Right into the action?

[corpsecandle]

Hope it's cool for a question the story section, it's about writing.

If I could wrack your brains a moment I am wondering if anyone here prefers a writer to get right into the action or describe an important event that sets of the main story.

I am about to write something that starts with a crime (or an attempt) now it's not esstential I go through the event as it happens but I will need to talk about it at the start.

Is it a little passive for the main character to reference the event as the story begins?

Is it better to start the story with the build up to the crime and then get into the meat of the story?

I am trying to eliminate my passive tendencys in my stories and feel this could be one. If I dedicate a paragraph to the crime I would save time and move things on but I fear I may also seem to breeze over detail a little too much.

What do you favour?

I try and hook the reader from the get go and then try at least to get things moving from there. I also want to cut down on the editing after and be mindfull as I go, I usually just leave it all to the end and then refine it like combing a multing cat.

However that isn't always best practice.

[Calenture]

May 11, 2013 0:56:56 GMT corpsecandle said:

I am wondering if anyone here prefers a writer to get right into the action or describe an important event that sets of the main story.

I am about to write something that starts with a crime (or an attempt) now it's not esstential I go through the event as it happens but I will need to talk about it at the start.

Is it a little passive for the main character to reference the event as the story begins?

Is it better to start the story with the build up to the crime and then get into the meat of the story?

James, hate to say it but I think you're really asking 'How long is a piece of string?' There are just so many unknowns here.

... it's not essential I go through the event as it happens but I will need to talk about it at the start.

Is it a little passive for the main character to reference the event as the story begins?

I suppose the Columbo series did well enough by going through the event as it happened. We saw the crimes at the start, then the detective had to figure out what happened.

Referencing the event: If I understand this right, I don't think it would be good storytelling to tell the reader everything that was going to happen - or supposed to happen - before it did.

On the other hand... I suppose that's what happened in High Sierra, with Bogart repeatedly driving the escape car along the planned escape route, before the crime actually happens. Then when it actually happens, it all goes wrong.

Is it better to start the story with the build up to the crime and then get into the meat of the story?

I am trying to eliminate my passive tendencys in my stories and feel this could be one. If I dedicate a paragraph to the crime I would save time and move things on but I fear I may also seem to breeze over detail a little too much.

What do you favour?

I don't think you can 'breeze over' details. Treat the details tersely if you like. If the details need to be there then they should be there. But where the details appear in the narrative brings us back to our 'length of a piece of string' analogy.

I also want to cut down on the editing after and be mindfull as I go, I usually just leave it all to the end and then refine it like combing a multing cat.

Craig wrote something about the importance of getting the information right at the start, when he was commenting on Colin's story Melting.

Craig wrote:

Sometimes I think you need to say less - especially at the end of a story - all the issues should resolved. If you find you're still having to describe things, look back and see where they might fit.

I added some emphasis to his words there.

Don't think I've been that helpful, but that's as good as I can do without more to go on.