Four M's of a Strong Introduction

The hero sneaks into a top secret facility, narrowly averting various security measures to where he accesses a data point; he uploads intel on the facility to his comrades, then makes his escape, only he falls into enemy hands, and here is where the story begins.

Now, this is probably a little hackneyed. But that's because it works with an alarming consistency.

There are four M's that most strong introductions benefit from. They use these factors together to draw in readers. (Of course, you're welcome to debate these four in the comments section.)

Motion - A story that doesn't start out in motion isn't a story. Action is crucial. Your audience doesn't really buy a book for backstory. I saw an interesting thread here on Goodreads the other day. The initiator asked something like: "Which fantasy world is your favorite?" Not that there is anything particularly wrong with that question, but we generally don't flock to a story for the setting. A fantasy world has mountains, rivers, oceans, dragons (well, sometimes), and maybe even a unicorn, if the writer is into that sort of thing. But setting is only important if the action taking place there is meaningful. That being said, motion is integral, but not just any action will do.

Mentality - I'm going to use mentality here to describe a character's thought process, or the reason why they do what they do. Action for action's sake is generally useless. However, if your action serves to reveal your character, that's when it means something. Take our hero in the introduction of this article. We know he's likely involved in some manner of espionage. He didn't just decide on a whim to invade a top secret facility. We get to see who he is based on what he does. When the action reveals the character it draws in readers.

I read three paragraphs of a free e-book giveaway which I will not name here, with respect to the writer. He wrote the first page about the character, I'm assuming the main character, simply running. Now, running is good. It's action. But unless the character is running toward something or away from something, the action does very little. The character may as well have just gotten out of bed. (We'll come back to that statement.)

I read another story about a month ago where the characters were running throughout the entirety of the story. They were in a triathlon. But this story worked because it wasn't simply action for the sake of action. It gave a glimpse into the character's mentality. The character had been recovering from obesity and was running to show her family she finally could. When she passed the finish line, I cheered with her. I knew why she ran. I knew her mentality.

Mystery - Every book is a mystery, not in the traditional sense of uncovering a dead body necessarily, but in the sense that readers generally like to assemble the pieces of a story like the pieces of a puzzle. You may have seen, at one point, someone with a puzzle glued down and hung on the wall. The assembler is hardly an artist, but he feels as though he accomplished something and he wants others to know it. We meet the reader half way, allow them to assemble the pieces of the puzzle, so that when it comes time to set down the book, she still wants to read some more, discover some more. Perhaps the reader is like a paleontologist. On page one, she unearths a fragment of bone and gets excited about it. She doesn't stop until the pieces are uncovered and she can see the whole creature or at least can imagine what it might look like.

Look at our introductory example. We don't know readily why our hero is invading a top secret facility, what he uploads, or even whether he is in fact the hero. Perhaps, in the grand sceme of things, he's a minor character, and the one coming to rescue him is the hero. Perhaps he is the villain and because of the sensitive information he has just uploaded, our hero needs to stop a global nuclear meltdown.

Here again, I want to emphasize, keep any backstory until it absolutely matters. And if it doesn't, keep it for your own records but don't put it in your book. Anything that will pull readers away from the action and the hero simply isn't worth losing your audience over.

This sense of mystery may be your most important tool.

Learn the question-and-answer approach to storytelling.

Misfortune - This is another must in your introduction. Without misfortune, without friction, the plot falls flat. Generally, we want a happy ending, but how we get there should usually be filled with misfortune.

Remember what was said about a character waking up? Many stories I have read by beginning writers start with the main character waking up. It is generally the worst opening you can give to any story. No one wants to read about a character waking up with morning breath, at least not on page one. In fact, if the character is too preoccupied to sleep (a sense of misfortune), that's generally a good thing.

However, compare Brandon Sanderson's Elantris. In this story, on waking up, the main character is struck with misfortune. In addition, Sanderson put a lot of details about this character, his mentality, in this scene. And because, as readers, we know something is wrong long before we know what, Sanderson developed an excellent hint of mystery.

That being said, there are exceptions to every rule. So I would like to open this article for discussion. What elements do you feel strengthen an introduction? Remember that when we learn from one another, we become better story tellers.

Impulse (Forgotten Princess, #1) by Iffix Y. Santaph Iffix Y Santaph's debut novella Impulse is the first book in a series of science fiction fairytales for young adults. It is available now from Amazon.com and other online retailers.
 •  10 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 29, 2015 12:20 Tags: mentality, misfortune, motion, mystery
Comments Showing 1-10 of 10 (10 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by Owen (last edited May 30, 2015 03:58AM) (new)

Owen O'Neill I think these are all good ideas, and they will almost always work, especially in genre fiction. And I suppose this could be fit to many books, depending on how elastic the notions are.

But having said that, I feel the works I personally consider to be the best ever written do not always, or maybe not often, conform to this model -- at least as I think it is typically understood. (They have elements of course, because without any of these elements, you have a shopping list.) I may be wrong, but I think this is a fairly recent formulation (based around the concept of 'the hook' which became an overriding concern 30 - 40 years ago[?]).

