Show, don't tell vs. starting too early

If those relationships and motivations are relevant to the story they should be evident without having to explain to the reader.

And if you've had more than two people point out the same thing, there's a good chance it's a problem.

morngnstar said:

It's romance, and they say it's standard in romance for the hero and heroine to meet in chapter one.

Click to expand...

I have a couple of romances on my keeper shelf where the hero and heroine don't meet in chapter one (a couple, compared to, well, a lot).

In one, the first chapter has the hero facing execution by the US government. It was so gripping I didn't care about anything but how he would survive. In another, the hero and heroine are on a collision course. I knew they were going to meet real soon and there would be an explosion when they did.

In both these romances, the hero and heroine met in chapter 2. I'm not sure I would hang in there for chapters where the romance wasn't happening, even if those chapters fleshed out the characters.

The inciting incident for a romance is when the hero and heroine meet.

That's a basic definition for the genre. The plot of a romance revolves around these two people and the development of their relationship from the starting point to a committed happily-ever-after/happy-for-now state. Therefore, any backstory takes a back seat to the need to get these two together.

No one reads a romance to learn about someone's past.

Julie Garwood and Jayne Ann Kretnz write romance books where the characters often have very complex backstories that shape their stories, but they still manage to have their characters meet very early in the book.

morngnstar said:

My story starts a few months before the main inciting incident. I don't narrate every day of those months, of course, only two or three. This seems pretty reasonable to me. It's not like I'm delving back into her childhood to explain why she is who she is. I'm just showing who she is now.

What do you think? Does it seem like I'm on the right track, or should I cut?

Click to expand...

I think what often happens is that a writer may need to work themselves up into telling the story so they begin with the background. It helps the writer orient themselves but the reader doesn't need to know it all up front. All I want as a reader is a paragraph or so to tie me to the MC. For example, take the opening paragraph of The Hunger Games.
When I wake up, the other side of the bed is cold. My fingers stretch out, seeking Prim's warmth but finding only the rough canvas cover of the mattress. She must have had bad dreams and climbed in with our mother. Of course, she did. This is the day of the reaping.
We don't know anything about the background of the MC but we've got a small glimpse of her as a person, and we have no idea what the reaping is, but we're intrigued. Gradually we learn about the world and how Katniss fits into it.

morngnstar said:

I read a post somewhere here that said new writers often start their story too long before the main event. They should trim their first few chapters. A few people I've shared my WIP with have suggested the same thing, although some of this so think is genre conventional wisdom, not based on whether my story in particular works or not. It's romance, and they say it's standard in romance for the hero and heroine to meet in chapter one.

The thing is, there is important information about the MC's motivations, relationships, etc. that occurs in my first few chapters. I feel like I'm showing this. Things are happening to reveal her perspective, I'm not just telling the reader about her. If I cut these chapters, these things will still need to be known. I can sprinkle them in at the moment when they're relevant, but I'll still be telling, not showing, unless I do a flashback.

My story starts a few months before the main inciting incident. I don't narrate every day of those months, of course, only two or three. This seems pretty reasonable to me. It's not like I'm delving back into her childhood to explain why she is who she is. I'm just showing who she is now.

What do you think? Does it seem like I'm on the right track, or should I cut?

Click to expand...

The important thing is to get to character and story as fast as possible. Why can't you have the hero and heroine meet in chapter one, and while these other things are happening?

This doesn't mean they have to fall in love and get involved all at once, right there when they first meet, but as the writer, you choose where and when things happen, where and when people meet.

Too, when events are part of the past, telling often is teh best recourse. There nothing wrong with tell, when used properly.

But there's nothing wrong with having a character remember the past in show, either. Nor are flashbacks bad.

What usually doesn't work is having no story in the first two chapter. If the story is about two people falling in love, then those people need to meet very fast.

morngnstar said:

The thing is, there is important information about the MC's motivations, relationships, etc. that occurs in my first few chapters.

Click to expand...

Be wary of falling into "The reader needs to know this" trap. Writers often underestimate the astuteness of readers, and often overestimate what they think the reader needs in the way of background info.

And from Osulagh's post:

Osulagh said:

If those relationships and motivations are relevant to the story they should be evident without having to explain to the reader.

Click to expand...

Echo this, especially the bolded word. Try to avoid getting "explainy". I've often thought the "show, don't tell" mantra really should be expressed as "narrate, don't explain." Let your story do its work.

caw

The only useful rule of how to start a story is: "Start with interesting stuff happening." And there are many kinds of "interesting stuff." As long as interesting stuff keeps happening most of our readers will follow the story.

All other rules about (say) inciting incidents and such are suggestions only, not some doomful pronouncements sent down from Mount Olympus.

In a romance delaying the meeting of the two main characters may hurt, or help (by building suspense), or be unimportant.

morngnstar said:

... there is important information about the MC's motivations, relationships, etc. that occurs in my first few chapters.

Click to expand...

All else being equal, it's better not to write scenes to convey information.
Only write scenes to tell story.

morngnstar said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

For example, they had a fight about the sister leaving the country. When the MC calls her up for some help, they conflict with each other over the past argument until the MC is able to override the conflict and get to their problem--there, I understand that something happened.

