Help Please! Crash, Bang Wallop - or Even Flow?

[Paul Whybrow]

I've read conflicting advice about how a narrative arc should flow in a novel. I was delighted when I found a graph that showed how a story should have highs and lows, as well as longueurs when nothing much seems to be happening, and that the psychological thriller novel that I wrote in 2014 'The Perfect Murderer' conformed to it. This was quite by chance, or maybe having read thousands of novels rubbed off on me.
See : http://www.musik-therapie.at/PederHill/Structure&Plot.htm
This approved pattern starts slowly, as my first chapter does, before climbing steeply to an early dramatic peak - which happens in my second chapter when the corpse of an American tourist is found. My third chapter pulls the key police personnel together in a meeting to discuss the case, which shows something of their individual characteristics.
The problem with this, is that if one is submitting just the first three chapters to an agent or publisher, then it's not going to grab them by the lapels and say "look at this !" Some experts advise that the opening paragraph should be shocking, and that the story should hit the ground running with the first chapter charging into the second. One way around this, is to have two versions of your opening chapters - a sensational, make-an-impression sizzler for submissions and the real more sedate bookish form. Daft isn't it ?
I've not done this (yet!), but have used a tip to use a hook/elevator pitch in the first paragraph of my covering letter by describing my novel as The Silence of The Lambs meets World of Warcraft. This is meant to indicate the contrast in how an undetected murderer,a psychopath and The Watcher, a game-playing fantasist approach killing their victims.
In the submissions that I've made to literary agents, and those publishers with an open submission window, I've placed the elevator pitch in the introduction of my query letter. I noticed that the illustrious Redhammer Management, run by AgentPete, had a stipulation in their onsite submission form that the plot be summarised in 250 characters. This had me frothing at the mouth for a moment, until I realised that it forced me to use my elevator pitch.
There's a bewildering variety of formats requested by agents for submissions, and certainly no such thing as an industry standard form. Some ask for the first three chapters, others the first 5,000 or 10,000 words and one asked for the first twenty-five chapters. The most sensible, to my mind, requested three consecutive chapters from anywhere in the novel which I thought best represented my style and the action in the story.
I've read on various forums and blogs that there is a trend towards shorter story formats, owing to readers using iPhones and tablets on the move, where content is taken in bite-sized chunks. Increasingly limited attention spans and the need for instant gratification is also affecting how patient people are when beginning a book - hence the advice that a story should go BOOM right from the start.
I understand the need for a compelling hook or an unique selling point to attract readers, but am really confused about the contradiction between allowing a story to develop with peaks,plateaus and even the odd trough and attempting to provide 0ne cheap thrill after another. No one can stay permanently high, forever aroused and unfailingly interested.
Thoughts please...

 

[Nicole Wilson]

I write thrillers as well, and one piece of consistent advice I've heard from most authors in the genre is you want to start off with something that grabs your reader. That can be an explosion, a murder-- and it doesn't have to be BOOM, it can be a tantalizing piece of evidence-- whatever, but something has to grab them. Something has to make them turn to Chapter 2. The way most books I've read (Lee Child, James Rollins, Steve Berry, Preston & Child) start is a hook-y Chapter 1, and then they go into that story arc starting in Chapter 2. That's where they start to develop and use those peaks and plateaus.

 

[Alistair Roberts]

Welcome Paul. You do raise some interesting arguments and points, and so the answer really depends on this, in the cold light of day. Do you want your novels published or not? That's not such a simple question to answer, but at least in my mind leads to this. If the opening chapter doesn't catch a readers and publisher/agents attention, then it's not going to get picked up and published. The major what the first 3-4 chapters so they can see the flow and quality of your writing. Diving into the middle, or disconnected chapters makes following a story very hard. Gotta go, so might come back later when I'm not distracted.

 

[Karen Gray]

I have to point out also that this graph is ok if you are writing a stand-alone but not if you are writing a series. Though I suppose you could apply it to the whole series, but you still need dynamics within the individual books.

 

[Katie-Ellen]

Some time back, @AgentPete said to me about my first page, 'why do I, the reader, care?' It doesn't have to be BOOM, but there has to be grab or identification. Of course, what grabs one person won't grab another, but that's the roll of the dice; no legislating for that. I could not get into 'Gone Girl', though I tried, and it's a best seller. I can not be bothered to open a whodunnit. I'd rather do a cross word. I might open a whydunnit.

 

[Jason Byrne]

I have to point out also that this graph is ok if you are writing a stand-alone but not if you are writing a series. Though I suppose you could apply it to the whole series, but you still need dynamics within the individual books.