I could be out to lunch here, but I'm tempted to say this is a consequence of an overall shortening of the reading public's average attention span in recent decades. Thus it may be that "strong" equates in some way to "instant gratification"?

I do believe this is pretty much a fact of life. If you want to reach people, you need to submit (mostly) the forms they respond to. I get a little sad about that. You can try to "broaden their horizons" if you want, but that is often a thankless task.

Edit: a comment on the notion of keeping any backstory until it absolutely matters. This is dicey. On the one hand, there are have "infodumps" (famed in song and story); the other there is lowest-common-denominator, dumbing-down, and telling the reader: "You don't have the attention span to follow this." Obviously, you want to avoid extremes of each, but it's a guessing game. You take your best shot based on your sense of the story.

When it comes to losing your audience, that raises the question of just who your audience is? Are you writing for the widest possible audience, or a specific audience?

For our part, we are writing for a specific audience -- which we know next to nothing about. So we write in such a way that the audience will self-select. We don't make things "easy" on readers -- the readers who stick with us are those who (we believe) will be open to, and appreciative of, our story. There may not a whole lot of them left when we get to the end, but that's what we want.


message 2: by Iffix (new)

Iffix Santaph Thank you for the feedback, Owen.

I guess many of these articles come from a mainstream point of view. I have always strived to write fiction that hopefully has a large following. (And to be clear, I don't mean to suggest that we should fall into the same old patterns. Just because a vampire and a werewolf share a forbidden love, doesn't mean I'd care to write about them.)

That being said, I believe a poorly placed infodump would be far dicier (for someone hoping to build a following) than the gradual revealing of details integral to your plot, but to each his own. It is actually quite refreshing to meet someone who intends to dwindle his audience rather than grow it.

May I ask, Owen, which of your most favorite stories doesn't use this model? You can find it in the vast variety of genres. I don't think I have ever read a book that doesn't; perhaps it is time I expand my horizons.


message 3: by Owen (new)

Owen O'Neill Thanks.

I probably ought to expand on why I added my comment. It's just not to point out that there might be exceptions, because your advice is sound -- especially about infodumps. Infodumps tend to be just boring and once upon a time, I didn't encounter them. I blame Tom Clancy (overall) and David Weber (in sci-fi) for the trend. (I think some authors I don't read did infodump before, in the sense that we'd call them infodumps now, but I never heard the term back in the 70s-80s.)

Anyway, something I neglected to mention, and maybe should have, is it's not that these authors I so admire may not have followed this approach -- it's that they did what they did quite well (IMO). They managed to engage readers and make their writing evocative and gripping, using a different approach -- or using this approach differently.

The importance to me -- beyond the question of preference -- is what we can learn from them. By going out of the mainstream, we adjust our sights and broaden our horizons. I said that I think broadening readers' horizons is often a thankless task (which is true and needs to be considered), but I think authors owe it to themselves to broaden their horizons. For this reason, I read authors who don't speak to me at all, because they have spoken to others (for decades, in most cases) and I want to try to figure out why. If I can figure out why, I may want to sneak some of that into our work. I feel I grow as a writer by "beating myself bloody" on "classic" texts I do not, in fact, like.

In answer to your question, I'll nominate "Nightwood" by Djuna Barnes, Faulkner (Absalom! Absalom!) and Patrick O'Brian (The Ionian Mission, especially). Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria Quartet, also (which I can't finish). If you look at these, they may well follow this approach (clearly, their works has elements) but they certainly don't do it in a mainstream fashion.


message 4: by Iffix (new)

Iffix Santaph Cool. Thanks, Owen. I will look into them.


message 5: by Iffix (new)

Iffix Santaph Owen, I also wanted to state that I dropped "every" in my article. Because it was a rookie mistake to assume that "every" book could fall into one category. Thanks for the advisement.


message 6: by Owen (last edited Jun 01, 2015 05:12AM) (new)

Owen O'Neill Iffix wrote: "Cool. Thanks, Owen. I will look into them."

My "review" of "Nightwood" is here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

It might give you some idea what you are getting into.

My reviews of Patrick O'Brian's work aren't. They are endorsements. Faulkner I would not dare to comment on; I'd most likely sound like an idiot.


message 7: by Iffix (new)

Iffix Santaph Due to subject matter, I think I would refrain from Nightwood. However, from the examples you give, I could see where such descriptions could drop me on my head mercilessly. ;D


message 8: by Iffix (new)

Iffix Santaph As for Patrick O'Brian, I would definitely consider reading his work.


message 9: by Owen (new)

Owen O'Neill Iffix wrote: "As for Patrick O'Brian, I would definitely consider reading his work."

He's definitely more the popular author. And his sense of humor is superb. : )


message 10: by Iffix (new)

Iffix Santaph Okay, you just further sold me. I love an author who doesn't take himself too seriously. He's definitely going on my picklist.


back to top