"... and how to begin?"

[Penelope Street]

I have an idea at the moment.
It's just three lines - start, middle and end but I doubt that the finished piece will bare any resemblance to the fleeting thoughts that gave me the original idea.

I don't suppose you'd care to share those three lines?

 

[drksideofthemoon]

I'm not sure writing with an eye toward publishing has that much to do with it. Most of the time, I write for the sheer pleasure of it too. When free to create at my own pace, I'll let my stories sit for several months without even looking at them; then each gets at least one major rewrite. Although I don't tend to change the openings much, nothing is sacred.

I meant that in regard to the deadline thing. I don't know if I could let a story sit for a few months, well, that's not true, both the pieces I've submitted to the SDC sat at different times for a few months waiting to be finished. But, I've never let a finished piece sit.

I don't think I have anything "sacred" in my writing either, but I don't change much, if anything, I tend to fill little gaps in as I go back through the story. It seems that I make most of my changes during the rough draft stage, I'll add or delete scenes, and move them around (thank God for cut n paste).

 

[drksideofthemoon]

I have an idea at the moment.
It's just three lines - start, middle and end but I doubt that the finished piece will bare any resemblance to the fleeting thoughts that gave me the original idea.

I had an idea once too...LOL...just kidding. I've written a couple of stories based on a single line.

The first, was the line a friend wrote in an email, we were discussing cars...and she wrote one sentence that captured my imagination. "I was in love, not with the guy, but his car."

The second story was based on a line I posted in the AH.

"You'd make a cowboy's spurs jingle."

So, like Penny, I'd love to see your three lines.

 

[Penelope Street]

"I was in love, not with the guy, but his car."

An interesting line, but not one that invites me to identify with the character.

"You'd make a cowboy's spurs jingle."

Now that's a great line!

I meant that in regard to the deadline thing.

That's kinda what I was thinking when I mentioned 'free to create at my own pace'. The few stories I've written with a deadline in mind have been among my best, but I don't think they turned out better because I wrote them quickly- I think because they were better ideas, I was able to turn them into a story faster.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

"I was in love, not with the guy, but his car."

An interesting line, but not one that invites me to identify with the character.

Well, the thought that came to mind was to write a story where the female fell in love and made love to the car...

 

[Softouch911]

RE: the publication and revision thing --

Yes, a deadline sort of puts an end to revision, like it or not, lol.

Most of the stuff I do on draft deadline (assignment, i.e.) is article in nature, no where near as hard to get as your only real issue is to deliver the content with clarity and in a tone that the particular audience expects. So I do five quick drafts -- because I'm only capable of one task at a time, lol -- and the whole thing can be done, if they demand it, in a day ... or less. Yikes! (On draft 1, I don't edit at all. It's pure freewriting ... if that helps understand, and if there are questions, then fire away.

But when it comes to fiction, I try to review submission guidelines at publishers first and write within those guidelines as much as possible. Then I revise until it's "done" and then I submit.

Another place which is of real interest for erotica writers -- you may know of it -- is ERWA (Erotic-Readers Writers Assoc.). On their mail list they will announce recent announcements from publishers who are looking for specific material. when I find one that fits a story I've done, and perhaps posted on Lit, I edit it to bring it into line with their requirements and then submit it.

So I guess I do the assigned writing to bring in a few bucks. But I take ownership with the fiction -- it only becomes a deadline situation after it is accepted and an editor sends you a list of "edits" they want for the story. Of course if they're mechanical, it's easy. If they want something more substantial, it can become a grind.

To tie it back to the topic for this thread: the assignment articles begin with the beginning. I usually outline them before starting. The thread was about how we start fiction, which is more interesting. For me, much short fiction (under 3000 words) begins at the beginning. As it gets longer, even the organization is open, as you've been saying, for pretty large changes ... I thought I had the first section of the novel all done in the first draft, but then when I was about 75% through, went back and wrote a new beginning which is set in a different time and place so it wasn't just a choice of language.

Respectfully,
ST

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'm the last person who should say a word on this topic. I agonize over openings so much that most ideas never come to fruition just because I can't decide on the opening.

It's a great thread topic, though, and I'll be following with interest. Perhaps I'll chime in later, too, if only on purely academic basis.

Best,

Verdad

That may be because V has some of the best critical eyes when it comes to detecting the false, clumsy, or contrived opening around. I know from experience. She just doesn't cut herself any slack.

