Does the main character have to be introduced right away?

Many murder mysteries begin with events that lead up to the murder or the discovery of the body -- all long before the detective arrives. Just make sure it is relevant action and not mind-numbing backstory dumping.

RichardGarfinkle said:

There's a trope. I can't remember the name of it, but it's a fake out beginning where you are introduced to some characters that you think are going to be the main characters and then they turn out not to be (they get killed by the villain or turn out to be the bad guys etc). Only after they are deep into what they are doing is the main character introduced.

So yeah, it can be done.

Click to expand...

However, it's also important to note that many readers (like myself) find this annoying more often than not.

Start with the action, certainly, but you don't have to start off with the main character--just make sure the reader doesn't get bored before we meet him.

ShannonR. said:

Would I be welcome in SYW? I have the '50 posts' that the rules require, but do 'average posters' in SYW mind people as new as me? I've seen some comments that make me think they do, although it could be a misunderstanding on my part.

Click to expand...

Sure! Of course, it would be better if you also posted some crits along with your sub. It would be even better if you posted some crits for a few days before posting your sub so people can get to know you.

But more important than whether or not you've critted before or even have the requisite number of posts: be kind and rewind.

Oh wait. It's be kind and don't take advantage of people. Crit and be critted. Just be genuine and active over there and you'll be fine.

I use 2 minor characters in my prologue, only to introduce through their dialogue the background of events (an on-going war) happening in the story. I don't think most readers will think "Why do we need to have these nobodies for 12 pages?" if the purpose is to set up for what is to follow (And I include a little "action" flashback as well to keep things "exciting.")
Then in Ch. 1, around 3 pages in, I introduce my MC, whom the reader can immediately recognize, because of what I set up in the prologue.

Like with most other pieces of advice you get here on AW, do what you think feels right...

Sounds very much like "As you know, Bob" dialogue again to me.

We rarely know a stranger's background before we meet them, and whether we want to know their background or not after meeting them depends upon whether we connect with them or not.

Don't assume that because you need to know oodles of background in order to write the story the reader also needs to know it in advance in order to follow the story. Allowing the reader to connect with a character and then want to know more about him because of his actions and reactions is part of the craft.

Go with what you think 'feels right' by all means but it usually pays to at least consider tried and proven techniques for engaging readers.

=JDM1950;7137448]I use 2 minor characters in my prologue, only to introduce through their dialogue the background of events (an on-going war) happening in the story. I don't think most readers will think "Why do we need to have these nobodies for 12 pages?" if the purpose is to set up for what is to follow (And I include a little "action" flashback as well to keep things "exciting.")
Then in Ch. 1, around 3 pages in, I introduce my MC, whom the reader can immediately recognize, because of what I set up in the prologue.

Like with most other pieces of advice you get here on AW, do what you think feels right...

Click to expand...

Hmm, I don't think I've ever had someone new come into a workplace who wasn't discussed beforehand, whether anyone knew anything about them or not. I remember one time a young woman came to work in my office and every flipping man in the department made an excuse to come in and take a look at her because word had gone round she was pretty. (She was) I remember a colleague creating a nickname for the new person, whom she'd never met, and announcing it to her when she arrived. So I'd find this scene pretty believable tbh.

I personally don't see any reason why you can't start with a conversation, if it is an interesting, dynamic conversation. If the two characters are standing around discussing another character, it seems in most books, the chances are that the character discussed is the MC, the villain, or the romantic interest. And, it is pretty obvious if it is either of the last two. Frankly, if the set up is interesting, why not start with the set up? There seems to be an assumption on here that the background is boring.
Like the Harry Potter example, the back story is interesting, with magic and implications of conflict, and with everyone standing around talking about a baby, even though we don't meet the kid, per se, it is pretty obvious that he will be more important in the long run than any of them, even without knowing the title, or that the baby is the title character. I mean, I don't know about you, but I wasn't sitting there wondering which of these was Potter. Especially since title characters are not necessarily main characters. Like in the Lord of the Rings. We never even actually meet Sauron, and the book is titled after him. (Though it does have to be admitted that Tolkien laughed in the face of most writing conventions. Proof that just because it isn't normal does not necessarily mean it is bad, at least not for your work.)

ShannonR. said:

Would I be welcome in SYW? I have the '50 posts' that the rules require, but do 'average posters' in SYW mind people as new as me? I've seen some comments that make me think they do, although it could be a misunderstanding on my part. i don't know what you've seen and are referring to, so I can only guess and speak from personal experience: I don't believe most anyone cares, so long as you're past the 50-post count, about you being "new", everyone starts somewhere. The few who don't want to work with anyone with under 500 posts or whatever have run into one too many snowflakes, and will just ignore the thread if they choose to--nobody is gonna attack you for meeting the official post requirement but not hitting their arbitrary one.

That said, if you WANT to piss them off, or at least me:
1. get hostile and combative when you receive a crit
2. get whiny instead, and explain how much you "like" a passage and how we don't get it
3. whine about how you're too "new" to crit in return....after all, surely, despite planning to write an entire novel, you couldn't possibly offer anything of use, right? Besides which, if you're serious about learning, critiquing work you aren't intimate with is invaluable.

note #1 and #2 don't mean you have to agree to every change, just that you're asking for a favor--the more difficult you get personally in return, the more help you lose.

all the above considered, I really don't think anyone has an issue with you posting.....and if they did, screw then--you're within the site rules. give it a shot.

