What to include in first 50 pages?

[naimas]

Hi,

I am wondering what one should try to put in the first 50 pages of a fiction novel if they are going to be sending it to agents that accept the first 50 pages.

I know that sounds wierd and that the first 50 pages should just tell the story but I know that screenwriting requires you to introduce your characters and hook the audience within the first 10 pages. I am writing a thriller.


Sorry if this has been asked before.

Also any info as far as how long chapters should be? I know the answer is long enough to tell your story, I am just wondering if there are any guidelines or general advice.

Thanks.

[Fishmonkey]

Hi,

I am wondering what one should try to put in the first 50 pages of a fiction novel if they are going to be sending it to agents that accept the first 50 pages.

I know that sounds wierd and that the first 50 pages should just tell the story but I know that screenwriting requires you to introduce your characters and hook the audience within the first 10 pages. I am writing a thriller.


Sorry if this has been asked before.

Also any info as far as how long chapters should be? I know the answer is long enough to tell your story, I am just wondering if there are any guidelines or general advice.

Thanks.

Naimas --
It's a good idea to keep them reading; other than that, I doubt there's a magic formula. I would suggest introducing your protagonist as well as his problem.

I think that 'hook' is often misunderstood -- hook (IMO) means that there is something that will keep a reader reading. What it is depends on the reader -- I like nice prose, and will keep reading as long as the writing is delightful. Others would expect stuff blowing up from page one.

If you're writing a thriller, you would probably want to get your protag into some sort of precarious situation ASAP -- but not before you gave us the reason to care about him. I've seen too many books that start with the protag teetering precariously off the cliff. The problem is, unless I know who the guy is and care about what happens to him, he can fall to his death and I will stifle a yawn.

Chapter length -- IMO, anywhere between 1,000 and 6,000 words is reasonable. I tend toward 3-4K words, but it helps if you treat a chapter as a mini-book, with the hook, rising action, climax, and denouement. Chapter is a descrete unit, so don't force it into an arbitrary length.

Hope this is somewhat helpful.

[Jamesaritchie]

Hi,

I am wondering what one should try to put in the first 50 pages of a fiction novel if they are going to be sending it to agents that accept the first 50 pages.

I know that sounds wierd and that the first 50 pages should just tell the story but I know that screenwriting requires you to introduce your characters and hook the audience within the first 10 pages. I am writing a thriller.


Sorry if this has been asked before.

Also any info as far as how long chapters should be? I know the answer is long enough to tell your story, I am just wondering if there are any guidelines or general advice.

Thanks.

I guess I'd just say to read as many thrillers as you can get your hands on, and do thou the same. The way to know how to write a book is to read as many books in the same genre as possible.

As for chapter length, whatever it takes. Structure is the key, not length. Again, read a few dozen thrillers and see how those writers handle chapter length and structure.

[Vomaxx]

the first 50 pages of a fiction novel

Oops -- all novels are fiction. Be careful never to say "fiction novel" in anything you send an agent or publisher.

[naimas]

Hi,

Thanks for all the replies. Great advice in them.

And yah, fiction novel does tend to be something I need to work on. I DO remember reading about not writing the words fiction and novel together yesterday.

I am having to lose the words "myriad of" as well.


And Fishmonkey, I want you to know that because of you I am adding something immediately to make the audience more likely to bond or be sympathetic with the protagonist. I can't stress how much your reply helped me in that. Just a few hours earlier I picked up a bunch of books at the store to study how the writers wrote the first fifty pages and in one of them I noticed that a woman gets kidnapped in an elevator and I didn't care AT ALL because I didn't know who she was and why I should relate to her. She faced a huge dilemna that started within the first 2 pages and it all happened too quickly. I ended up putting the book down. She was kidnapped by page 8. I didn't care.

So, thanks for the info. The book could have made me sympathetic if it had simply done something like have the woman out shopping for her daughter's birthday party presents.

I also noticed too many books that introduced characters including main ones that gave very little description to them. I remember reading one that had two women talking and then a man entering the picture and I kept thinking, um, what color hair, age, race, location, time period are these people?

So I will be sure to avoid such mistakes. Thanks again for the advice.

[Jamesaritchie]

[QUOTE=naimas]Hi,
Just a few hours earlier I picked up a bunch of books at the store to study how the writers wrote the first fifty pages and in one of them I noticed that a woman gets kidnapped in an elevator and I didn't care AT ALL because I didn't know who she was and why I should relate to her. She faced a huge dilemna that started within the first 2 pages and it all happened too quickly. I ended up putting the book down. She was kidnapped by page 8. I didn't care.

