Plot Expositions

August 25, 2007, 10:44 PM

Is it generally better to start with something going on the background in the first few chapters of a book than describing just what happens to the main character?

Some books work well with just that description stuff, like Huck Finn, which really hasn't have much going on except for narration of what had happened in the past and stuff like that. But then there are some (this also includes video games by the way) that start out with the action, like during a great battle in the middle of the war.

I don't know, but is it possible to combine the two and create a sort of in-between kind of thing?

August 25, 2007, 10:52 PM

I'm not sure if I have a preference between whether or not a book starts off fast or slow. In my opinion it's more important that something occurs early on other than the main character that catches your attention. The main character is obviously the most important character in any medium... but he is often just the observer of events. It's far more important that events inside and outside his realm of vision are occurring in the beginning so they can be spread carefully throughout the story.

The reader needs his attention caught. I'm not sure it matters how the attention is caught just so long as it is. I do not think one way is any more effective than another.

August 25, 2007, 11:07 PM

I like the first chapter to grip you instantly. Otherwise, i find it hard to continue with the book. A first chapter where the basic setting and the characters are described and layed out is a difficult one to go through, and it usually puts me off the book.
I like the start to be totally unrelated to the main character, such as the antagonsit or whatever being involved. Or perhaps a death in the early pages. I think that's why I loved The Da Vinci Code so much. The death of someone so soon gripped me.

August 25, 2007, 11:43 PM

Obviously the plot must open up with a hook. Today, most people seem to perceive that as meaning that it should open up with action to rouse the audience. But gripping introductions can be presented with a question or premise posed by the narrator, or with a chilling description, or something incongruous that makes you sit up and say "Huh?"

It also depends on the audience, of course. For example, it's easier for kids to take fairy tales because they'll let themselves be immersed in a premise or setting. (e.g. "Once upon a time..." or "In a land where magic was still common...")

While in general, settings tend to be dull introductions, sometimes they can be quite vivid. For example, the opening paragraph of G.K. Chesterson's The Man Who Was Thursday is one of the most engaging openings, and yet is a complete block of setting.

But no matter what, the story should almost definitely not open up with exposition - the only time you should open up with straight exposition is when you're setting up a premise, in order to put subsequent action into context.

August 26, 2007, 4:11 PM

I've kind of taken the James Bond "pre-title sequence" philosophy in my series, using a nice action sequence as a prologue before chapter 1. However, I don't do it just for the sake of a hook--it has to be integral to the story. I personally don't like too much straight-out yammering on about the setting's history or whatever, but rather blend it in when it's appropriate, having it come out through natural dialogue or other techniques. Show vs. Tell, baby.

August 26, 2007, 4:20 PM

Once upon a time, there was a little girl named Red Riding Hood, who was almost eaten by the Big Bad Wolf.

Right. I need a stronger hook.

Well, I prefer starting a book and have the story continue forward...rather than go backward. I suppose I get impatient sometimes, and I lose interest. But if the story's really good, I'll force myself to read the events that happened "back then"...

So for me, it's typically better to start describing what happens to the main character as the story and plot progresses, rather than having the story halt in the middle of a situation and let the author describe the character's "past"...

That's why I prefer stories that starts out the main character as a kid. More simpler that way. xD

August 27, 2007, 2:24 AM

Actually that's an interesting point, although you kinda expressed it in an award winningly confusing way. xD "Winney the Pooh likes honey. And that's why you should buy a sail boat. Understand?" lol But it is still an interesting concept.

On the fairly decent chance this will derail the thread, I have to say that I'm not a fan of books that occur completely linearly. I like when a book has to backtrack to fill in details or explain a character in full. It adds variety. It keeps me interested. Granted doing that at the wrong time can make a book boring or confusing... but if done at the right time the events of the past can have more meaning if they are described right after an event occurs that encourages a certain emotion. If the book doesn't elaborate on an event that's already occurred it typically means that the character has not evolved and cannot see the "truth" within the his misunderstood past. It means that everything is very simplistic and basic... and I'm not a fan of that.