Story introductions - yes or no?

[pink_silk_glove]

That's at least the second time that you've said that someone is reading incorrectly into what you are posting.

Guess what? If multiple people are 'misreading' you, maybe you are the not communicating clearly, or your performative art posting style is too obscure.

Either way, I don't really care.

No, you're the only one with the strong front, not multiple people, so it's just you.

 

[Voboy]

No, you're the only one with the strong front, not multiple people, so it's just you.

...well, not really...

You're very quick to see in others the motives you want to see, rather than the ones they might actually be trying to show. Just an observation.

You might get further in discussions if you take people at face value when they tell you why they do things, rather than assuming you already know better than they do.

I'm sure you think I'm being "egotistical," for example, but I assure you I'm not. Just trying to be helpful.

 

[Voboy]

I've read a lot of stories here that contain various kinds of extra-narrative text at the beginning, and FWIW, it doesn't bother me so much. In general, I suppose I prefer to have more information, rather than less. If I read an introduction that seems unnecessary or a little silly, I think I usually just forget about it and move on to the story itself.

My go-to advice is this: write the story you'd like to read.

So, if you enjoy reading stories with intros? Write one, by all means! You're your story's first fan, after all; if you like it, plenty of others will.

 

[jsmiam]

No, you're the only one with the strong front, not multiple people, so it's just you.

I got to say the nay-no, my glover.

definitely not just one.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I got to say the nay-no, my glover.

definitely not just one.

A few have disagreed with me sure, but only one really had a front. Of course you can pile on now after the fact if you like.

 

[MyBareTorso]

About one-third of my writing has opening statements. At first, I followed the Lit concept of telling readers 'all characters are over 18 blah blah' and what flavor of sexual activities they would encounter. Later, I dropped that since I saw most of the stories I read didn't do that.

In a number of the chapter stories, especially those with some time between them, I used an intro on what transpired in the previous chapter and started the story with that remark.

As I recall, I've had two or three comments that my setup openings were unnecessary... 'just don't' and get on with the story.

At this point, I follow the crowd and leave them out. No one complains about that! So I'm good without them. However, if I have a character from another story appear, I mention that and point out the story's title [inticement to read that story - it works. I've had several readers comment they went off to read that story as well.]

Lastly, I mention that my favorite editor has reviewed the story. Credit is due, always.

I always include pointers to my previous stories where appropriate...I had one negative comment about it, but these stories take time, and I have to admit, I'd ideally like as many eyeballs on them as possible. Scores and comments aren't hugely important to me, but I do love higher read counts. Basically though, they are our stories, and we can do as we please, and then deal with the consequences.

 

[Seadog777]

I do.
In today's fucked up world, you have to put up disclaimers.
JMO, of course.

 

[KenNicottii]

When I start reading a story, the default assumption is that it’s set in the present day. But of course, many are not. So I think it’s helpful to know that it’s in the 1960s or during WW2 or some imaginary time/place.

I’ve had issues that relate to changing mores or attitudes (e.g., drinking & driving), old/new laws, or medical advances, so it’s good to know upfront what era the story is in.

But the greatest concern is the technology available in the year(s) the story is set in. I use mid-‘90s as a rough demarcation when home computers & email took off. And mid-‘00s for mobile phones. (The first iPhone was 2007.)

My story ‘Queen of Diamonds’ needed to have this intro:

This story begins in 1996. Cell phones were expensive and uncommon. People were starting to buy personal computers for home use and had discovered email. Cars had cassette tape players, and VCRs were the main way to watch or record a movie at home. Airports were still hang-loose about who got to greet or see you off at the gate. And you couldn't legally buy absinthe.

This was published in 2018, so readers roughly under 30 might have been unfamiliar with this technologically ancient world – and even more so as the years go by.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

When I start reading a story, the default assumption is that it’s set in the present day. But of course, many are not. So I think it’s helpful to know that it’s in the 1960s or during WW2 or some imaginary time/place.

You should be able to tell the time period by just reading the story. The story should just convey it.. To state it as a disclaimer is basically copping out.

 

[AlinaX]

You should be able to tell the time period by just reading the story. The story should just convey it.. To state it as a disclaimer is basically copping out.

Do you just argue for the sake of it?

Technologically, kids these days live in an entirely other world to most of us. They stream their music and stream their series and talk via Discord and WhatsApp, so things like telephones and CDs and e-mail are already antiquated, let alone the idea of VHS and un-smart cell phones.

I can see why a foreword about technology could be useful, especially if slightly tongue-in-cheek. I'm not sure I would bother, myself.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Do you just argue for the sake of it?

Oh come on. The example he gave is the textbook version of telling and not showing, exactly what aspiring amateurs are encouraged to not do.