[QUOTE]

I hate to say it, but this is often the best and most popular way of beginning a thriller, a suspense novel, or a mystery. It's also often done this way in movies.

If you're wanting the reader to get to know someone before they're kidnapped, you're talking, long, slow opening.

[naimas]

I suppose you could be right. However, I wish I could remember the name of the book.....there was very little set up. It opened up in one place, went immediately to her home (with no description of her house) then went to a business where she was kidnapped. The first stabs at being a thriller were made in her house when she heard someone downstairs. It was so rushed and without description and over as soon as it began. The writer had me pinned. So many of us sleep in second floor bedrooms and have woken up to a strange sound below. The author had me and I feel should have pushed the button more. I so much wanted the writer to describe the sounds and terror. Instead it made the quick move to dawn and the next chapter. A single page could have made that scene work as well as another page for the kidnapping because TWO characters were involved in it. A thriller should be thrilling. I also think a bad guy needs some description (unless your art is to keep him hidden) before he strikes. This writer introduced a killer and gave him some serious story affecting lines one sentence after a description and two sentences after introducing him into the story. I was still trying to visualize his jacket in my mind when he uttered his shocking lines. Its like telling the punchline of a joke at the same time as telling the joke. There needs to be a little space for drama or for your descriptives to sink into the minds of the reader.

But I am just speaking of this book. I totally understand that a thriller should start off with a bang and some serious movement. I put down a book because it opened up with a ten page conversation that didn't move from the room. I quickly got bored. If it was a cop drama, a court room or the like it might have worked but it wasnt.

So, I understand what you mean. Thrillers need to thrill. But move too quickly and people pull back.

[Jamesaritchie]

So, I understand what you mean. Thrillers need to thrill. But move too quickly and people pull back.

My experience is just the opposite. Move too slowly and people pull back. I would suggest that you make sure the thrillers you're reading are bestsellers. These are the ones with structure you want to emulate. If a thriller is a bestseller, you can be certain people did not pull back.

I do wonder if you aren't confusing two genres, thriller and suspense. Thriller usually means fast, suspense usually means slow.

[naimas]

Interesting. I decided to check the net and found that most sites are listing the genre as thriller/suspense as though it is one. I do see how they could be different. I never did like it when they would consider thrillers and mysteries to be one.

[scarletpeaches]

I also noticed too many books that introduced characters including main ones that gave very little description to them. I remember reading one that had two women talking and then a man entering the picture and I kept thinking, um, what color hair, age, race, location, time period are these people?

This is something I personally disagree with, because I don't think it matters what the characters look like, and if the author tells us, a lot of the time it can read like an info-dump. Especially in the first-person-looking-in-a-mirror-describing-themselves way. Sometimes the author can give the reader too much when it comes to their characters. One doesn't need to talk down to the reader or give them everything - leave something to the reader's imagination. After all, it's not the looks that matter, is it, but the actual character? The story, the plot, the writing.

[Jamesaritchie]

Interesting. I decided to check the net and found that most sites are listing the genre as thriller/suspense as though it is one. I do see how they could be different. I never did like it when they would consider thrillers and mysteries to be one.

Suspense and thriller do get linked, they are brother and sister, and each can have aspects of the other, yet they remain separte genres, just as mystery is a separate genre.

When writing, I think of a roller coaster. A thriller is a succession of steep drops, sharp turns, and loops. A suspense story is the slow, uphill ride to the sharp drop. Suspense and tension build and build, and then let go. A mystery is "Who the heck tore up the the rails and killed all the people on the ride."

[ANNIE]

This is something I personally disagree with, because I don't think it matters what the characters look like, and if the author tells us, a lot of the time it can read like an info-dump. Especially in the first-person-looking-in-a-mirror-describing-themselves way. Sometimes the author can give the reader too much when it comes to their characters. One doesn't need to talk down to the reader or give them everything - leave something to the reader's imagination. After all, it's not the looks that matter, is it, but the actual character? The story, the plot, the writing.
I agree with Scarletpeaches. Personally I get annoyed when the author tries to describe every little detail in the first chapter or two. Set the story up with some initial action starring your protag. then slow down and do some explaining. there's plenty of time for descriptions to be slipped in without bashing the reader over the head.

For me if the book you described began as you suggested- mom shopping for daughter's b-day present- I wouldn't have got past page 1

[fallenangelwriter]

Naimas --
I've seen too many books that start with the protag teetering precariously off the cliff. The problem is, unless I know who the guy is and care about what happens to him, he can fall to his death and I will stifle a yawn.


Hope this is somewhat helpful.

