into “showing.”
Thanks, Randy, for clarifying my 2nd/3rd person comment!
Thanks also to all those who submitted paragraphs. I’m learning oodles from you.
Should you start with the main character’s POV or can it be anyone’s?
Thank you very, very much Randy!
11 February 1990.
“Madiba! Madiba!”
13 year old Simon Skosana was chanting the affectionate nickname of Nelson Mandela with the crowd outside Victor Verster Prison. At 16h40 Mr. Mandela left the administration building, smiling and waving.
Simon felt his heart jumping. “This man was sent to prison 14 years before I was born!” he thought.
Wow! Just from reading Randy’s comments and then Daan’s revision there is 100% jump in the interest factor — assuming that Simon remains in the story. Maybe Simon himself could be jumping up and down to see through the crowd instead of feeling his heart jump.
Thanks, Randy! We’re getting invaluble tutoring here. All our work can be sifted through everything you write to the others.
I understand the need for clarity, but it’s difficult to get all the things you ask for (characters, relationships, the essence of the situation, less secretive) within 50 words.
I do tend to hint at the hidden things in my openings, so will work on that — without promising to reveal them 🙂 I’ll be interested to see if Camille does revise her paragraph. I’d read on, even without any changes, because it is fast moving.
As an exercise I’m going to read over more of the original paragraphs to see if I can guess how Randy might recommend changes.
Randy, all your comments are always very helpful and worth considering, but I thought you overreacted to the “confusion” of Camille’s opening. It didn’t confuse me it all.
I recognized immediately that Maggie and Granny were the same person, and that (in all probability) the mystery (off camera, as it were) voice in the third paragraph saying “That’s far enough!” is Ian’s pursuer, or at least someone who will interfere with his escape, fulfilling the “almost” of line one.
I find myself skeptical that the contemporary reader won’t wait through 46 words until paragraph 4 to have another clue in the story line unfold.
I stand ready to be corrected. I’m normally just a lurker on this blog, and this is the first time I’ve made such an analytical comment. But there it is.
Daan… your revised paragraph was a great improvement. Good work!
Thank you Lois! You are right. Simon is jumping up and down. This is just the first paragraph of a 3 page prologue. The actual story begins in 2005 when Simon will be a 28 year old lawyer in the office of the Director of Public Prosecution.
To Randy and Lois once again thank you.
And thanks to you too David.
Randy, you are so right about the ‘coy factor’. I waded through Dorothy Dunnett’s books because so many had recommended them, and the history was so accurate, but coy is the word to describe her style exactly, and it drove me nuts! I kept telling myself to take it as an example of how not to write.
Also revised the first paragraph of a book I’m editing to increase the immediacy. The work needed the edit badly, it was my first, and I overestimated the reader’s interest/patience for the whole first quarter.
But I’m sort of in the middle on the no-repetition rule. I confess that in War and Peace the fact that every character had four names/titles, varied to avoid repetition, made me not quite sure who was being referenced, a la Clancy.
But in yesterday’s example, I preferred pygmy, because the bleating and kicking, followed by the pronoun ‘its’ made it very clear that this was not a person. Of course, the question is whether your target reader of this book would instantly connect the descriptive ‘pygmy’ with ‘goat’, as I would. But still, people are never referred to as ‘it’; goats bleat, whereas people usually speak. Thats enough clues, IMHO.
Thanks Randy, & all. Hi David, nice to see you coming out of the shadows. Thanks for the comment.
One question Randy & all: Do you find yourself rereading first paragraphs in books after you’ve read a bit because it doesn’t really click until you get a little more info, or is it just me? I read a book “The Lost Mother” by Mary McGarry Morris and while the opening paragraph was well written, I didn’t get what was going on for a while (I’m a little dense) & had to go back & read it to appreciate the poignancy of the opening. The writing hooked me before the storyline.
Okay . . . . I can kill Granny but need to explain soon that Maggie is the Granny he lives with. I thought it was clear that Maggie and Granny both own the old truck he’s aiming for.
I tacked on a speaker attribution for that line of dialogue (from the metaphorical pool of words associated with Claire’s persona—please, someone tell me you get the inference)
I’ll cheat again and give y’all the second paragraph, which tells you, albeit still coy, who is speaking. In Janey’s day, I guess they didn’t have anything better to do than to go on and read the second paragraph. 🙂
Does this help?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ian MacLean nearly escaped.
He made it to the edge of the lamp-lit street with only four hard strides bridging the gap between him and his freedom: Maggie’s farm truck. Even in the pallid streetlight, the old rattletrap never looked so good.
“That’s far enough!” Claire’s voice rang out like a shot.