Really, are we talking here about opening style or opening content? Because content is story-driven. I don't think you can give any sort of formula or trick for it, although the old rule says that the opening sentense of a story should always imply a question. "It was the best of times; it was the worst of times." Why? "When AIden saw the last customer walk into his tattoo shop at eleven o'clock at night, he told the girl he was working on to yell like he was hurting her." Why? Why would he do that? It pulls the reader in and keeps them reading, of course.

But rather than try and sit down and try and pull some kind of sleight-of-hand, it's important to start the the story where the story actually starts, with the first occurance relevant to the tale you're going to tell. You'd be amazed at how many stories don't do this. Like the story that opens with the hero sitting in the girl's livingroom waiting for her and and then immediately flashes back for three pages of backstory. Inless there's somethingterribly compelling about this poor schmuck sitting in the living room, that story's started at the wrong place.

It's also a good idea, since people are the most interesting part of any story, to have your story open with a person doing something that says something about their character. We all know how silly stories are that start with two or three paragraphs about the weather or about how nice someone's house or car or clothes are. We just don't care about that. In fact, read a parahraph about a house and and tell me you're not wondering about the people who live there.

As for style-- I say fuck beginnings. More stories have failed to be written because of people agonizing over beginnings than for any other reason, and it's just not worth it, because most bad beginnings are bad precisely because the author tried too hard to be good and it shows. They tried to hard to be clever, to be grabby, to be original, and it stands out like a sore thumb. You can see the flop-sweat on the page.

Just start the damned story and deal with it later. Beleive me, by the time you finish a story you'll have figured out some way of dealing with the beginning. A beginning is nothing more than an excuse not to write.

But what it comes doen is how you like to "hear" your story told to you - what your reading voice "sounds" like when you read. For me, it sound like someone's telling me the story one on one in a bar or something. They're smarter than me and they have a touch of the poet, so I like my beginnings to be kind of graceful and intimate and lift me into the story by my interest. I like to be brought in by my curiosity and the prettiness of the picture I'm seeing in my mind's eye.

I don't like to be shocked into it or fooled or tricked and gimmicked.

When I get stuck on an opening - and hate me if you want, but unless it's really difficult I rarely do. I just don't give opeings that much thought - here's what I do. I pretend I'm writing a report. I pretend I've written: "Here's what happened..." and I start writing.

 

[Softouch911]

<snip>
But rather than try and sit down and try and pull some kind of sleight-of-hand, it's important to start the the story where the story actually starts, with the first occurance relevant to the tale you're going to tell.
<snip>

As for style-- I say fuck beginnings. More stories have failed to be written because of people agonizing over beginnings than for any other reason, .... Just start the damned story and deal with it later. Beleive me, by the time you finish a story you'll have figured out some way of dealing with the beginning. A beginning is nothing more than an excuse not to write.

Dr. M! Good to see you again ....

I've snipped liberally from yours, because I think the points I've highlighted by quote are worth repeating really.

Many people seem to confuse starting with the beginning, don't they, and never get a good idea moving. The beginning is the first words of the story in its final draft. Getting started for me is something like you described in your OP -- I sit down and write what happened: tell a story.

That's because the act of writing is one act, and that act doesn't include editing for style or even spelling (for me), and I know damn well that if I try to self-edit and fix it so it is actually good I'll probably mess it up ... so I keep going. Then I can go back later and play with it as needed, but it's okay because the story has been told, well or poorly, but at least it's out there.

Several folk here say they just start and whatever comes out first is the beginning, and they seem pleased. It's happened to me too, but I can't control it very well, and when it does I'm grateful, but I started the thread because a couple of folk expressed an interest in discussing what to do in the story's opening. Your point is well-taken:

it's important to start the the story where the story actually starts, with the first occurance relevant to the tale you're going to tell.

My way of getting that to happen is to insinuate my characters into an unfamiliar situation where they'll be challenged and forced to start down the road -- I think that may be why it's so hard to get the young man on the sofa waiting for his date going in a meaningful way; wouldn't it be more interesting to start the same tale with him taking a wrong turn and going somewhere he "shouldn't" be? Then what?

Just an addendum re: a grabber at the beginning: I had occasion to hear Bob Mayer speak this last weekend at a writer's conf. He insists that agents/editors generally still do the equivalent of pulling the ms part way out of the envelope and read only the first 2 sentences or so before deciding whether to read the whole thing ... so he insists that the first 2 sentences need to be grabbers.

Given your caution, maybe we should add to his insistence ... they need to be honest and fit the story well.

Best, ST

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Dr. M! Good to see you again ....

Thank ST. Good to see you again too.

Just an addendum re: a grabber at the beginning: I had occasion to hear Bob Mayer speak this last weekend at a writer's conf. He insists that agents/editors generally still do the equivalent of pulling the ms part way out of the envelope and read only the first 2 sentences or so before deciding whether to read the whole thing ... so he insists that the first 2 sentences need to be grabbers.