In general-
It would be a pretty short scene between two characters that are major players, but aren't the MC. Basically they will be having an argument about the future of their business and agree that 'maybe its time to bring in some new talent'...and the MC is that 'new talent'. One of the 'new talents', anyway. Exactly how big of an impact she will make is revealed as the story goes on. The whole argument scene is probably less than 1000 words. I don't know if that matters. I'm trying to decide which beginning that I've written to use, or how to integrate the two scenes. Has anyone else had a similar question?

Thanks! I'm taking note of everything that's being said here, I'm getting a lot of help from this forum!

Click to expand...

I guess for me, looking at your 1 paragraph summary, I'm not sure why or how this starts things more strongly than "Claire McTalent stepped into the lobby and found an almost ridiculously large man stuffed behind the receptionists desk..." or whatever and moving forward right off.....maybe there is a reason there, maybe not, but ask yourself very objectively if there truly is or you're just in love with the scene, because now you work for the reader, not yourself.

ShannonR. said:

I love your kitty! My Daniel Tiger looks just like that!

Click to expand...

Thanks! We love him too, and he spends a lot of time lying on the printer to keep me company, although he's not there right now . His name's Tristan.

You want to know the inside of a cranky editor or agent's head before your query hits their inbox, so post your stuff. Harry was technically in the first chapter, but just a little, bitty baby in the first paragraph.

ShannonR. said:

Thanks for the kick in the seat, quicklime! I didn't think of it that way-that you work for the reader, not yourself. So many people I know have told me that you are 'supposed' to write for the love of it, not for hoping to get anything out of it or trying to please anyone else. Whereas I've worked in the customer service industry enough to know that pleased, repeat customers are your business' bread and butter and should be your focus...could the same principle apply to writing?

Click to expand...

which one you work for depends on what you want out of it. I don't write for the love of it, and I admire those who do, but think those who say you "must" write for the love of it are serving a family-sized portion of self-serving bullshit. Determine your consumer. Even those who write for the love of it often have a reader in mind as the ultimate consumer. Maybe you do, maybe you do not, but if you DO, either writing for your dear, sweet grammy or for the lady browsing the shelves at Barnes and Noble, then you need to give them priority over self-indulgence.

Note none of this says anything about if you can or can't, or should or shouldn't, write the way you are talking about, but it may give you a better idea knowing the rest of your book.

John Grisham's best-seller The Litigators breaks two rules. The first chapter is a fascinating look at a ham & eggs, low-rent law firm. The main character, David Zinc, isn't introduced until chapter two.
The second rule broken is that there is no antagonist, as such. The story is about how Zinc saves his ambulance-chasing partners from themselves.

Elmore Leonard was (is) pretty good about establishing setting, time, etc., in the opening chapter(s) before introducing the MC. Sometimes you never even know who the MC is. Swag comes to mind.

Do not start with back story. Only introduce a character late if you're presenting the setting and/or premise first, and only if you know it will hook people in. Nobody cares about back story until they care about the characters involved.

I don't think the main character has to be introduced right away, but I'm hard-pressed to find an example of a book that does it well. The only example popping into my brain right now is the beginning of China Mieville's Perdido Street Station. It was beautifully-written, but I was totally confused who I was supposed to be rooting for. As a reader, I identify with characters very quickly (usually) and I feel cheated if the person the book opens with isn't the main character. That said, I think mysteries, thrillers, etc, are fine to open with action (such as the first murder, etc).

A LOT of epic fantasy and space opera don't open with the MC. They open with other stuff that sets up the massive conflict the MC will eventually be participating in.

My current WIP introduces the MCs in chapter 4, because they come into the conflict relatively late and some of the stuff that happens before is essential to understanding what's going on. But the characters who lead the first 3 chapters are very important and stay around for the rest of the book, so it's not quite the same as opening with minor or one-off characters.

It depends. If it's well written, I won't care. But you might put a lot of readers off, who just want to get to the story.

You could argue that 100-years of Solitude doesn't really have a main character, and if it does, he either a) dies before the novel is 50% done, b) is introduced 25% into the novel, and dies before it's 75% done, or c) isn't introduced until the last 75%. Or maybe the MC is a combo of all the guys. Who knows? But it works for me.

I just like to have a sense of where the story is going, more than anything else. Don't pull a Psycho unless you know you can handle it.

Buffysquirrel said:

Jonathan describes how I react to films. I often end up rooting for the 'wrong' person.

I think you can do what you're suggesting if, for example, you set up expecatations that are exploded when the MC walks in. If, say, the two characters are talking about how neat and professional the person is they've hired, and she comes in looking like she's been in a cesspit and she's swearing and cursing at the truck that nearly ran her down. But if two characters describe someone and then they appear as described, it feels repetitive.

Click to expand...

I kinda like this idea, to have the MC show up as different than described by the characters having conversation.

However...

The MC could be someone they complain about, don't think is up to the task, heard a nasty rumor about--something to cause tension before she even enters the scene. That way the reader would have sympathy for the MC before even meeting her.

Or if they're talking about how cool it will be to work with MC because she's famous / well-known / whatever, it could be as entertaining as intro scene drama. Just maybe also a bit cliche.

Point is, I'm bored by the way OP described that scene, like they're just talking about her so we learn why she's there. She's there because she wanted a job. But what about that is interesting? That's what I want to know.

Books

It depends on the book, genre and age group.