Hey I think you're right I am just thinking of a hook. For instance Into Thin Air starts off with the ending and then the rest of the book builds up to it. I think it is rare that authors start off with the ending, but normal to start off with a hook from the middle of the story. Agree?

In what cases do you suppose the author is better of starting in the middle or at the end?

I think Into Thin Air he started at the end because everyone already knew how that story ended.

Well, I think that's a tough question, and I don't really know how to go about answering it. I guess if you were going for a more plot-driven, thriller-type story, an opening hook would better entangle people than an opening character-establishing scene (as your characters are likely to be fairly generic, (that is, of the genre; not necessarily bland or whatever else it's come to mean)). But I don't really read enough murder mysteries to know if this is part of the formula (I tend to think it is).

But at any rate, I'm not sure I would think of it in terms of being "better off." I think it depends a lot on the story and what genre you're working in (or, to put it differently, what your intent for the story is). It's just another technique to keep people interested and like others it really depends on everything else. I guess what I'm getting at is the question "when is a hook better than no hook" is too broad and not really a helpful way to think (at least, in the abstract; or else, it would require a ton more research than I'm willing to put in to answer it in the abstract).

More generally, a good hook, imo, is something that doesn't make a lot of sense, something that has some mystery and thrill to it; a murder, a character doing some bizarre (not out of character, mind you; but just out of the realm of everyday life or something else that gets flagged as odd). Although murder might be a bit cliche and over the top/outlandish, which is also something to avoid (again, it sort of depends on the audience you're targeting and what you're trying to do with the story). The point is, just throwing any scene in the beginning of the story probably isn't going to work out all that well; the scene should be interesting and eventually important enough to warrant the treatment (while still not turning off your more jaded and difficult readers; its a tough line to toe). And the problem of merging back should be solved by the context added; if your reader is buying it (either on the strength of the characters or the plot or whatever), then it should fold seamlessly into the story again.

Anyway, I think "The Death of Ivan Ilyich" by Tolstoy proceeds in this manner and might be something to look at. Edit: It actually starts at the end, but the idea is almost the same.

Hm that is an interesting thought. Though I am thinking about it and I think it is not how it plays out. Like take the following fiction;

The Idiot
Crime and Punishment
War and Peace
The Trial
The Metamorphisis
Old Man And the Sea
Grapes of Wrath
East of Eden

I mean, as far as I can remember, all of the best novels DO NOT start with a "hook" in the beginning. They just start at the beginning and then perhaps the character remembers his past to fill in missing details, and I think that happens in all of them. The places that do start with a "hook" are nonfiction books, like;

Into the Wild
Into Thin Air
Tracy Kidder
Ultramarathon Man

(I hope my memory isn't misserving me with my examples!)... Why do you suppose this is?




OKAY, I have a second question. If I am writing something that is a mix between travel writing a novel and a memoir how should I go about it? Cause I think they are different and perhaps I am trying to do too much. Like in travel writing as far as I can see there is no overarching story, which I don't like cause it makes it boring and rambling, but the focus is on the place which I do like. However in a novel the focus is on the characters and story, NOT on the place. Any advise on how to approach this?

Perhaps historical fiction is relevant because this is held together by a story but the story is used to show the history/place.

Consider Liar's Poker, which is a classic IMO. He somehow writes a memoir without it being about him at all,and it is completely compelling but it is also so meandering and there is no story that goes the whole way through.

Could you give explain this a bit more please and perhaps give an example? I just searched on google and I get:

I am really interested in this topic and want to see discussion on your questions. I was recently pondering this question on non-linear narrative because I'm attempting it and not sure if I should bag the approach. I was wondering if all the best novels are linear. Would you be willing to start a new thread on writing advice, Bruiser?

Bruiser - your understanding of what a "hook" is in literature seems too narrow. In my opinion, the first line of "The Metamorphosis" is an excellent example of the prototypical "hook":

The "hook" of this opening line is the combination of the usual with the the unexpected, which leads to the automatic questions of "how did Gregor Samsa get transformed into a vermin?" and "why did Gregor Samsa get transformed into a vermin?" (neither of which the clever Kafka ever answers). You've got your audience "hooked" by appealing to their curiousity and they will keep reading in order to find an answer to these questions.

Katy, why not take the few posts from me and the good responses I've gotten here so far and just stick in a new thread. I wanted that to happen also actually cause of all the solid writers we have here. Or if you want to direct the thread a bit more we're probably better of with you starting the thread than me.

Okay fair point. But going by that definition I think ALL books start off with a hook, and they do... But what I am thinking about I guess is the narrator jumping around in time.

Well, anyway half-way decent book/short story will start off with a hook.

This is purely a guess/my opinion, but what you're describing seems to be a technique originated by film that written narratives have borrowed...consequently, you're not likely to find any books/short stories with such a technique before the 20th century....most novels and plays before the 20th century followed Aristotle's rules pretty closely, which advocate a linear structure.

EDIT: Now, that I'm thinking about this more, I'm not sure if what I just said is true. I'm thinking of the cases where well-known myths/stories/histories were turned into poems,plays, novels, etc. and the author would start with the well-known ending and then work backward...doesn't Milton's Paradise Lost function this way?

These type of widely-known cultural myths and stories are the only examples I can really think of where pre-20th century authors would have used a narrative structure that wasn't linear.

Paging John Cole, paging John Cole.

I didn't know this. I mean I knew that a lot of them were linear but I didn't realize that the majority were.

I haven't read many books. As far as the acclaimed 20th century novels, would you say the majority are written in a linear structure? I think that Slaughterhouse 5 is non-linear, right? Also maybe Catch 22? Not sure about that one.

For my story I was going to start in the present and then go back to the protagonist's birth. For example, say I were writing about you, Hobby. I would open with you in present day, running around your messy apartment looking for your purse, running late for work. I would continue with you sitting on a train making observations of people and daydreaming. The goal would be to make you interesting enough to the reader that they are hooked on your awesome personality. Then I would flash back to the circumstances of your birth and move through time, showing what you were like at age 10...age 15...age 20, etc. Then I would put you back in the present and pick up from the beginning. Then I would move the story forward.

Or, is it just easier and less tedious for the reader if I simply started out at your birth, like Oliver Twist entering the world, where we immediately feel attachment to you as a baby, and then move you forward in a linear structure? I don't know. I've been rolling it over in my mind for many months now.

Slaughterhouse 5 is definitely non-linear...and frankly, that is its main hook. Never read Catch-22 so I can't say anything about that. A lot of the modernists worked against linear narratives - Woolf and Joyce are who I can think of off the top of my head. It was one of the ways in which they distinguished their work from their predecessors.

LOL. Katy, you really need to stop following me around. That description of present-day me is scarily accurate.

I think going back in time would work, but there has to be a point and purpose to it. What kind of effect are you looking to achieve that couldn't be done in a linear narrative? Non-linear narratives produce certain effects in a reader that you should be aware of before-hand.

Take Slaughterhouse 5 as an example: when I read it, I was confused by the non-linear narrative because it's difficult for the reader to piece everything together in order for them to get a clear sense of what is going one and figure out what is the story that I'm being told. Most readers don't enjoy being confused because reading is typically a form of escape; consequently, another effect is that you can cause your readers to become disgruntled by your non-linear story. Now, the brilliance of Slaughterhouse 5 is that by creating these feeling of confusion, bewilderment, disgruntlement, irritation in the reader, the narrative is able to reproduce - to some degree - the feelings and state of the NARRATOR in the reader. In other words, the reader becomes a mirror of the narrator in that story and becomes even more drawn into the story than usual.

Ok, I'm getting wordy and rambly here...do you get what I'm trying to say at all?

I'm very tuned in to all of you people. You should see what I have your character contemplating on the train. It's deeply amusing.

Excellent post, Hobby. I absolutely get what you are trying to say and I really appreciate it. You have given me a lot to think about. Thank you!

I just moved some posts into here from the October LC thread. Bruiser has started up an interesting discussion on non-linear narrative.

The discussion begins with Post #123 in this thread (Bruiser's). What sorts of questions should he be asking himself when deciding between a linear and non-linear structure? Are there predictable pitfalls that can be avoided when constructing a nonlinear plot? If you have time please read his posts and weigh in.

What makes it easier or less tedious for the reader is not necessarily the choice you make about what to give him, but how you justify it and fold it into a unified whole. It's not so much a matter of flipping a coin as one of having solid and, especially, easily coherent reasons for your choices.

So you have to ask yourself: What would it accomplish to do it this way? What would I gain? What would I lose? Taking all that into account, is it worth it overall to take this approach rather than another? Try to think of the overall effect on the story as a whole. The trees are endlessly fascinating and you could lose yourself in them forever, but ultimately you have to keep sight of the forest. Make your smaller things come together for the purposes of the whole.

Any variation from straightest and simplest throughline punching right through the story and scooting you quickly out and into the parking lot makes things more difficult for the reader. That can be fine, as long as you are sure to reward him for the difficulty. Difficulty incommensurate with reward short-changes the reader. Style for the sake of style is merely mechanics. Such disappointments are fine in drafts, but should not make it into finished products. Keep an eye on your perspective as a reader; ask yourself: "Would seeing the story unfold like this make me want to keep reading?"

Well said.

Just getting the "booty call" out of the title ...

Hey Bruiser -

What I wrote for my example of Slaughterhouse 5 would probably be considered more akin to "literary criticism" than straight advice about writing (though it is a fine line, of course).

For you and katy and anybody really interested in writing, here is what I would suggest: take a classic work that you really enjoy and find meaningful - be it Heminway, Faulkner, Woolf, Kafka, whoever - and find some literary criticism books/articles about it to read. (You should actually get books/articles from literary critics/professors of the 1950s-60s since modern-day English professors/critics are more concerned with historical issues than straight literary structures, etc.)

A book of literary criticism is focused a lot on the issues you're thinking about - structure, plot, symbolism, effects of the narrative, etc. I think it would be very helpful for you to read someone else's in-depth analysis of a book/novel/short story that is particularly meaningful to you because it can give you a greater appreciation and understanding of how and why it works the way it does. It's a step beyond straight writerly mechanics that are the focus of most how-to-write books.

/Hobby $.02

I appreciate the comments, Blarg. This is helpful. And you're right about the trees being endlessly fascinating. I've been lost in my forest for a couple years now because I am enthralled with a couple of the trees.

I guess there are two reasons that I want to do my story in this non-linear fashion that I mentioned above in my post to Hobby (using her as an example protagonist). First, because I seem to approach everything in life in this manner: start in the middle, move back to the beginning to see what I missed, then move forward linearly to the end. I read books this way. I sometimes even watch movies this way. Maybe i have that adult ADD thing

Second, I have this vision of my story and protagonist. I like the idea of introducing her in the present day. It hooks the reader. We are fascinated by the protagonist, and we want to know what is going to happen to her. But first we need to see how she became who she is, what accounts for her neuroses and her fears. We need to see her back-story. Then we need to get back to the present and see how she decides to confront her problems and resolve them. If I simply start the story with the circumstances of her birth, I feel I will lose a lot of my reader's interest because the main thing that is charming about the story is the personality of my protagonist. I want to introduce it to the reader right away. I don't want them to have to wait until chapter 8 to see it.

But after reading your reply and Hobby's I'm going to give this a lot more thought. I'm not trying to do this as a stylistic thing and I really don't want it to appear forced or confusing. So I might change it and make it linear. Less trouble but possibly not as effective.

re non-fiction tending to have a "hook" more than fiction, real life is messier than fiction since it is not plotted, and so tends to have slightly less of a clear narrative thrust. starting with a hook creates a thrust by providing a point the story must reach, and so providing each event with a purpose. fiction doesnt need this.

Your reader might not, though. Reading the above made me wonder -- and I don't know anything about your story so I don't know if it's relevant -- whether you are keeping an eye on writing for the reader, or whether you are essentially writing for yourself. You could come out with completely different projects, depending on the answer. And one might be easily the other's superior.

That sounds sensible. There are few people for whom it's worth knowing that they were born in a log cabin, etc. It mostly just doesn't matter. But if you can reach back into the past for a telling detail, or for clues to or parallels with the present situation, you can enrich the present and bring increased drama and meaning to bear on it. Or you can use the past to enrich the present in a more low-key way, such as to provide tidbits of personality and outlook that provide hints rather than unlock doors.

Key to either way of doing it is that it be done to a very concrete end, in the same way that a carpenter wouldn't nail a board somewhere randomly.

It doesn't sound like you're attempting anything too out of the ordinary. If you are intending to spend very much time in the past life of your protagonist, though, bear in mind that there should be a fruitful balance. If you create a past world too much more interesting than the present one, the reader might be disappointed to be brought back to the present. So you have to maintain a firm hand on what and where you really want the focus of the story to be.

Katy,

If you haven't already, read The Time Traveler's Wife, a very well-done non-linear narrative. Due to the main character's (Henry's) inability to stop time traveling, mostly to different points of his relationship with Clare, you are given lots of hints and hooks for what must happen later, but none of it is so subtle or ambiguous that you can't appreciate what's happening immediately in the story. At the same time, there is a linear purpose to the story when you see the author's carefully structured scenes of their relationship unfolding.

It would have been easy for her to write the book seemingly in order from either character's perspective. I wouldn't be surprised if she tried that in one of the drafts. Similarly to Hobby's analysis of the narrative's purpose in Slaughterhouse 5, telling the stories in a non-linear fashion gives the reader a sense of what it must be like for these characters that are mostly unable to experience each other linearly.

If you're going to tell it in a non-linear fashion, I'll repeat what others have said. Do it for a reason that the story calls for. I suggest not doing it as a gimmick. The story needs to be interesting on its own, otherwise you risk being seen as a cripple and the non-linear narrative becomes your crutches.

I make most of my terminology up on the spot; I can't imagine google would be much help. What I meant was a collection of self-contained episodes that skip back and forth in a larger overall temporal narrative. Like a bunch of short stories that occur at different times but are connected through either shared characters or a set locale. I'm mainly thinking of something like "Love Medicine" by Louis Erdrich (some of her other books are similarly structure, I believe).

Also, I haven't really kept up with the thread since I last posted, but I might argue Crime and Punishment works with a "hook" in the sense that we were earlier using the term; it's just not as obvious/overt. The story basically goes RRR gets some crazy ideas -> Murders an old woman -> Stuff happens, but we're given that middle chunk first and Dostoevsky then works toward explaining the "why" of RRR's (I have no hope of spelling this without looking it up) actions by using flashbacks and memories (and some dialogue). Now, there is still a lot of froward action, but it really starts at the middle of the story and works back toward the why; Dostoevsky is just so good at folding the backward looking bits into the overall story, and the beginning is so enthralling, that you don't really notice. Plus there's a lot of other stuff only tangentially related to the structure of the story that makes it a great book. But I think the point is that Crime and Punishment would actually be a good book to look at for a very subtle non-linear narrative progression.

Edit: Also, I just thought of it now, but "Light in August" by Faulkner seems like a good example of a non-linear that feels linear because it's awesome. It's really more about presenting things at the right time than it is about getting caught up in and adhering to either a strict linear or non-linear form.

hey blarg. could you please give some examples (the more, and more specific the better) on what actual reasons a person can have for using non linear narrative and what specific questions a person might ask himself.

cause i get your general ideas but am kind of lost in applying them.

Hey HOBBY, thanks for hte idea. i am going teat my tuna fish and shower and go to the bookstore and read their literary criticisms section.

Let's see the reasons why I think it would work for my project. First of all I think the beginning is boring. So I guess I could cut it altogether. But I think it should be interesting and I just present it bad. Like if I start in the middle everyone will want to know how I got there.

Another reason is the timeline doesn't seem relevant to my story. Like in what I have to say there are a lot of different threads and ideas that don't tie together so well. Or actually they tie together great IMO. But what ties them together isn't their development through time. I wrote it at first by chronology and it always felt forced and contrived to me. I think it makes a lot more sense to structure it by those actual threads and then jump back and forth in time as needed. Yeah this point makes a lot of sense to me. I think this is what Micahel Lewis does in Liar's Poker which I love and is kind of a model for me here.

EDIT; did what i write make sense here? it is humbling for me to try to logically think and reason out literary stuff casue it comes out as nonesense and rambling so easy.