Acting First, Explaining Later

One of the many admirable qualities about my husband is that he thinks before he acts. He’s not foolishly impulsive and never sounds dumb or inappropriate. I do not have that enviable quality. I make a fool of myself every other day. I’m always acting first and later thinking that I probably should’ve stayed in bed and stared at the ceiling all day. But it’s not my fault. I blame my acting-before-thinking tendency on...writing fiction.

It IS fiction’s fault. Fiction taught me it’s important, no, vital, to begin a story with action or tension foreshadowing action. Don’t begin the story with thoughts, Fiction says. Draw in readers immediately so that later, they already care enough about the characters and the story to stick around through the explanations. Never think in the beginning; always act first! Force the readers to be involved, make them wonder how the characters will react and eager to find out what happens next. Look in my section, Fiction continues, at the books with the bestsellers and medals on the covers and the list of prizes on the back covers- open to page 1 and notice most draw you in with a major event or tense scene.

Okay, okay, I guess it is my fault when I don’t think before I act in real life, but there is something to be said about beginning a story with action. I had difficulty crafting the beginning of the story I’m writing now. Finally after cutting away the first three paragraphs of mostly exposition (and maybe a line or two..or three..about weather- cringe!) BAM! there was my story. It shows the setting and the characters without telling. I still have more to fix (like the middle, the end, each character...) but now that the beginning is somewhat compelling, I’m pretty sure no one will put the story down until at least the beginning of the middle.

How can something that sounds so easy actually be so hard? It seems normal to start story with exposition about the character, the setting, even the weather, because that’s how we are in real life. How many times do you start small talk commenting on the temperature? But no one wants to read that, especially in the beginning, myself included. I want a novel to pull me in immediately, I want to feel strongly about the characters, and I want to wonder about the story in an irresistible way, like I can’t wait to find out what happens next.

Though I like being drawn into a novel immediately, I don’t put down a novel with a slow beginning. I give every novel a chance because often slow beginnings turn into fantastic novels. (I’d list a few examples, but I don’t want to call anyone out. What if I become friends with those authors some day? You never know…). Anyway, established authors usually can get away with explaining a little first then delving into the action later, can’t they?

“What we want is a story that starts with an earthquake and builds to a climax.” ~Samuel Goldwyn

Share with me!

Do you often find yourself cutting the beginning of your novel/story to start with more action? What do you think about starting with action v. starting with exposition? When reading a novel with a slow beginning, do you put it down or give it a chance?