I think Bob Mayer is a hack myself. . I think most of these guys who speak at conferences are hacks, which is why they speak at conferences instead of sitting at home writing books. I don't know how many best-sellers or great books came out of these seminars. but I'm going to guess not many.

But no, there's grabby and there's grabby. the self-conscious, overdone and silly kind of thing that Budd Schulburg satyrized in his fampous parody of what would set a Holywood agent's eyes on fire:

BLAM!! BLAM!! BLAM!! BLAM!! Four slugs tore into my gut and I was off on the adventure of my life

Something like that is grabby, but it's just ludicrous. But you see the same formula applied in so many story openings:

Craig knew he was in trouble as soon as he he heard the Harley pull up in the driveway. "Who do you know who drives a Harley?" he asked the girl in bed with him. "My husband." she answered.

An opening like that isn't just grabby, it's clawing for your lapels. It's in your face, bordering on the gimmicky. It has "writer's workshop" written all over it. I mean, it can certainly work, but to me, there'll always be something a little pre-fab and graceless.

But now that I reread you (terrible reading comprehension, me) I think what you're really talking about is developing the story, right? Ways of developing a situation you're going to work with?

In your original example, you posited a professor and a student who are going to meet. Rather than have them meet in the expected setting of classroom, you played against expectation by setting up an automobile accident...

Yeah, I see what you're saying. That's still a pretty basic way of developing plot, though, by manipulating the situation and seeing what your characters do. I assume they're still going to end up in bed together? You're just leading them on a little detour.

Yeah, I work like that too but I'm not happy about it, It's not a good way to work. I'd rather set up character first and work with characters who keep me a little surprised. When they asked Eudora Welty why she wrote she said, "Because I wanted to know what happened." That's really the best reason to write. Because you want to know, not because you already know.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

This thread gets more interesting all the time.

I understand now what ST was talking about, the start and the beginning are quite often two different things. I think for me, most of the time, the start is the original concept, the seed for the story. Quite often this is somewhere in the middle of the story, and even the ending.

When I actually get down to writing, I don't necessarily write in a linear fashion, I've been known to hop back and forth through the time line of the story. Usually, I will write the beginning of the story, and like Dr. M said, this should be the first scene that is pertinent to the story.

I read Dr. M's comments about the first two sentences, and how they should grab the reader. I went back and looked through a few of my stories, and I really didn't see it, not in the first one or two sentences. Maybe this is something that I should look at a little more closely.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I read Dr. M's comments about the first two sentences, and how they should grab the reader. I went back and looked through a few of my stories, and I really didn't see it, not in the first one or two sentences. Maybe this is something that I should look at a little more closely.

Yeah, I don't buy this either. This is the conventional wisdom. This is what they tell you, but I don't buy it either.

Conventional Wisdom tells you you have one sentence with which to grab the reader's attention, but think about it: when you sit down to read a story, you already have the title in mind, and that's already got you interested. That's probably already got you willing to invest yourself in a couple paragraphs at least. So as an author, you know that reader's willing to give you a little time get things going. What do you do with that time?

I guess, speaking generally, I like my stories dense, descriptive, and experiential. I'm not telling stories as much as I'm giving experiences. My plots, such as they are, are usually simplicity itself, but if you come with me, I'm going to try and show you what something felt like. So I use the opening of my stories as a vestibule in which to get the reader to cross over from their world into mine. I suppose that's why the jerky, plunge-into-the-action opening bothers me so much. It's not that there's anything wrong with it. It's just not my style.

But going back to what ST said about his Professor story and having it start with an auto accident as a way of making it interesting... You have to bear in mind that nothing that happens in your story is random., Everything has meaning. The fact that it appears in your story means that it has meaning, otherwise it wouldn't be in the story. That's what a story is - a collection of what the author sees as the meaningful bits of life. By having them meet that way, you're telling us that they met by literal accident. They literally "ran into" each other. It was fate. She could have been any girl; he could have been any professor.

 

[Softouch911]

Yeah, I like the conversation, too, darkside! Just look at all the stuff you uncover with a beginning.

But going back to what ST said about his Professor story and having it start with an auto accident as a way of making it interesting... You have to bear in mind that nothing that happens in your story is random., Everything has meaning.

I'd like to keep the proviso you shared from Eudora Welty ("Because I wanted to know what happened ....") up front with "what happens next." The only thing interesting about the situation is that the two characters didn't anticipate meeting in that place/time. It forces them out of their comfort zone and seeing how "they respond" lets them breathe a little more freely.

The idea of finding a situation which creates interest in and of itself often ends up with something ludicrous ... or a cartoon.

Sometimes people criticize this approach as something that happens only in "character-driven" stories. I plead guilty to that one! I wouldn't have any idea of how to write a story that wasn't driven by character.

Respectfully, ST

 

[sirloy]

I hardly feel qualified to comment as a rank beginner but since the original question was asked... I like to start with a hook to grab the attention of the reader. It might be directly related to the story or perhaps an insight to a character.
To this point I find my stories to arrive in my mind and unfold as I go along as if someone is telling me the tale. All terribly unorganised but I enjoy the story telling its self.
The hook for my current tale:
She was pissed off, more; she was steaming mad, angrier than she had ever been. Her life had been planned; she knew where she was going. She even had the wedding dress hanging in the closet.
“The bastard, the absolute fucking bastard”
“The Shit, the huge filthy pile of shit”
“I’ll fucking get him”

The story has already past the short story level and I have no idea where it will end. Likely unpublishable!
S

 

[Softouch911]

You say you're a beginner, sirloy ... like that's a bad thing or something.

You can probably tell from other posts of mine, if you've read them, that I've been writing for a long, long time. But everytime I sit down, it's new, I'm starting over, and I'm a beginner.

What you pick up are some skills ... none of them guaranteed to make your work successful ... and you pick up some confidence, which is not the same thing as arrogance.

The test of your beginnings is the story which follows it. And the right way to do it is whatever you do that "works." We write about what we do, so we can get ideas of new ways to try, or encouragement ....

Good luck to you. This is a pretty good place to learn and enjoy it.

Welcome, ST

 

[Penelope Street]

But going back to what ST said about his Professor story and having it start with an auto accident ... By having them meet that way, you're telling us that they met by literal accident. They literally "ran into" each other. It was fate. She could have been any girl; he could have been any professor.

Ok. I've read this two days in a row and I'm still lost- which I often am with symbolism, so bear with me. What is meant by "It was fate. She could have been any girl; he could have been any professor"? She wasn't going to just have sex with anyone she happened to run into, right?

That's because the act of writing is one act, and that act doesn't include editing for style or even spelling (for me), and I know damn well that if I try to self-edit and fix it so it is actually good I'll probably mess it up ... so I keep going.

Is this strictly a personal observation or does it mean I really shouldn't be working simultaneously on multiple stories? Or that I shouldn't stop writing a story and start again on it months or even years later?


This thread could have so many interesting spinoffs- like "Do flashbacks ever work?" and "What question is implied by these two lines?"

 

[Softouch911]

Is this strictly a personal observation or does it mean I really shouldn't be working simultaneously on multiple stories? Or that I shouldn't stop writing a story and start again on it months or even years later?

Well, not just personal ... but mostly. If you divide your composing into various tasks that require different parts of your brain -- making ideas, writing them, revising them, proofreading -- I think there are some of us who can only do one of those things at once. I'm one of them, and when I'm "writing them" if I stop to revise or correct I'm as likely to stick myself in a hole as I am to actually make an improvement.

Example: I know one of my crutch words is "was." I overuse it and one revision step I take is to isolate every use of the word and look to see if I can't make the sentence stronger by eliminating the word or replacing it in some way. If I did that while I was actually writing, I'd bog down for sure.

so, once I start to actually write, I usually rush to the end. Then I go back and revise, sometimes a process that takes, as you said, "years later." A story that succeeded a couple of years ago in fact was a story that I'd first written when I was about 16. That was decades ago and it took that long for me to putter it into decent shape. I'll probably try it again sometime.

So far as multiple stories are concerned, I too have a number in process ... but I can only do one step to one story at one time. That's because I'm multi-task challenged, I suppose.

I wonder sometimes if when i say "writing" I don't confuse people because I mean just the single act of composition, not the entire process which is made of a lot of different steps and mental processes and quite different skills than the writing itself requires.

Respectfully, ST

 

[Penelope Street]

... once I start to actually write, I usually rush to the end.

Maybe I'm just the opposite. My fingers are rarely flying across the keyboard. Back when I was trying to determine if I could really make a living with my stories, I measured how many words per hour I wrote getting to the first draft stage and I think it turned out to be something like five hundred in an hour, which is only like one sentence per minute. That seems pretty slow to me.

 

[Softouch911]

Hey, if they were words/sentences/pages I could actually keep, two pages/hour would sound just fine to me!

Maybe "rush" was too strong. though I do love to get a scene or two that will seem to write themselves.

ST

 

[sirloy]

It seems that the method of writing is as different in as many ways as the style.
I am to this point anyway an edit as I go type. I need spelling and punctuation right as I go or it bothers me. I do reread and rewrite for content later but typos and spelling HAVE to be fixed as I go. Thats just the way I am.

S

 

[Newstart]

Typos and spellin

It seems that the method of writing is as different in as many ways as the style.
I am to this point anyway an edit as I go type. I need spelling and punctuation right as I go or it bothers me. I do reread and rewrite for content later but typos and spelling HAVE to be fixed as I go. Thats just the way I am.

S

Me too! Maybe it's because I use MSWord but I can't cope with the red and green underlines just sitting there as I try to write more. Anal or OCD - whichever, but I've got it!

 

[wanderwonder]

For you, is the beginning of the story the same as where you start writing? That has sometimes happened to me, but it just as often "begins" somewhere else.

Unfailingly, when a story pops into my head it does so in the form of scenes or vignettes, usually the main character interacting with one other character in a variety of situations. It usually happenes when I'm reading or watching something: The other day I was reading a review of a really awful Western romance novel and laughing uproariously at why the critic hated the book so much. My train of thought jumped a few tracks and suddenly I was imagining what would happen if a real-life, sensible cowboy was stuck with a woman who had read too many bad bodice-rippers, and what kind of conversations the two would have about the various stock plot devices that romance writers use (secret baby, the marriage to save reputation, the marriage that was written into Grandpappy's will, parted lovers whose loins still burn with lust after all these years, the whole Regency period, etc.) I write these scenes first, because they're the ones that are the most vivid, the most tangible, then fill the rest of the story in. Or I have to come up with a plot. It takes a long time to write this way, though. If anyone has tips on how to make that process hasten, hit me up.

When I write the beginning of a story, I try to get my reader as fascinated with the character as I am. Usually I have to answer the question of how the characters I imagined go to their positions in those vivid vignettes. Why the heck would a sensible cowboy allow himself to get saddled with a flighty woman in the first place? Is he lonely, bored, growing an uncomfortable conscience, handcuffed, is it part of his job, or is there some more sinister motivation? A lot of keeping my writing fresh is conjuring a character who could take what my imagination can dish out. The rest of it is my effort to surprise readers, the kind who can usually guess the ending of a suspenseful movie within the first fifteen minutes.

Editing, well…If I read over my work and don't get the sensation I want from it, I try to find out where I went wrong. If I'm writing an action scene and get an adrenaline rush while typing (it has happened before), I usually don't change anything but the spelling and grammar. If I can't evoke the same emotion in myself as in what I'm writing when I'm writing it, I do a lot more editing. A whole lot more, until I can read it and think, "Ah, that's what I was trying to say."

 

[Softouch911]

It sounds like a wonderful comedy to me, wanderwonder! Or maybe some dark, absurd piece where 'hell is other people.'

And if your'e trying, as you seem to be, to let the story write itself then i can't imagine a fast way of accomplishing it. John O'Hara used to talk about how he only took a day or two to write a story ... but then someone did a bit of homework and figured out that he only wrote three or four stories a year -- lots of time for the subconscious to percolate before his talented mind would take over organizing the words and images.

Best wishes,
ST

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I like to begin a story with a problem or conflict or strange incident that immediately sucks the reader in. I mean, it's a given that the characters will interact sexually, but how you set it up should create suspense and tension and interest in the reader. Like this example from a story I wrote:

A professor invites her boyfriend over, he cant make it. She has an unpleasant confrontation with a young male student about a grade. After class her car wont start, no one is available to pick her up, road service wont take her home, and the idiot cab driver cant find her on campus. Then the disgruntled student happens along. Voila! I have a beginning and can move to the seduction/middle section. The reader knows theyre gonna do it, but they dont even like each other.

I think it's just standard dramatic writing formula.

 

[Softouch911]

The most interesting analogy to explain it that I've seen lately comes from our own Dr. M, in the "back story" thread here. See the last few posts on "house on fire."

Best wishes,
ST

 

[wanderwonder]

Isn't the point, however, to make our writing original? Standard formulas are usually in place because they work, but if we cannot twist that formula to create something new it's like a fill-in-the-blank worksheet. I agree with the Dr. M that the "House on Fire" method works exceptionally well, but good writers know how to disguise the formula so that readers cannot recognize it.

Dr. Mabeuse gave a great example, but I'm sure there are other, equally disguisable, "standard formulas" to which writers ascribe. I took one lit class in college, so I personally don't spot them. Are there others (I'm fairly sure that I never used the house on fire method, which almost alarms me)?