![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
May. 6th, 2009 04:35 pmI am being pursued by first sentences. Wherever I go, people tell me the first sentences of novels. I thought I defeated the pursuit by teaching a class on first sentences last week. Alas, I was wrong. Someone just blogged all the Stephenie Meyer first sentences.
I don't judge a book on first sentences, though I have been known to stop and admire a particularly cool one. Right now, I'm judging books on a hundred page rule.
I used to say that if I could get through a hundred pages, then I was allowed to admit that the book was bad and that therefore I didn't have to read any further. This is not my current hundred page rule, however. My current hundred page rule is far tougher.
So many writers (in all genres) work on their opening and first few chapters until they're the very best writing possible. Then the poor sagging author dies in a ditch from overwhelm and exhaustion. There's a little drop-off after about a hundred pages in an awful lot of novels.
The question is how the novel reads after that dip. Does it go back to the complete involvement and amazing characterisation of the earlier segments, or does it get just a little bit lazy and turn from a brilliant book to a very good one, or does it make you want to cry for the loss of all hope?
I read a Lois McMaster Bujold this week that really should have been tightened after that first hundred pages. It meandered down a fantasy Mississippi for far longer than it should. This was a huge surprise to me, because Lois McMaster Bujold is normally one of the most consistent writers around. The problem was partly me: I've read too many of the documents she used as her main world-building sources, so it lacked newness. Still, just because a river loops and repeats, doesn't mean we need the same bit of explanation over and again. After the first hundred pages, there were editing issues.
I just finished an Elizabeth Knox and it sagged the merest little bit, the world shifted a little, and then it continued triumphantly to the end. The first hundred pages were better than the rest, but that was only because the first hundred pages were near-perfect writing. (Thank you, Flycon, for letting me know that she has published so much more than I had realised. We need more free international online SF conventions.)
And the book that made me want to cry for the loss of all hope? I'm not going to tell you that one. Such a talented writer, and all they needed was to work as hard for the whole novel as they had for the early sections.
This post is mainly for me, in case you were wondering. I wish my writing was immune from the hundred page problem, but it's not.
I don't judge a book on first sentences, though I have been known to stop and admire a particularly cool one. Right now, I'm judging books on a hundred page rule.
I used to say that if I could get through a hundred pages, then I was allowed to admit that the book was bad and that therefore I didn't have to read any further. This is not my current hundred page rule, however. My current hundred page rule is far tougher.
So many writers (in all genres) work on their opening and first few chapters until they're the very best writing possible. Then the poor sagging author dies in a ditch from overwhelm and exhaustion. There's a little drop-off after about a hundred pages in an awful lot of novels.
The question is how the novel reads after that dip. Does it go back to the complete involvement and amazing characterisation of the earlier segments, or does it get just a little bit lazy and turn from a brilliant book to a very good one, or does it make you want to cry for the loss of all hope?
I read a Lois McMaster Bujold this week that really should have been tightened after that first hundred pages. It meandered down a fantasy Mississippi for far longer than it should. This was a huge surprise to me, because Lois McMaster Bujold is normally one of the most consistent writers around. The problem was partly me: I've read too many of the documents she used as her main world-building sources, so it lacked newness. Still, just because a river loops and repeats, doesn't mean we need the same bit of explanation over and again. After the first hundred pages, there were editing issues.
I just finished an Elizabeth Knox and it sagged the merest little bit, the world shifted a little, and then it continued triumphantly to the end. The first hundred pages were better than the rest, but that was only because the first hundred pages were near-perfect writing. (Thank you, Flycon, for letting me know that she has published so much more than I had realised. We need more free international online SF conventions.)
And the book that made me want to cry for the loss of all hope? I'm not going to tell you that one. Such a talented writer, and all they needed was to work as hard for the whole novel as they had for the early sections.
This post is mainly for me, in case you were wondering. I wish my writing was immune from the hundred page problem, but it's not.