How do I get my readers through the early, "hardship" part of my fiction?
A reader of one of my works told me, "It was very interesting, the last two thirds of it anyway." Her fear was that I might lose my readers in the first one-third of the work.
The above work was a three act play, with a crisis and hardship in the first act, and characters that were "nothing special." Of course, they became "special" coming out of the hardship, and took off in the second and third acts.
Another work is a teen novel about the romancing of the high school "science queen." (One purpose of the book is to convince girls that they are still datable if they take STEM courses). It takes the hero about four chapters (out of 12) to pull her out of the "laboratory," after which things are fine.
Referring to published fiction, if the work were the "Wizard of Oz," how does avoid losing ones readers during the hum drum days of Dorothy's life with Aunt Em, and the farmhands in "Kansas," and the hardship caused by the sudden tornado? Once we get to the "land of Oz," I know what to do.
So how do I keep reader's attention during the first third or so of the work long enough to get to the "good stuff?"
Some Japanese manga have lots of hardship, and most get you hooked right from the start or the first few chapters. In s …
6y ago
I don't know much about writing, but studying maths maybe I can give you some ideas anyway. First: Just because someone …
6y ago
"The purpose of the book is to convince..." That is likely the source of your problem right there. If a book is didactic …
6y ago
Conflict and Action. It doesn't make a difference what your character does, really, as long as she is in conflict in ev …
6y ago
One way would be to condense the "Kansas" part as much as possible. I don't have "The Wizard of Oz" on me, but let's loo …
6y ago
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/34224. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
5 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
Some Japanese manga have lots of hardship, and most get you hooked right from the start or the first few chapters.
In shoujo in particular, the heroine or female main character tends to have it difficult on some attribute (unpopular, short, ugly, poor, unhappy, lonely, etc.). But triumphs over it.
It is difficult for me to pinpoint exactly how those mangas hook the reader, but you may find it useful to have a look and try to identify the methods. Perhaps a combination of:
- A likable character [perhaps she/he has some trait we can identify or simpathise with], and
- Some unresolved question [will the girl get the guy? will X find Y? become popular/rich/happy?]. Maybe these tend to feel like they will be solved soon? (but then either do not or some other problems/questions/situations appear).
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/34268. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
I don't know much about writing, but studying maths maybe I can give you some ideas anyway. First: Just because someone likes science doesn't mean they just walk through it and understand everything because they are such a genius (in contrast to how "science people" are usually depicted in fiction). This stuff is hard. That is why professors in STEM degrees often start with a motivational speech. And you probably can use this kind of struggling to make your introduction more interesting. I mean imposter syndrome is really common in that field I think.
I am kind of writing this because of the answer with:
I'd say make the science part incredibly fun in the first third. Have some lab accidents, some funky experiments, liquid nitrogen on hand, helium, goofy stuff she plays with even though she shouldn't.
If you want people to get into STEM, if you depict STEM like that, they will feel like they are bad at it, because their experience will be different. Because this is not the experience you have when you do STEM. Even if you love it.
A few anecdotes:
My Analysis 1 professor started, by drawing a "yellow maths heart" with a marker pen on a piece of paper, which was projected on the screen, and said: some people will love maths some of the time, and sometimes they will hate it. You will never love it all the time. He then said that we could now mark him well in "media usage" in the teaching evaluation, because he used a projector. (Maths lectures are blackboards only basically)
He also distributed a package of jelly pigs at some point and said: don't eat it yet, keep it until your first year is over. Whenever you get stuck, punch it, remind yourself that you can do it.
You don't even understand the lecturers in the first semester, if you start to be able to ask questions in second semester (because you understand enough, to know what you don't know), you are basically already in the top 3%. Sometimes you will work on an exercise for hours, give up, try the next day, give up again because you have no clue, start googling, and then find it on wikipedia and realise that it could be proven in 2 f**ing lines. And on other days you will solve a "hard" exercise in 10 minutes.
And when you think back about the first semester you always think, man that stuff was easy! Because you got so used to that way of thinking. It is similar to how arabic numerals make calculations easier compared to roman numerals, because you can use the decimal places to divide and conquer the calculation. Similarly other definitions and concepts will enable you to do things which seem more complicated before. But for that you first need to understand those abstract definitions. And get used to them.
But once you understand those concepts, it become really easy to use them and you can't remember how hard it was in the beginning.
It is like learning a language by only listening to it. Because you can't explain the language maths in a language that is not maths. Once you understand the language it seems easy. And people around you treat you like a genius or something, even though you are just doing some easy things. That is where the imposter syndrome comes in.
And in lectures it is always so easy to fall into the trap of: I don't want to ask this, maybe it is a stupid question and I just don't understand it because I am stupid. And since everyone is afraid of the same no one asks and everyone keeps quiet. While the lecturer has no idea that he just left the entire hall behind. There were multiple times I almost didn't dare to ask a question, made myself do it and then the same question was asked by someone in the next lecture because they apparently didn't even get the question in the previous lecture.
