: Which opening for my book is better? I am currently writing a fictional book. I have no idea how to introduce the new country and the history. I already have three ideas on how to start
I am currently writing a fictional book. I have no idea how to introduce the new country and the history. I already have three ideas on how to start the book, but I don't know which one to use and which is better. If you have a better idea on how to go about this, please share it with me.
1: [Explaining the history first]
2: [Jumping straight into it and explain the history as we go later in the book]
3: [Explain a bit of the history and explain the rest later]
Again, I am open to other ideas.
More posts by @Nimeshi163
: What does "telling and not showing" mean? I have been told that my writing had the right idea and aim, but my words weren't strong enough to support that. I need some tips and tricks to
: Create and publish collection of public domain poems from 19th century Can I create a collection of original 19th century public domain poems without violating copyright laws?
1 Comments
Sorted by latest first Latest Oldest Best
Of course, this is not a question for us so much as it is a question for you, the author. Superb books of all three varieties, and more, exist. There is no wrong answer. This is about your story. So, with that in mind, if you don't immediately see which is better for you, I would recommend sitting down and listing out the pros and cons.
To get you started:
Explaining the history first could affect your readers' attention, expectations, and the pace of the narrative. If you aren't particularly good at writing history, the readers who came to your book for its narrative may find themselves initially put-off. So you have to write it well. But you are probably at greater risk of the first section of the book feeling tangibly different from the rest -- and for good reason. This is easier made a weakness, but could also become a strength.
This makes for a quicker pace for most writers. You may get readers involved more quickly, but there is a greater risk of readers missing the metanarrative that the history would introduce -- and that can be a death-blow for some stories. Also, as an author, you may find yourself at the mercy of these bits of history -- you may not be able to allow your characters or settings to display the full richness of their cultural or contextual milieu. This has the potential to cripple what would otherwise be a very colorful character, for example.
This is a middle-of-the-road situation which allows the author to adopt both the typical strengths and weaknesses of the other two approaches, but in milder forms.
All three are useful. But only you know your story and your style. Think about what your story needs to be and how readers are best to discover this -- and then compare that with your own strengths and weaknesses. Play to your strengths, of course, but don't be afraid to push your own limitations a little.
Terms of Use Privacy policy Contact About Cancellation policy © selfpublishingguru.com2024 All Rights reserved.