 

[AlinaX]

Oh come on. The example he gave is the textbook version of telling and not showing, exactly what aspiring amateurs are encouraged to not do.

Yes, but you were complaining about the foreword explaining the time period, which missed the point rather. Now you could have argued that the story should also explain technological context, and that would be an interesting discussion but hardly clear cut.

 

[Bamagan]

It is kind of funny to imagine an author's efforts to subtly call out differences in culture and technology for recent history without making it seem weird or unnecessary to any possible reader. Anyone who lived through the 90s could easily feel like the author is talking down to them by explaining what VCR means and why nobody is on their phones or why Radio Shack exists. It's even funnier if the story is in first person (and not in flashback) and the main character's internal voice is saying things like, "Our planned meeting at the not-yet-obsolete Blockbuster Video store never happened, because none of us carried a device that would allow us to transmit messages about delays or problems that occurred after leaving our homes." Might be a gutbuster over in the Humor and Satire section, though.

 

[AlinaX]

In desperate need of some soothing music, I popped in Beethoven's sixth, but to my deep frustration, the tape was the one that unwound, and indeed was so mangled in the process that the Pastoral sounded more like nails on chalkboard.

 

[Bamagan]

In desperate need of some soothing music, I popped in Beethoven's sixth, but to my deep frustration, the tape was the one that unwound, and indeed was so mangled in the process that the Pastoral sounded more like nails on chalkboard.

Ooh, I remember chalkboards! Those were the dark walls that people used to mark up with little sticks made of dead sea creatures that got turned to stone.

 

[DrHappy]

I’ve started doing this. My stories tend to be long, so they are intended to be like the inside cover or back cover of a real book. Maybe I’m wrong, but I suspect that many are reluctant to start reading if they see several Lit pages. The notes are intended to do two things: help the reader decide whether they want to read the story, and to entice the reader to read it.

I try to keep it very short (1-3 sentences) and no hint of spoilers.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Do you just argue for the sake of it?

Technologically, kids these days live in an entirely other world to most of us. They stream their music and stream their series and talk via Discord and WhatsApp, so things like telephones and CDs and e-mail are already antiquated, let alone the idea of VHS and un-smart cell phones.

I can see why a foreword about technology could be useful, especially if slightly tongue-in-cheek. I'm not sure I would bother, myself.

I would find that patronizing. One could just as easily say that of any generation and any technology. I just published a story set primarily in the 1950s. Should I include a note to explain to readers under sixty that television was black and people routinely traveled by train?

 

[MelissaBaby]

When I start reading a story, the default assumption is that it’s set in the present day. But of course, many are not. So I think it’s helpful to know that it’s in the 1960s or during WW2 or some imaginary time/place.

I’ve had issues that relate to changing mores or attitudes (e.g., drinking & driving), old/new laws, or medical advances, so it’s good to know upfront what era the story is in.

But the greatest concern is the technology available in the year(s) the story is set in. I use mid-‘90s as a rough demarcation when home computers & email took off. And mid-‘00s for mobile phones. (The first iPhone was 2007.)

My story ‘Queen of Diamonds’ needed to have this intro:

This story begins in 1996. Cell phones were expensive and uncommon. People were starting to buy personal computers for home use and had discovered email. Cars had cassette tape players, and VCRs were the main way to watch or record a movie at home. Airports were still hang-loose about who got to greet or see you off at the gate. And you couldn't legally buy absinthe.

This was published in 2018, so readers roughly under 30 might have been unfamiliar with this technologically ancient world – and even more so as the years go by.

Readers under 30 have parents over thirty. They didn't grow up in a laboratory.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Yes, but you were complaining about the foreword explaining the time period, which missed the point rather. Now you could have argued that the story should also explain technological context, and that would be an interesting discussion but hardly clear cut.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Yes, but you were complaining about the foreword explaining the time period, which missed the point rather. Now you could have argued that the story should also explain technological context, and that would be an interesting discussion but hardly clear cut.

That's ridiculous. Rowling and Tolkien and many others have written entire alternate universes without disclaiming anything about their settings off the top. MelissaBaby just wrote a story set in the late 50s and she had no trouble at all writing that world without an explanatory intro. Writers all over the world write period pieces every day without having to declare anything off the top. Why not? Because they're good writers and they aren't too lazy to let their settings explain themselves.

 

[Voboy]

That's ridiculous. Rowling and Tolkien and many others have written entire alternate universes without disclaiming anything about their settings off the top. MelissaBaby just wrote a story set in the late 50s and she had no trouble at all writing that world without an explanatory intro. Writers all over the world write period pieces every day without having to declare anything off the top. Why not? Because they're good writers and they aren't too lazy to let their settings explain themselves.

You've read LOTR lately? No? Tolkien did write a disclaimer, "Concerning Hobbits," which has been printed as an introduction to FOTR since at least the Ballantine edition came out. It does everything you seem to despise about introductions.

On top of that, you can easily call The Silmarillion and the LOTR appendices "introductions" to LOTR, if you're so inclined. I think Tolkien might be the worst example you could possibly have called up: the man was constitutionally incapable of NOT providing explanatory matter.

 

[AlinaX]

Meh. With a fantasy novel, the reader expects a world of differences and the author finds way to explain these. The same can be said of ancient history, and arguably the 1950s qualifies as ancient history for most people. But for the 1990s, there is a huge technological shift just because of the rapid pace of development. I grew up with tape cassettes and VHS and floppy disks and blackboards and chalk, but the next generation had CDs and DVDs and USB flash drives and white boards and marker pens. When I grew up, mobile phones were the size of bricks; for the next generation, they were Nokias and Blackberries. For kids today, it's all streaming services, social media and cloud computing.

The key difference is the difference between remembered past and historic past, and while there are some authors and readers who might remember the 1950s, and many who remember the 1990s, there are many that don't. So should an author write for those who do remember it? Or for those who don't? Those who do remember it might not appreciate being told what they know; those who don't remember it, might get confused it they aren't told.

And, yes, you can argue that a good author should be able to find some way to accommodate all readers, but I have to say that when I am writing stories, I often don't care if the reader doesn't understand my references. So is an Intro necessary to explain historical context? I would argue not, but also I would say it can work, especially if delivered in an ironic way that will make those who do remember nod and smile.

 

[djrip]

Meh. With a fantasy novel, the reader expects a world of differences and the author finds way to explain these. The same can be said of ancient history, and arguably the 1950s qualifies as ancient history for most people. But for the 1990s, there is a huge technological shift just because of the rapid pace of development. I grew up with tape cassettes and VHS and floppy disks and blackboards and chalk, but the next generation had CDs and DVDs and USB flash drives and white boards and marker pens. When I grew up, mobile phones were the size of bricks; for the next generation, they were Nokias and Blackberries. For kids today, it's all streaming services, social media and cloud computing.

The key difference is the difference between remembered past and historic past, and while there are some authors and readers who might remember the 1950s, and many who remember the 1990s, there are many that don't. So should an author write for those who do remember it? Or for those who don't? Those who do remember it might not appreciate being told what they know; those who don't remember it, might get confused it they aren't told.

And, yes, you can argue that a good author should be able to find some way to accommodate all readers, but I have to say that when I am writing stories, I often don't care if the reader doesn't understand my references. So is an Intro necessary to explain historical context? I would argue not, but also I would say it can work, especially if delivered in an ironic way that will make those who do remember nod and smile.

I would write the 90s as if it were the 90s currently. Ie, as if I didn't know anything about the 2000s. So, no need to say something like "the cell phones were huge compared to now and didn't have touchscreens, and most people just used landlines, and therefore couldn't keep track of their friends' changing plans once they left the house..." Rather, just tell the story. "Joe got done talking to Sally and hung up the phone on the wall. He went to the hangout but no one was there. He didn't have any messages on his beeper. 'Now where are they,' he wondered, heading down to the Spot to see if anyone had turned up there instead." Stuff actually written in the 90s or the 50s or the 1600s doesn't explain what's different between then and now, it couldn't. But we understand just fine because the work shows us what things were like in the period in which it takes place.

 

[AlinaX]

I would write the 90s as if it were the 90s currently. Ie, as if I didn't know anything about the 2000s. So, no need to say something like "the cell phones were huge compared to now and didn't have touchscreens, and most people just used landlines, and therefore couldn't keep track of their friends' changing plans once they left the house..." Rather, just tell the story. "Joe got done talking to Sally and hung up the phone on the wall. He went to the hangout but no one was there. He didn't have any messages on his beeper. 'Now where are they,' he wondered, heading down to the Spot to see if anyone had turned up there instead." Stuff actually written in the 90s or the 50s or the 1600s doesn't explain what's different between then and now, it couldn't. But we understand just fine because the work shows us what things were like in the period in which it takes place.

Which is perfectly valid. But there's no reason you couldn't do it differently. "Of course, in those days I couldn't just use Google Maps to figure out where I was. I kept driving and hoped for the best."

 

[djrip]

Which is perfectly valid. But there's no reason you couldn't do it differently. "Of course, in those days I couldn't just use Google Maps to figure out where I was. I kept driving and hoped for the best."

That is totally valid too of course, but only if a modern narrator is relating a story about the past, I think.