First chapter question

[dianeP]

In the first 7 paragraphs of my MS, I mention two characters who are never mentioned again. I'm wondering how bad is it to start like this.

Sample scene (not from my MS)

MC enters her place of work and is greeted by Jane, the receptionist who hands her an important message. (We never see Jane again)

MC then gets on the elevator and has a brief conversation with Mary, a co-worker on the way up. (We never see Mary again)

MC enters her office and there we meet the hero.

This is all brief and is meant to set the tone of the scene, but I wonder if it can be a turn off to the reader.

[CaroGirl]

When I read a first chapter, I expect it to introduce me to characters, settings and atmospheres that will recur. Before I get into a story, I'm grasping at everything trying to make mental pictures I can carry with me until I have a solid understanding of all the characters and situations. If I encountered characters in the first chapter that never reappeared, I expect I'd have one of two reactions: 1) I find myself looking for those people; if they weren't important, why were they in the first chapter? 2) I get caught up in the MC's story and don't notice at all.

I have no idea which of those two reactions your story would cause, but I don't think you really want to risk reaction 1. Is there nowhere later in the story you can write in those 2 characters, even briefly?

[Adam Hammonds]

Just don't dwell on them in your description. Perhaps only mention them by name in your MC's dialogue. It will come across as normal office chitchat and--critically--a part of your MS's narrative if and only if you keep everything, dialogue and description, devoted to his/her angle.

Most stories aren't created about a man in a vacuum. But a good story keeps the reader focused on the right things and unencumbered by needless distraction.


GL,
Adam

[Clio]

As long as the exchanges are brief, I don't think it would worry me too much. Perhaps you could just refer to them as 'the receptionist' and 'Mary from the first floor' or something. But you could always ask yourself if the exchanges add anything, and if not, could you cut them altogether and just have her enter the office where she meets the hero.

[Danthia]

Readers expect some throwaway characters, so as long as you don't do anything that would make them think these characters were more important than they are, you're probably fine. But CaroGirl has a very good point, so you might just call them "the receptionist" and "a co-woker" if they aren't important.

You could also look to see if you can let these characters be more in those opening paras. What about them might show something about your MC? His view of them would tell readers more about him. If they're sweet and he thinks of them as being cloying or silly, for example, that would show him as a certain type of person. If they're witchy to him and he makes up reasons why so he can forgive their rudeness, that says another thing entirely.

One little thing that jumped out at me in your example...why isn't your MC the hero? That might solve your problem right there. The hero is typically your protagonist, so if you start with him, you bypass the two women and open with what I assume is the problem driving the novel.

[Telstar]

In the first 7 paragraphs of my MS, I mention two characters who are never mentioned again. I'm wondering how bad is it to start like this.


Bad.
Sorry to answer bluntly. They would expect these two characters to be important or at least to reappear later in the story.

Try to make them more minor (omitting names) or replace one with an important secondary character that will be in the following chapters.

[tehuti88]

You don't have to refer to the receptionist by name (unless it's the MC saying, "Hello, Jane"--even then I'd refer to the character, in narration, as "the receptionist"). This indicates she's not too important.

Regarding Mary, is the conversation with her important to the plot or character development or anything...? Because she seems a little iffier to work around. If the two are talking, it's to be expected that her name will come up, but I'm just wondering why the character spends time talking to her in Chapter 1 if she won't show up again. I'd tolerate her presence so long as the conversation is really important to have.

That's just me.

[RJK]

My story opens with a little league baseball player and his coach finding a dead body. They are never heard from again. My MC is introduced in the second scene, 16 paragraphs into the story.

[ishtar'sgate]

My story opens with a little league baseball player and his coach finding a dead body. They are never heard from again. My MC is introduced in the second scene, 16 paragraphs into the story.
In Michael Crichton's book, TIMELINE, he opens the story with a couple who never figure in the rest of the book. He spends several paragraphs on them before they hit the old man. We really don't mind that they never show up again because Crichton has diverted us with something far more interesting. The old guy is rambling quite poetically about seeming nonsense. We're paying attention to him now and not the couple. I think that's the trick to having throw-away characters who work. You can discard them easily once the reader is focused elsewhere.