Actually, I've found beginning in medias res a fine way to reveal character, if handled properly. take that man hanging form a cliff- we say him in action, under pressure, but simultaneously alone with his thoughts. bodies in motion are more interesting than those at rest. good internal monologue can reveal how he ended up there, whose fault it might be, and his relationship with other key characters. the way he thinks, combined with the way he acts, can quickly establish what kind of man he really is.

I'm wokring on a fantasy story about a wizard who was once an ordinary foot soldier, forced by a war back into association with his erstwhile peers. the first scene is a battle, in which both his current occupation and his past training are revealed, he fights alongside a former comrade, revealing some of the nature of his nostalgia, and his reaction of disgust toward the use to which he's putting his own powers sets up the critical struggle he faces in the story.

I think that's a faster way to make readers care about him than letting them watch him chat over tea.

[Fishmonkey]

Actually, I've found beginning in medias res a fine way to reveal character, if handled properly. take that man hanging form a cliff- we say him in action, under pressure, but simultaneously alone with his thoughts. bodies in motion are more interesting than those at rest. good internal monologue can reveal how he ended up there, whose fault it might be, and his relationship with other key characters. the way he thinks, combined with the way he acts, can quickly establish what kind of man he really is.

I'm wokring on a fantasy story about a wizard who was once an ordinary foot soldier, forced by a war back into association with his erstwhile peers. the first scene is a battle, in which both his current occupation and his past training are revealed, he fights alongside a former comrade, revealing some of the nature of his nostalgia, and his reaction of disgust toward the use to which he's putting his own powers sets up the critical struggle he faces in the story.

I think that's a faster way to make readers care about him than letting them watch him chat over tea.

I don't think I suggested chatting over tea anywhere, and I agree the protag in action is more interesting. However, putting someone in mortal danger is a way to manipulate reader's emotions -- and it backfires if done prematurely. Emotions must be created first. Yes, putting someone in the middle of a battle might be a good way of revealing character. But opening the story with the raised sword two inches over the protag's neck is a good way to make me put the book down.

[Jamesaritchie]

But opening the story with the raised sword two inches over the protag's neck is a good way to make me put the book down.

It's a matter of reader taste. In media res is the way a great many novels start, and some of them are very good. Judging by what sells, starting a novel with a raised sword two inches above the protag's neck is something a large percentage of the public wants. It's also something done very frequently in movies. I don't think it manipulates the reader's emotions in any way.

I love some novels written this way, and action can reveal character just as surely as anything else. I don't think it backfires if done prematurely because I don't think it can be done prematurely. If this is the kind of novel you're writing, the earlier the better. The first paragraph of the first page is a really good place for it.

On the other hand, I also love many novels with long, slow descriptive opening that let me get to know both character and setting before the real action begins. Be in Charles Dickens or Stephen King, I love settling in with a novel that puts me deep into the character and the setting before hitting me over the head with action.

Neither approach is wrong, some like one, some the other, some both. Either approach, if done well, will draw millions of readers.

[Fishmonkey]

It's a matter of reader taste. <>
Neither approach is wrong, some like one, some the other, some both. Either approach, if done well, will draw millions of readers.

Agreed.

[luke_e_richards]

Fact is, there are no rules.

Some famous novels that begin with a violent scene which the reader has no reason to care about:

The DaVinci Code, by Dan Brown. I think, given his success, we can all assume he knows what he's doing.

Farenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury. Although not "violent" in terms of bloodshed, the opening is a poetic scene with violent language, with no characterisation or plot. Those are added, masterfully, in later pages.

Anything and everything by Terry Pratchet. Once again, given his success, I think we can assume that this isn't a bad thing.

Anything and everything by Ian Rankin and Tom Clancy, who, lets face it, are basically the same. I seem to remember reading somewhere that they were both cloned from the combined DNA of Michael Chriton (sp?) and George W. Bush. Well, so what if I can't spell the name of the author of Jurassic Park without my dictionary handy? Or jurassic? I bet the President can't either.

The fact is this: some readers put books down when the opening is too fast, but the VAST majority put books down when the opening is too slow.

Grab the reader's attention. It doesn't have to be with violence. It can be with very strong characterisation. It depends on what your book is about. You don't just want to sell your book, you want to sell your self. If writers were honest people we would title every book "Curriculum Vitae". You want the reader to decide to buy your other books, or your next book. If the interesting thing about your story is the characterisation, you want the people who DON'T put your book back down to be the kind of people who appreciate good characterisation in the opening. If you're book is about boxing, you might consider opening with a fight. Boxing fans like fights. It's why they watch boxing.

[Jamesaritchie]

The fact is this: some readers put books down when the opening is too fast, but the VAST majority put books down when the opening is too slow.

.

Tell that to Stephen King readers. There are millions of them, and Stephen King very seldom starts off fast.

