Do you prefer...

I've read that it's not supposed to be an action scene so much as an active scene. That is, the characters actually do something, as opposed to paragraphs on description. It doesn't have to be explosive, run-for-you-life stuff, it just has to be interesting.

The show-and-tell rule applies a lot here, and it's tricky to work with.

I prefer "a day in the life" scenes before the action these days.

Oh I've tried in media res, but reading it a few years later left me more confused about my work than anything.

Well, ideally, you'd want a bit of both. You want to start with the characters doing something interesting (the action), and you want to write the action in such a way that you reveal a bit about who the characters are.

From what I've seen most of the time when people crit that a straight-in action scene doesn't work because characters aren't developed fully, it's usually because the author has written it to be intensely dramatic, and often the reader doesn't quite understand the stakes yet. It makes the whole thing appear a bit "so what?".

I don't like either extremes but tend to like things that fall somewhere in the middle.

Doesn't matter how it starts so long as the reader wants to keep reading.

I prefer it when a scene does both -- develops character while something happens

You need story. Story is both conflict and character. Leave either out, and there is no story. In media res is not an excuse to jump into actuion without character, and lack of in media res is not an excuse to omit conflict.

In media res doesn't even mean start with a car crash or an explosion, it just means to start in the midst of the story.

I blame the James Bond movies. No really, I do. They largely started the trend of films starting with a pre-credits action scene. Something would get blown up, or someone would be shot, or Bond would pretend to be killed. Then cue the music and the semi-naked dancing girls shot in silhouette. Then the movie proper begins.

That's great for the movies - and has been widely copied - but it doesn't translate so well to a novel. And, besides, we don't need to establish the character of James Bond because we know what he is like.

So a novel has to start with something to hook the reader and pull them into the story. A question, a challenge, a problem. As James has said "the story". But that doesn't mean a wham-bang action scene. A novel is not a movie.

Indeed. Starting with, as James says, the story (or action) doesn't mean you have to have an explosion etc.

It means start with the characters moving, doing something meaningful, preferably meaningful to both the character and the plot. This is where your story starts -- it's not a preamble.

Take a look at the openings of a few books in the same genre as yours (because genres have their own expectations as well). How do they start? Do they develop character and story?

ETA: Even with James Bond, the pre credits actin scene often (not always) ties into the plot of this film.

Thuro said:

I hear most writers say start with an action scene.

Click to expand...

I would start with conflict. Conflict can be as simple as a traveler arriving in a town and not having enough money to afford a room for the night. It's much easier to be concerned about a character who has a problem we understand than it is to care about several people hacking and slashing at each other in a battle.

Yeah, I think the main issue is how people define "action." A lot of newer writers interpret it to mean that they should start with an action sequence, but starting with your character fighting bad guys or running from an exploding building is not guaranteed to be interesting or engaging, especially when there's no context or build-up.

But it helps to start on a point where something is happening and your character is doing something. When people complain about books not having enough action at the beginning, the issue is often that the characters are doing mundane things and there's not enough indication of what the story or conflict is.

Though personally, in stories where a character's life or situation changes dramatically, I like to get to know the character a bit in their normal life before things change. For example, I don't think The Wizard of Oz would be as effective if it started immediately when Dorothy arrives in Oz, because where Dorothy comes from and the difference between her world and Oz are essential to her actions and her growth as a character. But at the same time, neither the book nor the movie spend too much time showing her doing mundane things. And conflict was introduced early.

What I don't want to read in the beginning of a book is the narrator talking at me for a chapter or two. Whether it's backstory, or character development, or the history and geography of the land the story takes place in, I don't want that. No.

When I hear that something should be happening at the beginning of a story, I think it's just that. Some thing happens. Maybe it starts with the MC dropping his toothbrush in the toilet, and how he reacts to that tells us a little about who he is and what sort of day he's having. As others have said, it doesn't have to be exploding wombats and train wrecks. It doesn't have to have anything to do with the main conflict at all. I'll learn more about that MC by how he reacts to that toilet toothbrush than I will in chapters of narrator talking at me, and I'll have more fun reading it.

I prefer a story where something interesting happens fairly quickly, and I get invested in the protagonist and his or her problem right away. This doesn't mean there have to be car chases or sword fights in scene one. Sometimes plunging me in the middle of action where I have no idea who this person is or why I should care is a turn off, actually. But I want to feel some emotion on the part of the pov character, and I want to have some feel for who he or she is and what he or she wants.

A bland opening scene that's just name soup or scene setting? That usually makes me put the book down right off, especially if I don't know who the book's going to be about.

I tend not to like bait and switch with throwaway characters either. Took me three tries to get past the opening chapter/prologue of A Game of Thrones because of this (later, it turned out that the opening had meaning and tied in with the next scene, but initially, my reaction was to be confused).

Thuro said:

A slow start with a lot of character introduction and explaining what's going on, or in your face action scene with a vague setting and action scene with explaining and exposition later.

Click to expand...

Neither. All I want is an opening that keeps me reading. As I used to say when I was slushing, Something Has To Happen. Doesn't matter what that something is, so long as it gets me to the next para, and the next, and the next. I like the opening to Sarah Canary as much as I like the one to Count Zero. Eh.

I have favorite books that start each of those two ways. The writing just has to engage me; I don't really care if it's description or action.

Either way, what's going to clinch the deal for me is the author's voice, whether filtered through a POV character or straight up omniscient. Does this sound like a smart and/or funny and/or passionate storyteller?

If so, I'm in.

If my reader's ear, however, is offended either by a voice/implied perspective it finds unpleasant, or by a generic lack of voice, I'm out.

I like to start with character introduction and development, but with a splash of mystery or something that sets the tone of the book. I'm not actually that big on starting with action. I can't follow this person when I don't know who they are or what led to this situation. I need that first.

Thuro said:

A slow start with a lot of character introduction and explaining what's going on, or in your face action scene with a vague setting and action scene with explaining and exposition later.

I hear most writers say start with an action scene. But what I read in the SYW (at least in the science fiction/fantasy section) when people start with said action scene people usually talk about the characters not being set up.

This seems like a bit of a contradiction to me...but I've rambled long enough. Back to the original question.

Click to expand...

Ideally neither. Which also answers your second question. Both approaches can cause problems.

I want a beginning that makes me curious. That's it.

Bufty said:

Doesn't matter how it starts so long as the reader wants to keep reading.

Click to expand...

This/

As long as the writing is engaging, I'm happy for the story to start with dialogue, action, or anywhere at all. Engagement often comes from some manner of conflict, of course.

CQuinlan said:

I don't like either extremes but tend to like things that fall somewhere in the middle.

Click to expand...

This.

It's all about a balance and for whatever reason, I find too many novice writers lurch from one extreme to the other.

IMO the best starting scene contains one character who gets developed during that scene, specifically because that character is feeling an interesting emotion due to a problem they are confronted with. The nature of the problem characterizes the world, and the character's style of thinking and acting in response to the problem characterizes the character.

Just wanted to chime back in to this thread and say thanks -- Back in August I'd copied a few of the comments here so I wouldn't lose them when revising my first chapter.

Roxxsmom & Sunandshadow, your comments were especially helpful to me in starting in the right place, and putting that emotion and interest in place -- something I'd struggled with in my last draft.

I shared the quotes that really hit home with me over on the First 200 thread yesterday, and just wanted to follow-up here and say thanks again from me and from the others your advice is helping.

This thread really helped me prep a kick-ass beginning, and I'm confident in it this time around. It's solid, and reader feedback has been damned encouraging.

You just never know how far your words will go, do you?

Thank you guys,

~ Anna