[Polenth]

It can also depend if the characters are important to the main character. If they are, she'll think about them later on. Perhaps she'll miss being at the office and her old life. In that case, having them at the start can put it in context.

[BfloGal]

My story opens with a little league baseball player and his coach finding a dead body. They are never heard from again. My MC is introduced in the second scene, 16 paragraphs into the story.

For a mystery or a detective story, this would seem to be a familiar pattern. By the way, you have introduced one major character in the scene too -- the victim.

For non-mystery writing, I guess it would depend. I know I've seen it a lot in the movies and on TV, where the camera might pan any number of people -- fans at a game, workers on an assembly line, guys at a bar-- to set the stage until it finally rests on one person, who becomes a focus of the story. I guess it can work if it is brief enough and you do it skillfully. I'd let your betas tell you if it works for them.

But I always look for the main characters early on too, so anything you can do to point out that these people are not important and to throw a little extra wattage into the spotlight on the main when you introduce him, would help me as a reader.

[Feidb]

One of you said your hero is not in a vacuum, so there are going to be many characters they run across. I say keep their name and description vague. The important thing is NOT to emphasize them so the reader expects to see them again later, or they see the characters as undeveloped red herrings.

In many of my stories, I start out with a prologue from the past and none of the characters are alive or around to appear later in the book. I always label the prologue with a date that's indisputably in the past so the reader knows they'll never see these characters again. On the other hand, the main character in the prologue is the reason for the hero to continue in the body of the book, so that character will pop up again, but not the others (in the prologue, that is).

I've been dealing with too many POV characters and as I've deleted some, I've seen many incidental characters that reqire less emphasis when they are one-timers. So, it's all a judgement call.

[Madison]

I think it's okay to have the receptionist. In my first chapter, I have an unnamed bus driver who has one line and then disappears with the bus. Just a filler character, no biggie because he's obviously not important to the main plot.

Not so sure about Mary in the elevator. Does the conversation further the plot, or is it just killing time until the elevator gets to the right floor? If it's killing time, just axe it.

[maestrowork]

MC enters her place of work and is greeted by Jane, the receptionist who hands her an important message. (We never see Jane again)

MC then gets on the elevator and has a brief conversation with Mary, a co-worker on the way up. (We never see Mary again)

MC enters her office and there we meet the hero.


Is there any reason why the interaction with Jane or Mary is essential for the storytelling, or setting? Can it be summarized: "MC got an important message from the receptionist, then heard from the grapevine in the elevator that his boss was going to fire him"?

It's okay to set the scene and create verisimilitude, but one can go overboard with the "show vs. tell" when the details are not essential.

In the original opening of my novel, TPB, I did exactly the same thing... setting the scene and tone (in New York City) with about four characters that never showed up again. Eventually, I realized it was a wrong start and the introduction of "extras" who don't really a) move the plot, b) develop character or c) enhance the theme is just extra words.

[job]

It is elegant to open the story with themes and characters and settings that will be important throughout.
It is thrifty.

However, that said,
this is not necessarily worth worrying about,
right now,
as you sit down to write the first draft.

Here's why.

The sad truth is that most opening scenes get agonized over and rewritten and sweated blood upon
and then tossed out.

Round about Chapter Twenty, the writer decides the story does not start when Myra enters the building
and chats with the receptionist
and then exchanges pleasantries with a co-worker
as she takes the elevator upstairs
to Brinkly Associates
and then walks tap tap tap down the hall to her office
and finds the hero sitting in the brown leather chair next to her desk
with a file folder in his lap.

The writer decides the story starts when the heroine slams a file folder on her desk and says, "Hell no. I trust Michaud with my life," and the hero says, "It's going to be your life, if you're wrong."
And then you explain that.

Or it starts when the heroine turns the corner and the hero slams into her and pushes a file folder against her belly and says, 'You're late. Run. I'll head 'em off."

[Karen Duvall]

Personally, I think it's too soon for you to make the decision never to have these two characters appear in the story again. You never know. If the heroine never goes back to the office again for the rest of the book, as a reader I'd assume these two characters go with the office and I won't expect to see them again. But that's beside the point. The point is, how do you know for sure they'll never appear again? It's kind of fun bringing cameo people back in a later scene, if they serve a purpose. I do this all the time. And if by the end of the book these two characters continue to be insignificant props (which are still important in story telling, btw), then you can make them nameless faces. Don't worry about it now. Chances are good that you'll completely rewrite the first chapter during revisions. So go write! Have fun! And leave the minor details for later. ;)

[ABekah]

Characters evolve in interesting and unexpected ways.