It is probably hard to depict this. But if you want a realistic story, then you will be better off if you don't make it out to be a piece of cake. The fun you get out of STEM is like the fun you can get out of sports. It is gruesome most of the time, but when you manage to do something it is all the more rewarding. And some people like that ;-) And aren't stories supposed to be about struggles?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/34265. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
"The purpose of the book is to convince..." That is likely the source of your problem right there. If a book is didactic or polemical in nature, it is generally only of interest to those who support that message and only of interest to them while it is actually preaching that message.
A book can certainly have a didactic or polemical effect, but it has to a secondary effect. The primary effect has to be to portray a real human being in a recognizable way. We have to look at the character and say, ah, yes, there is a human being. We are social beings and we love the company of others of our kind. A book begins -- must begin -- by placing us in the company of a human being whose character and prospects can engage our interest.
You are going to hear a lot about starting with a "hook", but a hook has to catch in flesh before you can reel anything in with it. No event, no crisis, is of general interest until it happens to a human being we sympathize with. And sympathize here does not mean approve of, it means recognize as sharing our human frailty. They don't have to look like us. We don't even have to like them. But we have to recognize them as human. Once we recognize them as human, we begin to care what happens to them.
0 comment threads
One way would be to condense the "Kansas" part as much as possible. I don't have "The Wizard of Oz" on me, but let's look at "The Hobbit" as a similar example. It starts with about two pages of what are hobbtis. Bilbo is established in one paragraph:
"This hobbit was a very well-to-do hobbit, and his name was Baggins. The Bagginses had lived in the neighbourhood of The Hill for time out of mind, and people considered them very respectable, not only because most of them were rich, but also because they never had any adventures or did anything unexpected: you could tell what a Baggins would say on any question without the bother of asking him." - The Hobbit, J.R.R.Tolkien
That's Kansas. That's all the Kansas we get. All the boring life Bilbo has been living for almost 50 years before Gnadalf showed up - condensed into a paragraph. Third page in, Gandalf arrives. WHAM! Adventure just knocked on the door. Gandalf is Bilbo's "hurricane".
Sometimes, of course, you can't condense all "Kansas" into a few pages. But then, maybe the "hurricane" can be preceded by strong winds? Some dramatic build-up to what's about to happen?
Look, for example, at Zelazny's "Amber Chronicles". The "hurricane" doesn't happen until halfway through the first book. Until then, Corwin doesn't have his memories, doesn't have his powers, and consequently isn't yet in the books' main conflict. However, the book starts with Corwin waking up with amnesia, convinced somebody's after him - pretty strong wind right there, and proceeds to family politicking, moving between worlds, and more. The "hurricane" doesn't come without a build-up full of awesome drama. Could you insert awesome drama into your "Kansas" part?
One more important thing about the "Amber Chronicles": while until the "hurricane", Corwin isn't moving towards what will become his major goal, he is moving towards a goal. He is proactive. In fact, he chases the "hurricane". It isn't interesting to read about things just happening to the character, and it is even less interesting to read about a character leading a drab boring life. That I would condense. However, if the character is actively chasing something, things would be a lot more interesting.
0 comment threads
Conflict and Action.
It doesn't make a difference what your character does, really, as long as she is in conflict in every scene, small or large. From disagreements with friends or enemies to fighting, or running, or defying her mother or father or brother or sister or teacher or school counselor or class bully, male or female.
Perhaps she makes an error in the lab, she is just a student after all.
I would guess a female science nerd (I knew them in school) is NOT a sassy or outgoing girl: It doesn't really fit my image of a girl reluctant to date and feels like a pretense.
Science nerds in general, of either gender, are intellectually confident in realms with systems and clear rules: Mathematics, chemistry, physics, computers, even D&D and chess.
One reason they are not socially self-confident is because the rules seem unclear and arbitrary when it comes to humans, for banter, humor, expressing feelings (sexual or otherwise), and for the romantically inexperienced, all the rules and physical mechanics of any kind of romantic interaction, from "looking sexually attractive" to actually having sex. Sure, they have free access to books and movies and porn, but forgive the highly analytical for thinking perhaps real life is not so straightforward as a fictional script, or not seeing themselves in the assigned roles.
That social insecurity is another obvious source of conflicts.
A friendly heads up: From a psychological reality standpoint I would question the cliché of the "hot and funny guy that has no interest in science." Female nerds take pride in their intellectual prowess, like all humans their self-worth is closely tied to what they excel at and what makes them special. Let the beauty queen and football star take pride in their looks that are 99% genetics they got for nothing: I learned calculus, physics and chemistry!
A guy that isn't interested in science is not appealing to that girl, he's an object of ridicule and "being hot" doesn't matter: He doesn't value what she considers most valuable about herself: her analytical mind, and isn't interested in anything she wants to talk about.
That same analytical mind will tell her all he is interested in: Her body, like all guys. That will likely be her assessment whether or not it is true. And by the time she is of dating age she knows full well, as a girl, that if all she wanted was a guy interested in her body, those guys are a dime a dozen in high school or college, just ask 'em.
Women are only superficially attracted to a "hot guy", the hot guy can ruin that the minute they start talking. Especially if the woman, like a female nerd, puts a high value on intellectual competence, reasoning, and scientific understanding, and the "hot guy" really doesn't value anything she values or defines herself by, and only cares about a physical relationship.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads