Engage, engage, engage!

At the weekend I had the pleasure of appearing on literary agent Peter Cox's internet TV show Litopia Pop Up Submissions. In this, five brave souls provide a title, a blurb and the first 700 words of a book for comments from three industry experts and the extremely helpful online comments of viewers.

This particular edition happened to have a focus on historical fiction, but I've done a few of these before and whatever the topic, one thing repeatedly comes across in that opening sample from the books - the author hasn't thought enough about how to engage their readers early on.

If you start a book with a set of facts (one example here was described as like reading a Wikipedia entry), you will rapidly lose your readers. Similarly, if the opening is totally introspective with nothing actually happening, an opening that is all tell and no show, it's hard for the reader to engage fully.

The 'show don't tell' thing is a hoary old piece of writing advice - but that doesn't mean that authors remember it. If you spend too much time telling us a character's thoughts or feelings, it's not a natural way to engage with them. If, instead, you show those inner aspects through the character's outer appearance and behaviour, it's effective because it's how we encounter others. Let your readers absorb the internals as much as is possible from the character's actions and words, rather than hit them over the head with an thought information dump. (Like all writing techniques, there are times when telling works superbly, but it's still a useful general guide.)

This excess telling came across very strongly with one of the submissions, where we spent the entire opening in the character's thoughts, but no one really did or said anything, even though he was a soldier, returning from war and a prison camp, surrounded by comrades.

Although this show was about historical fiction (though one submission seemed more an attempt at humorous historical fact), this advice applies to both fiction and non-fiction. Each involves storytelling. In the popular science world, for example, it's just as important to be conscious of your narrative. A collection of facts is not a book. In popular science we often bring in people and what they've done, rather than present the dry scientific content on its own. Alternatively, the author can frame the information they are presenting in a way that adds interest. If we are to escape producing a long-form Wikipedia entry we need always to be thinking about how to engage the reader - especially with those crucial opening words.

Here's the whole thing to see how it all turned out (note, by the way, there were some technical glitches, not usually present in these shows):

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Search This Blog