- Joined
- Feb 13, 2005
- Messages
- 27,863
- Reaction score
- 2,311
They're in two different countries. Some of the events in question exist to motivate her to leave her country.
But this is your choice, too.
They're in two different countries. Some of the events in question exist to motivate her to leave her country.
Does the sister ever become relevant after that? If not, why have her? If so, then when she does become relevant why can't you show their relationship then and there?
I had the same thought when I first read your post. What is your heroine's main goal? Is it the relationship with your hero or something else? Is the romance between your MCs the focus of your story or is it more centered on your heroine's journey/growth/character arc?
To carry on the Hunger Games example, that's a case of doing it right. Yes, Collins set up things in the beginning, but if you look at that very first paragraph, you learn that it's the day of the Reaping.
There you go. A promise of the inciting event. It doesn't happen just yet, but it's coming very soon.
That's what you need to give your readers: the promise that something interesting is going to happen. If you can do that while getting them familiar with the characters and setting, they'll keep reading. Just don't wait too long to get to that interesting stuff.
This. Morngnstar, it sounds to me like what you have is a political thriller with a romance subplot. Sometimes you have to write the book first and then figure out the genre.
You've had many people tell you the backstory probably needs to be cut and your response was justifying everything, so I'm betting you've already made the decision to keep it. Just make sure it's there because the story can't work without it, not because you're so in love with it you can't bear to part with it.
For example one relationship is between the MC and her sister. After the inciting incident, they are in different countries. The relationship can only be evident, then, if I tell about it.{Snipped for space}
Why don't you put the first 1K words in SYW and see what happens?
Romance has very strict rules for the genre. It's a brand thing. Follow the rules and you get the label. Don't and it has to be called something else - women's fiction or mainstream, etc.I don't really care what genre it's in, but what bothers me is it being in the suburbs of romance. People are saying, "Well, maybe it's not quite romance," but what if it's not quite the other genres either? It's not thrilling enough for political thriller. Maybe it could be women's fiction, but it's heavy on the romance aspect and might not have enough of the varied slice of life women's fiction readers want.
Mine don't meet til chapter 3, but as my agent repeatedly insists, I AM NOT WRITING A ROMANCE.
It's historical crime. Crime thriller. Conspiracy thing. With a romance subplot.
I think that's an important distinction. As has been said, genre romance has certain conventions and expectations. It's not IMPOSSIBLE to write outside those conventions, but then you're sorta putting additional obstacles in your way when it comes to subbing it to someone who reps romance.
Why don't you put the first 1K words in SYW and see what happens?
Which should be where the story starts off. You might feel what precedes is required, but there's a reason why it's 'conventional wisdom.' Especially if it's coming from multiple people, there's a good chance something isn't actually working.My story starts a few months before the main inciting incident.
This attempt at justification has a very very familiar ring to it. All that I can say is that whenever I've found myself doing similar, in the end it turned out that I would've been better off doing what was suggested in the first place.For example one relationship is between the MC and her sister. After the inciting incident, they are in different countries. The relationship can only be evident, then, if I tell about it.
Information is:All else being equal, it's better not to write scenes to convey information.
Only write scenes to tell story.
I think the author needs a recognition of who's in charge.For example one relationship is between the MC and her sister. After the inciting incident, they are in different countries. The relationship can only be evident, then, if I tell about it.
The movie (I haven't read the book) doesn't begin with a boy-girl meeting because the story is not a Romance. It's bildungsroman.But it doesn't start out with Katniss training. We start out in her community.
I don't know what romance purists you've been talking to. Suspense works just fine in Romance. There's a whole subgenre called 'Romantic Suspense'.In my feeling it does build suspense. It allows for the romance to be unexpected and serendipitous. I've gotten the impression from romance purists, though, that suspense is not welcome in a romance novel.
While all books reveal character, stories written primarily to 'reveal character' are often LitFic rather than genre.Information in a broad sense. Not just dates, places, things. I'm talking about developing character. I've read the opinion that the main purpose of story is to give information about character. Character is the decisions your character makes, and story is a sequence of those decisions.
Information is:
Romeo is a dashing young blade, heir to an ancient family in Verona. He's romantic and ripe to fall in love. Everybody likes Romeo.
" I arranged this separation because ... "
" I decided plot points x, y, and z are more important than plot points a and b. "
I am, myself, wary of scenes that do not advance the overall action of the story. I add them ... but whenever I do, I know I'm breaking forward momentum. I avoid doing this sorta dead-still-in-the-water scene in the first five chapters.
I never said the scenes didn't have action, just that they had information. You interpreted that to mean they were "telling". They're not, they're showing. My question is if that information appears after boy meets girl, is there any way for it to be showing? One way is flashback. I don't know a any other.
The typical admonitions against "filtering" are similar in their crudeness. "Pay attention to narrative distance, and avoid haphazard slips in focalization" would be a big improvement. There are certain narrative distances at which you want to use "filtering" phrases, a lot.
*I'll occasionally read a story loaded with dull physical action, every other sentence looking like "He nodded" and "He adjusted his tie" and "He knitted his brow and wiped the sweat off his forehead and fiddled with his tie", because the author wanted to "show" not "tell", as per the mantra, and thought that was enough. I think "use interesting details instead of dull ones" on its own is better than "Show, Don't Tell"; I'd rather read a story full of interesting "telling" than one full of uninteresting "showing".