A low growl rumbled up from his throat, but instead of stopping, Ian sprinted across the road, digging into the pocket of his jeans for the key. He reached the truck and behind him, a car spattered up rain from the pavement, blaring the horn as it passed. At Claire, no doubt. Some things never changed. He had to be the only man in Scotland whose older sister still trailed him like a bullet if she thought he wasn’t sharing. Didn’t matter what it was.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree Daan – much improved. You might drop the “he thought’ at the end and turn that line into direct thought or interior monologue. Now we have a character through whom we can experience what’s taking place.
This is great, seeing the analysis and the revision. Thanks Randy. Makes me wish I’d put my first paragraph there, but I’m too late now. Anyway, I’m busy revising and learning to revise, and wondering how you always manage to be teaching just what I need to learn.
I thought Patty’s first sentence about the goat were the thoughts of the bike rider, not author intrusion.
I like Daan’s revision. I don’t think he needs the words he thought. It’s clear. Isn’t it best not to use tags unless needed for clarity?
Could you comment on when to use Italics for thoughts? I’ve heard conflicting advice.
Hi Camille, I love the improvements–I feel more into the story now. The line
“That’s far enough!” Claire’s voice rang out like a shot.
feels like the dialogue attribute is telling, though. It pulled me out a little and made me think about how that would sound rather than just hearing it the first time (which it already sounded pretty abrupt to me.)
Wow, reading all of these comments makes me start chewing my nails for mine coming up. I can already see glaring weaknesses in my five lines or so–but, that’s a good thing! (That I’m starting to see them, I mean. Not 100% sure how to fix them, yet.) Thanks for doing this, Randy!
I like both Camille and Daan’s changes. And I was okay with “Claire’s voice rang out like a shot.” Although you could have just left the dialog and have Ian turn to see Claire. But the fact he doesn’t turn around and keeps going tells us a little of his emotional state and character.
Randy, if you do get to my paragraph, please use this one instead. I was going for a long opening of getting to know the characters and witnessing their stupid crazy behavior, but after reading some of the work ups you’ve done and the tips you’ve given, I thought I would try something that might grab the reader’s attention quicker.
What do you think of this one compared to the original submission? (71 words – how do you keep it to 50?)
We were invincible.
A group of High School seniors who felt we could get away with whatever we wanted; because we always did. Driving around in our parent’s cars; buying beer underage; sneaking friends out of their houses in the middle of the night. We never got caught no matter how crazy or stupid we got. Until that night we witnessed something horrible – and the police came to my door.
Hey all, this is my first public posting of my work.
I consider myself a freshmen in Randy’s system. So please be brutally honest.
Making the journey up Mt. Hira was no small feat. Bent at the hips, hands on his knee’s, Muhammad at last had reached his destination. The last embankment was torture; red rocks littered the mountain’s narrow path waiting to break his ankle, blind cliffs’ begging to take his life.
Hi all! I’m a two- to three year reader of Randy’s e-zine and a fairly new reader to the blog. I’ve just finished a readthrough of the blog’s archives, so I feel a little more up-to-date and able to join in the current conversation.
Unfortunately, I don’t think I have much to add. Camille, Daan – both of your revised versions sound much better.
I do have to say that I (sort of) disagree with Randy on one point. I actually liked the “That’s far enough!” line by itself, without any other indicators. It gives the sentence an abruptness which I think works for the scene very well. Of course, I’d have expected to find out who the speaker was in the next sentence. I just don’t think it needed to be in the same sentence as the dialogue. I’m also echoing David’s comment that I thought it was pretty clear that Ian’s pursuer was the speaker, and that it wasn’t quite as important who the pursuer was, yet.
I do have a quick, off-topic question, Randy. I read through the archives of the blog through Google Reader. As it turned out, I hadn’t actually refreshed the page in a couple of days, and so when I saw the submission for first paragraphs, it was at the top of the list, as most current. I thought, “Well, I’d better jump on this right now!” And I posted my paragraph.
Without checking the date.
My technical question is: the way your blog is set up, do you see comments for older entries as they come in, or do you only look at the comments for the newest entry? Just wondering, because I know on a community like Livejournal, I get comments e-mailed to me, usually current, but every once in awhile, on something I posted or commented on a long time ago, because someone else had just come across it.
That question was not as quick as I thought it would be. Oh well.
Thanks again for being such a great teacher, Randy!
Seeing the improvement in Camile and Daan’s paragraphs is really exciting.
Sorry, I didn’t realize there was a 50 word limit.
Randy, if it’s possible, would you use this revision, now sitting on 50 words.
‘Mum!’ Rissa yelled as her mum ran up the staircase. ‘It’s just a photo album!’
Rissa spun to confront her dad. ‘You’re the one that got us into this.’
The knuckles of his hands whitened as he tipped his head back and shouted up the stairs, ‘Lauren, it’s nearly sunset!’
Oh, meant to say, thanks for fleshing out show and tell, yet again. Sigh.