I'm glad this thread has been posted. I'm having some similar issues with an originally minor character that I introduce in my first paragraph. She's an academic mentor for my main character whose advice is critical to the plot of the entire book. At first, I wasn't going to have her appear again in the story, but have found a way for her to play a much larger role. I have since given her a very colorful background. Now she may perhaps have a starring role in her own novel, completely unrelated to this one.

You never know.

[dianeP]

One little thing that jumped out at me in your example...why isn't your MC the hero? That might solve your problem right there. The hero is typically your protagonist, so if you start with him, you bypass the two women and open with what I assume is the problem driving the novel.


To answer your question, my MC is the heroine. She gets off the elevator and sees the hero which she hasn't seen in ten years.

I guess Jane and Mary are, partly, to ease into the setting instead of, boom, there Hero is. And it is all very brief, though I think I will cut down the conversation with the co-worker a bit.

Some have suggested using the receptionist instead of Jane. I think I'll do that as well.

Thanks everyone for your comments... very helpful as always.:D

[Alpha Echo]

You don't have to refer to the receptionist by name (unless it's the MC saying, "Hello, Jane"--even then I'd refer to the character, in narration, as "the receptionist"). This indicates she's not too important.



I feel the same way. If we never see Jane again, then there's no need for her name at all. All it seems we need to know is that she's the receptionist.

I dont' think that the conversation with Mary is bad. You're attempting to show the MC's daily life, something that's vital if something is going to happen to shake things up. The reader needs to see the MC's life before the conflict.

[JamieFord]

It looks like you should probably start here:

"MC enters her office and there we meet the hero."

[OremLK]

Heck, do you even need these characters at all? Why not just have the message waiting on MC's desk? Is conversation with co-worker revealing something important? If so, why can't it be from a character who is/can be used later on? If not, why do you need the conversation in the first place?

Also, I agree with those above mentioning that a truly minor character (a "walk-on" role if you will) does not need to be named and probably shouldn't.

Then again, if these are people the MC knows well and sees on a daily basis, is there any reason you couldn't use them later as part of a subplot or something?

[Tirjasdyn]

Just keep writing. You'll probably realize later you have a better starting point somewhere else.

[littleshakespeare]

I think it's fine as long as you don't dwell on them too much or supply too much information about them. Perhaps keep your descriptions of these minor characters to a minimum and keep the focus on your main character. How your main character reacts to, thinks about and interacts with the minor characters all go towards building up a clear picture of the main character.

[dianeP]

I feel the same way. If we never see Jane again, then there's no need for her name at all. All it seems we need to know is that she's the receptionist.

I dont' think that the conversation with Mary is bad. You're attempting to show the MC's daily life, something that's vital if something is going to happen to shake things up. The reader needs to see the MC's life before the conflict.

Yes, exactly. I am trying to bring the reader into the MC's life.
However, the conversation, while it goes on to reveal the mood around them, is not relevant in and of itself.

Does that make sense?
Anyway, I will cut the conversation down just the same. Thanks.

[Doug Johnson]

My advice, start here:

Quirky MC enters her office and there we meet the incredibly handsome - (if it's a romance) mysterious (if it's suspense) blood sucking (if it's horror) etc. - hero.

[Doug Johnson]

Yes, exactly. I am trying to bring the reader into the MC's life.


IMO, it's better to start with the moment her life changes. The best example I ever read was Hunter S Thompson. "We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold."
(Anything that happens before, "the drugs take hold" is better told as back story.)

[dianeP]

IMO, it's better to start with the moment her life changes. The best example I ever read was Hunter S Thompson. "We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold."
(Anything that happens before, "the drugs take hold" is better told as back story.)


That's a very interesting example. Thanks.

[Doug Johnson]

Thanks. I see you write romance. Consider starting with the very first thing she notices about him. If it's interesting and usual, the reader will want to know more about him and her. (And of course if the first thing she notices attracts her, and the second thing repels her, then you have suspense.)