|
|
Post by Daniel on Sept 22, 2015 8:46:08 GMT -5
All of my openings, except one, are a single line of dialogue. Some examples:
'She's out here somewhere.'
'How many bodies are there?'
'Dying was the best thing that ever happened to me. That's when my life really began.' 'We've got him now, brother.'
Easiest way to grab a reader right off the bat is to present a hook, a question and a mystery all in one line. Of course, then you've got to provide a satisfying conclusion to that mystery later on... 
I like dialog openings. Done right, they instantly give me an introductory sense of the character. What the character says and how the character says it can be revealing. I like your "hook, question, and mystery" theory. Your openings rock. |
|
|
|
Post by cbedwards on Sept 22, 2015 9:17:56 GMT -5
I was digging around and found a bunch of (I guess considered) pulp writers from the 50s and 60s that are in KU. Some of these are darn good and I'd never heard of them. These books run around 200 pages, which lead me to think: there's hope for me yet! But what I really thought was: maybe (for this genre) the ebook is the new paperback of the 50s. And considering people don't finish books, why not make the book shorter? Kinda the opposite of "this one goes to eleven."
My theory has been publishers need a lot of words to justify the $25 hardcover price, so they need 300+ pages (speaking mainly for mystery/thriller). A lot of this is fluff. Boil it down and you have the 200 page pulp book they used to produce.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pru Freda on Sept 22, 2015 10:03:34 GMT -5
Just tested that theory, cbedwards, and it seems to hold good. The first of my whodunits is c75,000 words and comes out at 248 pages (CreateSpace 6x9). Trim it down to the pulp's 60K words and that's 198 pages according to my calculations. And its opening line is: I had been in the job only six months when my employer pulled a gun on me. |
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Sept 22, 2015 10:30:26 GMT -5
I think you're right on the money about the ebook revolution being like the mass-market paperback revolution. I've seen that comparison in the industry press several times. The same fears are being bandied about too, regarding the destruction of literature as we know it. Both trends generated a tsunami of pulp garbage, and readers actually found books they enjoyed reading. Oh wait ... that last part is usually left out.
|
|
|
|
Post by whdean on Sept 22, 2015 10:53:16 GMT -5
I was digging around and found a bunch of (I guess considered) pulp writers from the 50s and 60s that are in KU. Some of these are darn good and I'd never heard of them. These books run around 200 pages, which lead me to think: there's hope for me yet! But what I really thought was: maybe (for this genre) the ebook is the new paperback of the 50s. And considering people don't finish books, why not make the book shorter? Kinda the opposite of "this one goes to eleven." My theory has been publishers need a lot of words to justify the $25 hardcover price, so they need 300+ pages (speaking mainly for mystery/thriller). A lot of this is fluff. Boil it down and you have the 200 page pulp book they used to produce. If only this trend took off. The reading world would be a better place. Most of my favourite books are around 200 pages. |
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Sept 22, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -5
All of my openings, except one, are a single line of dialogue. Some examples:
'She's out here somewhere.'
'How many bodies are there?'
'Dying was the best thing that ever happened to me. That's when my life really began.' 'We've got him now, brother.'
Easiest way to grab a reader right off the bat is to present a hook, a question and a mystery all in one line. Of course, then you've got to provide a satisfying conclusion to that mystery later on...
I like dialog openings. Done right, they instantly give me an introductory sense of the character. What the character says and how the character says it can be revealing. I like your "hook, question, and mystery" theory. Your openings rock. I'll say! Those a great openings. <takes notes> |
|
