Why are writers, and readers, in such a rush?

[Gabriel]

As I recently began reading Ian McEwan’s excellent book, Sweet Tooth, I realized something that sets him, and other successful authors, apart from the many up and coming, often independent, writers out there: he is no hurry to get “into” the action of his story. His first many pages set up the background of his main character, including the things that influenced her to enter the world of espionage. And here is what many readers, and new writers, should take note of: this is NOT boring.
I say this because I have read a number of books this past year by independent authors who, l like me, are trying to carve out a small niche for themselves in this crowded marketplace. So many of them seem to follow too literally the adage that a story has to “grab” the reader within its first few pages or the reader will turn elsewhere. So, without any attempt at context or character development, they rush headlong into scenes of action or terror, hoping the strength of such an opening scene will interest the reader enough that he or she will buy the book.
Often, though, once these writers start a book in this manner, they can’t, or won’t, ever bother trying to make their characters in any way real or more than two-dimensional cut-outs. It’s as if the momentum of the story precludes any need to make the reader actually care about the people he or she is reading about. All that matters is that cars crash, murders are committed and young girls’ lives are imperilled by the supernatural flavour of the week.
The problem with the above-mentioned adage, as anyone who has read extensively can attest, is that it’s simply NOT TRUE. The first scene of a book doesn’t have to reach out and grab the reader by the throat. Sometimes, even for thrillers, or horror novels, or spy novels, it is important to catch the readers’ imagination, to seduce them, to make them wonder “who are these people that all sorts of terrible things are going to happen to?”
A James Bond movie can begin with a mind-blowing car chase, or some sort of impossible stunt, because everybody going into the movie already knows who James Bond is. His character has already been developed over decades’ worth of films, so nobody is going to say to themselves, “but just who is this handsome hero and why is he always in danger?”
However in the very first James Bond novel, Casino Royale, written for an audience who had no idea who this eventually iconic character was, Ian Fleming takes the time he needs to establish who Bond is, what he’s doing at the casino, how he got this assignment, why they are after Le Chiffre. And, again, this is NOT boring.
And by the way, this applies to epic-length books as well as shorter thrillers. Casino Royale, despite taking the time to set up the characters and the context, comes in at less than 150 pages! So what I’m talking about can be done well without dragging on endlessly. Maybe this is a challenge in itself.
Writers, both old and new, need to have the confidence in themselves, in their ability to write well, to create interesting characters, to imagine fascinating worlds, so that they don’t worry that a potential reader will put their book down if “nothing happens” in the first few pages. Lots of stuff “happens” in those early pages of Casino Royale, even though there are no gunfights, and no glamourous women are seduced. Just like lots of stuff “happens” in the opening pages of Sweet Tooth.
Writers who don’t take the time to create a realistic world and three-dimensional characters, are short-changing both the story as well as the reader. They are offering cotton candy when a more substantial, and more memorable, meal could have been served. It is as if they are too afraid of being left behind, too much in a hurry to serve food when it isn’t fully cooked. As for readers who rush for the cotton candy, afraid to sit down and take the time to enjoy a three-course meal, they are also doing a disservice to themselves, as well as to the many great stories out there.
I think if every novel was written in the same style of a headlong-rush into the fray, then this is all readers would know and expect. However I suspect that if a reader comes across a book that takes its time in developing its story, but is well-written, and tantalizes with the promise of a fascinating fictional world to explore, then the reader will take the time to sit down, tuck in and commit him or herself to the time it takes to read a novel of quality. All it takes is for writers to take the time and make the effort to write what they will know in their hearts will be a better book.

[Jim]

The problem is people know Ian McEwan. He's got a bucket of awards, a publisher who probably still does publicity for his books and a strong readership base.
No one knows Jim Webster. So the best I can hope for is that they are intrigued enough by something someone said to go to the Amazon page and check out the 'look inside' feature.
It's got to grab them and pull them in. Mind you Ian McEwan does that, rather than being in no hurry to start the action he hits us with

"My Name is Serena Frome (Rhymes with Plume) and almost forty years ago I was sent on a secret mission for the British security service. I didn't return safely. Within eighteen months of joining I was sacked, having disgraced myself and ruined my lover, though he certainly had a hand in his own undoing."

He knows the tricks, grab them, suck them in. Indeed with an opening like that I'd suggest that setting a slow pace is a clever use of technique, using the contrast between the punchy opening and then a more languid follow up.

[Karen]

All I can say is the opening line of 'Pride and Prejudice', 'Oliver Twist' and numerous other classics, take some beating as a hook to get you into a book.
I think there is something in the 'voice' of the author that needs to speak to you, reassure you.

[Karen]

oh, and....
'Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again ...'

sheer poetry. So you trust the voice and go with it.

[Sophia]

Gabriel, as a reader, I completely agree. And maybe it's because I'm a writer, too. Any time I come across something that smacks of the typical writerly wisdom out there, it annoys me anyway, but the hook at the start is probably the one that bugs me the most. I almost always have a reaction of, "Oh no. Now I have to read this silly opening before I can get to the good stuff." And then often, the good stuff never comes. That said, in the first novel of my mystery series, I did work and rework the opening in the hopes of hooking the reader. The opening went through at least three completely different incarnations (it may have been more--that was several years ago). So I'm as bad as anyone, I suppose, in terms of wanting to hook the reader. In the end I settled for a fairly mild incident at the beginning, and I hope readers are pretty satisfied with how the characters and everything develop as the story progresses. In my latest novel, which is fantasy, I worked on making the opening paragraph stir the reader's curiosity, but I wouldn't say that the opening scene has a hook, per se. I just made sure that the first scene is really where the inciting incident happens, you know? And since it's a fantasy world, I had to really walk a fine line between too much info-dump and not enough, where I might lose the reader. So that's a challenge, of course. The feedback I've received so far has been positive. We'll see as more readers review the novel.

[Jim]

Yes you have to avoid the 'info-dump'. At the very least it's sloppy, you should be able to work stuff into the story in a more natural way :-)

[Gabriel]

Sophia wrote: "Gabriel, as a reader, I completely agree. And maybe it's because I'm a writer, too. Any time I come across something that smacks of the typical writerly wisdom out there, it annoys me anyway, but t..."

Sophia, you seem to have taken the time and effort I referred to and, very likely, have written a better book than it might have been otherwise. This isn't to say that openings shouldn't hook the reader's attention; just that maybe writers shouldn't always be afraid of trying to pull the reader in gradually.

[Rosen]

I agree with Jim. Ian McEwan is the hook. He's hooked you in before you even start reading, with his reputation. He can afford to spend a chapter or two setting the scene because readers trust him to deliver.

[Sophia]

I think that people reading Ian McEwan are probably more likely to be into literary fiction anyway, and things like opening hooks aren't really a part of literary fiction, at least in my experience. I read McEwan for the first time 20 years ago (The Cement Garden) before he was very famous, when I was really into literary fiction. Nowadays he is a big name, but on top of that, he's still writing in that literary fiction style, from what I gather. So his readers don't expect the same flash and bang.

[B J]

I agree that a big-name writer can start a book however they wish safe in the knowledge that their fans will trust them to deliver. But I also think that the astute writers realise that every book they write will be a first experience of their work for a number of readers and those fresh readers need to be hooked. William Boyd is one of my favourite writers. His books are often leisurely paced, but he's brilliant at the early hook. Take a look at Waiting for Sunrise. Right from the first line he grabs the reader by addressing him/her directly as 'you'. He only does it for the first page-and-a-half, but that's enough to place readers at the scene and involve them immediately with the central character.