As a fantasy writer, my openings are 'interesting' in their hookiness, but might be immediately followed by Tolkien-esque ponderous world-building.

And while your greater overarching series arc will follow an ebb and flow all its own, Karen, I think you might be surprised how similarly the individual volumes each mimic this graph, in addition to that of the greater plot — it's just that a single crescendo and diminuendo of the overarching five-book series presumably illustrated comprises the five mini-crescendos-and-diminuendos of one individual novel, topped by the next novel, and so forth.

 

[Jason Byrne]

I've taken approximately a minute and a half to illustrate an alternative style of progression of volume or series, wherein you open, take a couple expository pages and then blast into utter madness, spend the next half of the book languoring in slow development and character, notice how much time has past and spend the last half of the book in blistering, full-speed climax, resolve everything suddenly, and deal one last jarring blow in the last pages before resolving this as well.

Wait, that's a horror movie. Do I write horror movies?

 

[Marc Joan]

Difficult one. I try to write short stories, where the emphasis on providing an opening hook is even more extreme. But I don't always like to write like that, and many writers from the past, who are broadly accepted to be good, didn't write like that either. I guess there is no right or wrong answer, you just have to do what seems right to you. There are no guarantees. But if you write only to please an editor or other gatekeeper, the chances are that you won't...in my humble.

 

[Marc Joan]

I've taken approximately a minute and a half to illustrate an alternative style of progression of volume or series, ?
View attachment 133

That's a lovely camel, Jason.

 

[Jason Byrne]

That's a lovely camel, Jason.

Huh. Okay, so I'm not Ross Perot. Maybe graphs aren't my thing.

 

[Nicole Wilson]

As a fantasy writer, my openings are 'interesting' in their hookiness, but might be immediately followed by Tolkien-esque ponderous world-building.

And while your greater overarching series arc will follow an ebb and flow all its own, Karen, I think you might be surprised how similarly the individual volumes each mimic this graph, in addition to that of the greater plot — it's just that a single crescendo and diminuendo of the overarching five-book series presumably illustrated comprises the five mini-crescendos-and-diminuendos of one individual novel, topped by the next novel, and so forth.

I definitely agree that both the individual books and the overarching series have this flow.

I've taken approximately a minute and a half to illustrate an alternative style of progression of volume or series, wherein you open, take a couple expository pages and then blast into utter madness, spend the next half of the book languoring in slow development and character, notice how much time has past and spend the last half of the book in blistering, full-speed climax, resolve everything suddenly, and deal one last jarring blow in the last pages before resolving this as well.

Wait, that's a horror movie. Do I write horror movies?
View attachment 135

Rawr. Love it - you might have a career in depicting story arcs.

 

[Jason Byrne]

I definitely agree that both the individual books and the overarching series have this flow.

Rawr. Love it - you might have a career in depicting story arcs.

That or camels.

 

[Alistair Roberts]

Marc says "Nice Camel"??? It's a one humper, not two, although it's actually neither! Anyway, looks like a graph for my novels I thought, but ha, what would I know? Sssh, you're not supposed to answer that! Actually my stories reach the high point in the second to last chapter, usually. But then not always.... lol

 

[Meerkat]

Difficult one. I try to write short stories, where the emphasis on providing an opening hook is even more extreme. But I don't always like to write like that, and many writers from the past, who are broadly accepted to be good, didn't write like that either. I guess there is no right or wrong answer, you just have to do what seems right to you. There are no guarantees. But if you write only to please an editor or other gatekeeper, the chances are that you won't...in my humble.

I KNOW!! I always notice how many fantastic writers don't follow "the rules" and wonder how their stories even get read. As you said, whenever I read a short story in a "best of" collection and it doesn't have an opening-line "hook," I feel confused and wonder why I'm supposed to be doing it as well. (Contemporary writers, too, mind you!)

 

[Karen Gray]

As a fantasy writer, my openings are 'interesting' in their hookiness, but might be immediately followed by Tolkien-esque ponderous world-building.

And while your greater overarching series arc will follow an ebb and flow all its own, Karen, I think you might be surprised how similarly the individual volumes each mimic this graph, in addition to that of the greater plot — it's just that a single crescendo and diminuendo of the overarching five-book series presumably illustrated comprises the five mini-crescendos-and-diminuendos of one individual novel, topped by the next novel, and so forth.