The fact is, there are about teh same number of readers for both types of openings, and both types of novels do equally well.

What matters to teh VAST majority of readers is not a fast or a slow opeiong, it's how well you write, how well you tell a story, and how well you build characters. Starting really fast is, in my opinion, more a trend than anything. It hasn't been around all that long, and it does no better in sales than books with slow openings.

And while I love both types of opening, those that start with a bang can get old really fast. When every book you pick up is in media res, it doesn't take long to start wishing for somethng else.

I'd also go so far as to say the worst possible thing any writer can do is write someting in a certain way because he thinks that's what readers want. It never is.

[Garpy]

Hmmm....I think the advice above really varies according to genre. With thrillers, you probably do need to open with some form of tension device, whether it's an explosion, a hovering axe, or a simple dilemma. But, to be fair to Ritchie....I also agree that you need some sort of characterization built in for the tension to actually mean anything. But hell....you don't need to have pages of description and inner soul-searching to establish a character. A single sentence of description and a few well deployed 'thoughts' can flesh out a character enough for you to give a damn what happens to him....or her.

[naimas]

Ok

Another question about the first fifty pages................


If an agent wants the first fifty pages do I send the first fifty pages (1-50) actual pages....

Or is it fifty pages when the amount of words in the script reaches fifty pages (250 x whatever)

I know fifty is a general rule and you don't stop in the middle of a paragraph.

So which is it? 50 full size pieces of paper?
Fifty pages per the amount of words.


Thanks

[Bufty]

:) Jeepers - FIFTY pages is FIFTY pages. 1,2,3,4,........50. You ain't goin' to be executed because you send 49 or 51 if that's a sensible place to stop.

[maestrowork]

Ok

Another question about the first fifty pages................


If an agent wants the first fifty pages do I send the first fifty pages (1-50) actual pages....

Or is it fifty pages when the amount of words in the script reaches fifty pages (250 x whatever)

I know fifty is a general rule and you don't stop in the middle of a paragraph.

So which is it? 50 full size pieces of paper?
Fifty pages per the amount of words.


Thanks

50 pager pages...

Really, send 50 physical pages, starting from the first word of your ms. (don't forget the title page where you put the title of your work and your contact info, though). It's okay if you send 51 or 52 or 49 to avoid stopping mid-paragraph or scene.

[naimas]

Thanks.

50 actual pages....and dont break in a paragraph.

[Bufty]

No - and I didn't mean to sound snarky, Naimas.:) You'd have known if I had been speaking face to face.:banana:



Thanks.

50 actual pages....and dont break in a paragraph.

[Danger Jane]

Above all, make it interesting. That's the imperative thing. But novels aren't screenplays--you can be as mysterious as you want, as long as it adds to the story and doesn't confuse the reader.

[Bufty]

Above all, make it interesting. That's the imperative thing. But novels aren't screenplays--you can be as mysterious as you want, as long as it adds to the story and doesn't confuse the reader.

Don't follow this Mdlle. Nancy - it's the first 50 pages of a written novel - it is as it is.

[NeuroFizz]

All the discussion of PACE in the first fifty pages is important, but I prefer to judge the beginning by how INTERESTING it is. Both quick and slow starts can be interesting, and both can be uninspired. Interesting is what keeps me reading. The problem: interesting can be very subjective.

[maestrowork]

A lot of times pacing and "interesting" go hand-in-hand though. A "slow" story means nothing really interesting "happens" for a long while. A bunch of characters sitting around talking about life... etc. It could still be interesting in terms of prose quality or character development... but characters are mostly interesting when they're DOING something, not when they're sitting around contemplating the remains of the day.

I'd say, no matter the genre, within the first 50 pages the following should happen:

- the major characters should be introduced (there are times when a major character appear later in the book -- that's okay)
- the main conflict should be presented
- one or two major revelations should be presented
- at least one major plot turn, especially near the end of the 50 pages to keep you wanting to read the next 50...
- the writing style should be consistent and well-established

[blacbird]

What to include in the first fifty pages? I'd say . . . a check for several thousand dollars between pages 24 and 25.

bird

[Bufty]

Don't follow this Mdlle. Nancy - it's the first 50 pages of a written novel - it is as it is.

Ooops. I misread the original question. I now follow it, but if one is at the stage of sending a manuscript to an Agent surely all these points would have been addressed long ago.

I agree with the comments, but to me it simply boils down to - by page 2 the Agent should be tempted either by the writing style or the content to read on, and by page 50 he should hopefully be well and truly caught up in the story.

[Danger Jane]

Isn't this the same as making it interesting?

[Bufty]

Yup.