The stuff in the early chapters is quite interesting. It's pretty action-packed. No worries there.

Click to expand...

So why are the readers telling you otherwise?

They are either: 1) Telling you otherwise; that it's not interesting and you think it is 2) Don't care and throwing out conventional wisdom because they can't be bothered 3) Bad readers--very unlikely.

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.

Click to expand...

Suspense is welcome in a romance novel--it's, in fact, one of the defining qualities. It depends on the type of suspense and how you work it.

I think I can pull off the first 50, if I try. Mind you, that's probably chapter 3.

Click to expand...

Question: Is this suppose to be romance, or something broader?


Here's my thoughts:

First, I think you're being reactive from your reader's comments. They aren't suppose to agree with you all the time, and surely it would be best to question why they thing certain ways so you can understand their thought. They might not just be throwing out conventional wisdom for the hell of it--they might just be using that wisdom because it's what applies in their opinion. Take the time to digest comments and critiques to see how it could or could not work.

Second, are you sure you're working in the right genre? Because your readers--and us--might be basing our thoughts and assumption on the genre you're working in. If you pitched the story to your readers as pure romance, they're going to walk into it and find everything but the romance should be trimmed. If it's meant to be, for example, women's fiction with romance, readers will probably react much differently.

Third, have you thought of somehow incorporating everything that happens in these three chapters with the later stuff? Mix what the readers want with what you wish to convey. Chapters created for the sole purpose of conveying information can sometimes drop dead at readers' feet--especially in the opening chapters.

I might add, for relevance to this thread, that my understanding is that Romance genre publishers are more interested in formulaic plotting than are publishers of any other genre fiction. They can be VERY specific about how they prefer narratives to be constructed.

caw

blacbird said:

I've often thought the "show, don't tell" mantra really should be expressed as "narrate, don't explain."

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think the "Show, Don't Tell" mantra is poorly formulated, and that the experienced writers who respect it are knowledgeable in spite of it. What I mean is that they might refer to it as "Show, Don't Tell" in forum posts, but understand it as merely a lexical placeholder, a convenient buzzphrase, for a set of (much better) interrelated principles: "narrate, don't explain" is one of them; "favor the specific and concrete over the general and abstract" is another; "use interesting details instead of dull ones", as obvious as that sounds, is another*; and there are more. "Show, Don't Tell" might as well be thrown out once you are no longer a complete beginner.

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".

morngnstar said:

Either that or it's conventional wisdom, which can sometimes be wrong..

Click to expand...

And maybe those readers aren't members of your desired audience.

Does this genre make my story look fat?

Osulagh said:

Second, are you sure you're working in the right genre? Because your readers--and us--might be basing our thoughts and assumption on the genre you're working in. If you pitched the story to your readers as pure romance, they're going to walk into it and find everything but the romance should be trimmed. If it's meant to be, for example, women's fiction with romance, readers will probably react much differently.

Click to expand...

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?

You don't seem to want to revise your story to fit romance genre conventions. Maybe it's a case of the genre not fitting your story?

Whatever the case, I wish you luck!

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.

rwm4768 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes. Right there in the first paragraph. The reader is promised something BIG is about to happen, which will result in more happenings. An emotional tension is created, and it is built up throughout that first chapter.

Too many new writers don't do that. Their characters stumble around in the first chapter like zombies, doing their 'thing'. Sometimes that 'thing' is gardening, or maybe it's mercenary work. Regardless, it's like reading about paint drying, because there is no stakes or tension. The MC has nothing to lose, and isn't under any real stress.

The love interests don't have to meet in chapter one in romance. Mine don't.

andiwrite said:

The love interests don't have to meet in chapter one in romance. Mine don't.

Click to expand...

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.

morngnstar said:

They're in two different countries. Some of the events in question exist to motivate her to leave her country.

Click to expand...

Motivations usually tend to fall into backstory, which is something that is best sprinkled in during the course of the actual story.

morngnstar said:

The stuff in the early chapters is quite interesting. It's pretty action-packed. No worries there.

Click to expand...

It's not just about being interesting, which of course is important. The question is does it move forward the heart of the story?

morngnstar said:

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.

Click to expand...

Suspense is welcomed in romance. There are even romantic suspense subgenres.

morngnstar said:

I think I can pull off the first 50, if I try. Mind you, that's probably chapter 3.

Click to expand...

If you are writing a romance, it is better to have them interacting within the first chapter, best if they're interacting within the first page. As mentioned, romance has more rigid conventions. It's even to the point where most of the readers will automatically think the first male and female characters presented are the ones who will be falling in love.

morngnstar said:

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.

Click to expand...

But these are things that should be sprinkled in, by how they react to the events in the story.

Kallithrix said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

One thing you may want to check out is the film Once. The female lead has a similar backstory but it comes out through dialogue (and music).

morngnstar said:

My story starts a few months before the main inciting incident.

Click to expand...

The inciting incident IS the start of the story. It's the point where the conflict is set in motion and must be resolved. Just because it's part of the character's story doesn't mean it's part of THIS story.

What do you think? Does it seem like I'm on the right track, or should I cut?

Click to expand...

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.