Hmmm, not in my writing. Book 1 is a gradual rise to cliff hanger, book 2 is the plateau afterward and a gradual "grittier" rise to cliff hanger end of book 2, book 3 is non stop tension right through the entire book, no rest periods whatsoever. So aye-no-maybe but not quite

 

[Alistair Roberts]

Hm, mine do vary a bit but are a general rise, with usually 2 stories rolling together with strong peaks especially in the last 2 chapters. Just finished #7 with a sudden piece of information even I didn't know about. So its a cliff hanger that could either be the end of the series, or give the opening for more with another twist to it; who knows?

 

[Emurelda]

I've purposely tried to 'hook' with action in chapter 1 ...slow chapter 2 fast chapter 3 and so on until the climax middle and then hopefully the resolution in the end..the reaction there I am looking for is a sharp intake of breath at the shock of the twist. But who knows...they might just continue breathing normally - that won't do really.

 

[Emurelda]

I KNOW!! I always notice how many fantastic writers don't follow "the rules" and wonder how their stories even get read. As you said, whenever I read a short story in a "best of" collection and it doesn't have an opening-line "hook," I feel confused and wonder why I'm supposed to be doing it as well. (Contemporary writers, too, mind you!)

Do you have examples of this? I'm curious to read their rule-breaker beginning.

 

[Paul Whybrow]

Thank you for the replies to my cry for help. I must admit that the quandary I've had over the opening of my novel doing what I intended for a psychological thriller by setting the scene, while not satisfying the need for instant gratification that is demanded by literary agents from my submitted first three chapters, has caused me some irritation. I can't help thinking that the genre of a novel has a strong influence on what a reader expects to happen at the beginning. For instance, a fan of erotic fiction would expect more stimulation than a reader who settled into the opening of a cozy mystery, where any violence and sexuality is downplayed.
My opening chapter features a retired detective, who is listening on a police scanner radio to his ex-colleagues reporting the finding of the corpse of another victim of a serial killer who has chosen their town as his slaying ground. It's not apparent, from the way that I've written it, that the ex-copper is also a sinister psychopath, an undetected and prolific murderer, though I lay several pointers to his nature which an astute reader would look back on with unease.
To alter that opening, to give overt information that may provide temporary thrills, goes against the slow-burning atmosphere of dread that builds up. My novel is driven by the thinking and actions of the protagonists, which makes the reader think about what's going on about how the goodies are going to catch the villain - and will they realise that there's more than one baddy operating? I treat my readers with respect, assuming they've the intelligence to follow a story through, whereas if I comply with the advice about showy beginnings I become a ringmaster who opens with a troupe of dancers and performing lions, with a 'look at this, you dummies - flashing lights, pretty girls and dangerous beasts' razzmatazz.
I've thought about rewriting my opening chapter, but I'm a stubborn old bugger and I have faith in what I created. There's a hook in my first chapter, but it's a subtle and poisoned one that seeps into the reader's system gradually.
Perhaps it's all a question of balance. Jason's 'camel' graph immediately put me in mind of Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings stories, in which nothing much happened for a while, before a steam-hammer of destructive fighting with hordes of armies descended with a wallop. I found this rather overwhelming as a teenager reading them for the first time, and it's interesting that the film adaptations have received similar criticism. Following the advice found in graphs and computer-plotted analyses of winning formulas for books and films is ultimately rather cynical anyway, and holds the danger that every creative piece will be predictable. Some action movies and novels do this sort of thing, clinging to a formula for structure, with a gunfight every seven minutes or twenty pages.
I'm still perplexed by the way that the opening three chapters are used to judge a whole book's worth. That's as daft as deciding on the quality of a five course restaurant meal from just eating the starter. I see the value in having a writing sample, to assess the style of the writing and the accuracy of the editing, spelling, punctuation, formatting etc, but to say that this is a good way to decide on how entertaining an entire story will be is a ludicrous as determining the shape of an elephant by feeling the first few inches of its trunk.

 

[Nicole Wilson]

