McAnally's (The Community Pub) > Author Craft
First verses Third
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:
--- Quote from: Nickeris86 on August 03, 2011, 05:00:24 PM ---the reason i am doing an 'introduction' is because i have a very interesting back story for the character that if i don't at least give a fragment of in the beginning my readers may be lost on why my character is the way he is. Primarily it explains where he got a rather nasty burn scare that covers the left side of his neck and down over his upper arm and chest. this scare plays a big role in the first book and if i just straight into the meat of my work people will wonder where he got this scare and why its so important to him.
--- End quote ---
Why is people wondering that a problem ?
That would strike me as the kind of mystery about a character that actually does catch my attention.
Bearracuda:
--- Quote from: Nickeris86 on August 03, 2011, 05:00:24 PM ---the reason i am doing an 'introduction' is because i have a very interesting back story for the character that if i don't at least give a fragment of in the beginning my readers may be lost on why my character is the way he is. Primarily it explains where he got a rather nasty burn scare that covers the left side of his neck and down over his upper arm and chest. this scare plays a big role in the first book and if i just straight into the meat of my work people will wonder where he got this scare and why its so important to him.
I HATE introductions (as a reader), use them all over the place as a writer.
--- End quote ---
Well, there are a couple ways you could do this without an introduction. (I'm not criticizing or saying you should avoid an introduction, just brainstorming here) But you could have thoughts going through his head that are relevant to the scar during moments in which the scar is important.
Ex: Imagine he's sitting at a campfire, debating a crucial decision. It's going to be difficult, and there will be a lot of hardship ahead. In the end, he decides he's going to do it, and he's going to put his whole heart into it. He's going to do it because he can't let an innocent person go unprotected *looks down at scar* Never again...
That way you get to tell the reader that he's got this scar, that it's on his mind, and that the current situation is similar to the situation in which he got his scar. Then maybe as you go on he could have nightmares or flashbacks where you reveal bits and pieces of how he got this scar without giving away the whole tale. It creates suspense, and it reveals backstory on the scar while keeping your main plot moving along nicely.
Also, I'd love too look over a copy. I'll do my best to provide constructive feedback.
newtinmpls:
"Your preferences are not universals."
Good point, since that is not even true in my own mind. What I hate, is an introduction that "explains", I like show don't tell, or better yet "make me think." I loved the introductions in the Belgariad, because they had absolutley nothing (overtly) to do with the story. They were short, well done, equivalents of bed time stories that later in the book I could go "oh, I get how that fits in!"
"This reader really likes the things that can be done with a good introduction, and tends not so much to like stories that are very obviously trying to hook hard and fast and early."
I once read an author describing how he worked as "when I'm writing, I skip over the boring parts." and I find that sometimes I need to write them - so I understand them - but I don't need the reader to read them. I'm all for writing more than is needed and trimming.
I also really like the "show, don't tell" example of the burn/campfire. Well done.
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:
--- Quote from: newtinmpls on August 06, 2011, 09:39:54 PM ---Good point, since that is not even true in my own mind. What I hate, is an introduction that "explains", I like show don't tell,
--- End quote ---
That would be one of those things that never quite made sense to me at some levels. It's all words; everything is telling.
--- Quote ---I once read an author describing how he worked as "when I'm writing, I skip over the boring parts." and I find that sometimes I need to write them - so I understand them - but I don't need the reader to read them.
--- End quote ---
The thing about that is that everybody has different notions of what the boring parts are. Neal Stephenson writes infodumps that go on for pages and pages and pages in ways that are absolutely fascinating and would harm his books a lot to be cut. Myself, I often find action scenes boring, particularly if they're not doing anything other than being action scenes.
newtinmpls:
Me: Good point, since that is not even true in my own mind. What I hate, is an introduction that "explains", I like show don't tell
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh: That would be one of those things that never quite made sense to me at some levels. It's all words; everything is telling.
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or serious. It's the difference between:
SHOW: "The memory makes McAshlan's hackles rise, but he doesn't fume. His voice drops slightly in pitch and becomes icy calm. His hands rest lightly on the desk top. His eyes focus on a car corner, and his words are trimmed in Scottish. They are precise words, individual, each set apart from the next, call cast in iron and covered with chrome."
and TELL: "I could tell that remembering the situation upset him by the way he spoke."
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version