Thank you for the replies to my cry for help. I must admit that the quandary I've had over the opening of my novel doing what I intended for a psychological thriller by setting the scene, while not satisfying the need for instant gratification that is demanded by literary agents from my submitted first three chapters, has caused me some irritation. I can't help thinking that the genre of a novel has a strong influence on what a reader expects to happen at the beginning. For instance, a fan of erotic fiction would expect more stimulation than a reader who settled into the opening of a cozy mystery, where any violence and sexuality is downplayed.
My opening chapter features a retired detective, who is listening on a police scanner radio to his ex-colleagues reporting the finding of the corpse of another victim of a serial killer who has chosen their town as his slaying ground. It's not apparent, from the way that I've written it, that the ex-copper is also a sinister psychopath, an undetected and prolific murderer, though I lay several pointers to his nature which an astute reader would look back on with unease.
To alter that opening, to give overt information that may provide temporary thrills, goes against the slow-burning atmosphere of dread that builds up. My novel is driven by the thinking and actions of the protagonists, which makes the reader think about what's going on about how the goodies are going to catch the villain - and will they realise that there's more than one baddy operating? I treat my readers with respect, assuming they've the intelligence to follow a story through, whereas if I comply with the advice about showy beginnings I become a ringmaster who opens with a troupe of dancers and performing lions, with a 'look at this, you dummies - flashing lights, pretty girls and dangerous beasts' razzmatazz.
I've thought about rewriting my opening chapter, but I'm a stubborn old bugger and I have faith in what I created. There's a hook in my first chapter, but it's a subtle and poisoned one that seeps into the reader's system gradually.
Perhaps it's all a question of balance. Jason's 'camel' graph immediately put me in mind of Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings stories, in which nothing much happened for a while, before a steam-hammer of destructive fighting with hordes of armies descended with a wallop. I found this rather overwhelming as a teenager reading them for the first time, and it's interesting that the film adaptations have received similar criticism. Following the advice found in graphs and computer-plotted analyses of winning formulas for books and films is ultimately rather cynical anyway, and holds the danger that every creative piece will be predictable. Some action movies and novels do this sort of thing, clinging to a formula for structure, with a gunfight every seven minutes or twenty pages.
I'm still perplexed by the way that the opening three chapters are used to judge a whole book's worth. That's as daft as deciding on the quality of a five course restaurant meal from just eating the starter. I see the value in having a writing sample, to assess the style of the writing and the accuracy of the editing, spelling, punctuation, formatting etc, but to say that this is a good way to decide on how entertaining an entire story will be is a ludicrous as determining the shape of an elephant by feeling the first few inches of its trunk.

The best advice I've ever received in this is that, in those first 10 pages, you have to set up a contract with your reader. Tell them, this is what my book is going to be about. If you're writing a psychological thriller, you better give them some taste of that very early, otherwise, what obligation does the reader feel to continue the book?

Now, you give them that taste however you see fit. It doesn't have to be explosions or cheap thrills. You don't have to give away your main character just yet. But something should tell the reader "here's what my book is about. I may take several pages to get back to this, but trust me."

 

[Mark Odell]

My answer will be a little shorter, but your story or book lives or dies on its opening page. Every time my girlfriend gave me notes on any of my stories, it was 'improve the first page' as a fairly major point.

 

[Paul Whybrow]

Thank you for your responses to the problem of how compelling the opening of a novel should be. At the risk of sounding like a grumpy lion, I'm still having doubts about altering my opening chapter. It feels a bit like changing the mascot on the bonnet of a car, as a way of impressing a potential buyer who's too dim-witted to take in the whole vehicle. Growwlll!
Part of my reluctance to change things is that my beta reader, a wise critic and observant adviser, commented on how the opening crept up on her later in the story, making her appreciate how sinister my psychopath was. Also, and I'm now going to become a cynical grumpy lion, 100 editors would alter a story in 100 different ways. Should a literary agent, publisher or editor be presented with a best-selling classic novel, one that sold millions, but which they somehow failed to recognise, then I have no doubt that they'd immediately start hacking away at it - or reject it out of hand.
The great film screenplay writer William Goldman said ' No one knows anything. He was referring to the film industry and how no one knows what's going to work in a projected film, but his observation holds true for other artistic endeavours. No one knows what will work, until it does.
We all know amazing anecdotes about great writers who were rejected multiple times. J.K. Rowling was turned away by a dozen publishers, and it took the eight year old daughter of a publishing executive to notice its worth. Even then, some silly ass at the publisher advised her 'not to quit her day job.'
I read recently of a writer who achieved success after a crisis of confidence, following some harsh criticism. The experiences of this novelist, who's gone onto have eleven bestsellers, were something of a warning for anyone who thinks that things will happen instantly in publishing. She had 122 rejections from magazine editors for articles that she'd written about various topics, and 55 rejections for the fourth novel that she'd submitted. One editor showed qualified interest in her novel, but disliked the way that she'd only hinted at the characteristics of her protagonists, saying that she should spend more time in rounding them out. She was on the point of giving up on the idea of being a professional writer, wondering if she should do the suggested rewrite. Then, in the very next week, she received three acceptance letters from different magazine editors. The following week, a book publisher wrote to her asking for a meeting, saying that he loved the light brushstrokes of her writing which hinted at the nature of her characters - the very thing that one editor thought was a weakness, the other loved! This story is an example of sticking to your guns.
No one knows what will work, until it does - and then they take credit for having picked it out of the slushpile!
Grumpy lion is off to gnaw some bones now, followed by nap in which he chases literary agents and publishers across the savannah.

 

[Alistair Roberts]

So Paul, there IS hope for us yet! (He exclaimed loudly). No, no you shouldn't write that.

 

[Emurelda]

I have to point out also that this graph is ok if you are writing a stand-alone but not if you are writing a series. Though I suppose you could apply it to the whole series, but you still need dynamics within the individual books.

Every writer has their own blueprint or 'voice' as agents call it but i wouldn't agree with this for my books at least (yes i know - i'm speaking in plurals..need pompoms)

I see each series as one large fractal branched into smaller identical fractals ie books and then broken down to even smaller branches of identical fractals ie chapters. Each must therefore possess the act 1-3 approximate formula. The skill is to make it seamless and organic so that the reader doesn't sense it being a formula. Of course it is also more of an approximate fit to this 'fractal' model...hmm am feeling a blog coming along around this idea...ooh...

 

[Jason Byrne]

Every writer has their own blueprint or 'voice' as agents call it but i wouldn't agree with this for my books at least (yes i know - i'm speaking in plurals..need pompoms)

I see each series as one large fractal branched into smaller identical fractals ie books and then broken down to even smaller branches of identical fractals ie chapters. Each must therefore possess the act 1-3 approximate formula. The skill is to make it seamless and organic so that the reader doesn't sense it being a formula. Of course it is also more of an approximate fit to this 'fractal' model...hmm am feeling a blog coming along around this idea...ooh...

Exactly!

Sorry — I had to leave to make a trip into DC to one of our job sites — back in office.

 

[James Marinero]

@Paul Whybrow - an interesting question. As others have said, many successful books break the 'rules'.

What do you as a reader expect from a book? How long will you persevere until you get hooked?

I guess it comes down to the 'investment' you have in reading a book. How much did you pay for it? Was it a freebie? Do you always read that author's work? Do you have alternatives at hand to read? (That question arises from my own reading circumstances when I may be at sea with nothing else to read).

OK, you might not consider yourself to be a typical reader, but suppose for a moment you are. Take their point of view.

It seems to me that most of the advice relating to readers revolves around the first read by the agent. That's why the hook is important. They read x manuscripts a week and allow maybe 30 seconds at most (I imagine), unless they think there is some merit - a hook or particular stylistic approach, or even a topic tht no-one has approached before. They are not the typical reader. Of course, they may assess whether the book is marketable - but nevertheless there is a limited attention span which I believe is shorter than that of the typical consumer reader.

 

[Jason Byrne]

@Paul Whybrow - an interesting question. As others have said, many successful books break the 'rules'.

What do you as a reader expect from a book? How long will you persevere until you get hooked?

I guess it comes down to the 'investment' you have in reading a book. How much did you pay for it? Was it a freebie? Do you always read that author's work? Do you have alternatives at hand to read? (That question arises from my own reading circumstances when I may be at sea with nothing else to read).

OK, you might not consider yourself to be a typical reader, but suppose for a moment you are. Take their point of view.

It seems to me that most of the advice relating to readers revolves around the first read by the agent. That's why the hook is important. They read x manuscripts a week and allow maybe 30 seconds at most (I imagine), unless they think there is some merit - a hook or particular stylistic approach, or even a topic tht no-one has approached before. They are not the typical reader. Of course, they may assess whether the book is marketable - but nevertheless there is a limited attention span which I believe is shorter than that of the typical consumer reader.

The typical hiring manager takes about six seconds to decide whether your résumé is worthwhile or not. I would imagine the typical literary agent makes their decision just as fast. They've got lots of other, more important things to do!

 

[Nicole Wilson]

The typical hiring manager takes about six seconds to decide whether your résumé is worthwhile or not. I would imagine the typical literary agent makes their decision just as fast. They've got lots of other, more important things to do!

Plus roughly a bagillion (scientific number) other queries to go through.

 

[Paul Whybrow]

The typical hiring manager takes about six seconds to decide whether your résumé is worthwhile or not. I would imagine the typical literary agent makes their decision just as fast. They've got lots of other, more important things to do!

Jason, you're more accurate than you know, at least if what this literary agent has to say is true of others. He's a pompous oaf, but may well have revealed more than his colleagues wanted him to, for I notice that he hasn't made a posting on You Tube in over a year - something tells me that he got a slapped wrist for his indiscretion.

 

[AgentPete]

He's the nephew of Henry Blofeld - cricketeer, and inspiration for Fleming's Bond villain.