Slow Burning

T'other day I saw this tweet (click on it, as its a quote retweet and I think the original is needed for full context):

I always think this is an interesting question especially with regards to fantasy. With The Ninth Rain I deliberately had a slower opening section because I wanted to seed a deep affection for the characters before I did terrible terrible things to them (maniacal laugh etc) https://t.co/L9t1RV7FNA

— Jen '100% staying indoors’ Williams (@sennydreadful) April 16, 2020

My first reaction was kinda kneejerk "But you gotta hook!". That and "Yeah well, you can go as slow as you like when you write like GGK (the retweetee), but not many do". Which is weird as I'm critical of very fast action packed starts. Which is why I had a second reaction of "Preach it". And there's a couple of things about it that I want to particularly highlight.

First I want to quickly talk about hook. I think it's one of those writing terms where the community uses it in pretty different ways from person to person. Some people seem to use it in a "Is X going to survive! What's happened to Y?" way that suggests the form of the hook is going to be something action-y or dramatic. Others use it in a "anything that gets the reader to turn the next page" way that can let it be, well, anything. There's a big difference there. For the purposes of this article, I'll be using the first definition.

Back to Jen's tweet and this line in particular:

"I wanted to seed a deep affection for the characters before I did terrible terrible things to them".

There is an implication there that one can't establish deep affection for characters with openings that are Action & Drama heavy, or that it is very difficult. I would certainly agree with the latter. Communicating the endearing parts of a character's personality while they're totally focused on fighting for their lives or a complicated crime scene is very difficult, not least because you've got very limited space because its not the focus of the scene. You can maybe show off a bit of humour or what they fight for, but it's limited. I'm trying to think of a book that makes it work. Maybe Lindsay Davies' The Silver Pigs? That's a chase scene with a young lady running from two heavies - very hooky - but Falco's personality as a good-hearted rogue comes across very clearly. However the following should be considered:

a) 1st PoV puts us deepest into the character's mindset; I'm not sure it'd work with 3rd, not unless its super deep
b) Falco isn't the person under the deepest stress here; it mightn't work with a character who's more directly under attack, or is less experienced, or less funny too for that matter
c) Lindsay Davies is fucking awesome and not everyone can do what she can.

Now an author can go with a hook start and immediately slow down to establish character. I feel like Abercrombie's The Blade Itself and Herron's Slow Horses do that. That can work - it can be the best of both worlds - but it can also be like starting the book twice, with the chance of losing the reader twice, particularly with readers who look hooks but not slow (and vice versa). 

What doesn't work, at least 90% of the time, is failing to establish affection for the characters. And I think those 10% of books generally aren't in fantasy.

Fantasy is very much a genre with a history of the slow burn. It was Tolkien's way, it was the way of the authors that established Epic Fantasy as a sub-genre, the way of Le Guin and Pratchett and many of the genre's greats. As Jen pointed out in a follow up tweet, fantasy particularly benefits from slower starts because of all the world building we stuff in there. Which is true. Ankh-Morpork is almost as much of a character as Sam Vimes. I would like to offer a parallel explanation and that is fantasy is a genre very dependent on its characters. To badly paraphrase Lloyd Alexander, fantasy is a genre in need of a hard dose of reality; those who would build castles in the air must kept their feet on the ground.

Characters are the best form of grounding. We can relate to them. We might wonder or coo at the magic and impossible wonders and dragon fights, but it is the emotions of the characters that frame them. The emotions are the things we understand best because they mirror the ones we have. And we appreciate the characters most when we like them, are fascinated by them.

I think with every genre, authors face a quandary on how much internal journey to bring vs how much external journey, with the best finding ways to sacrifice as little of each as possible. Maybe this is a claim that all other genres' fans would make but I think fantasy is harsh with those who can't bring a lot of both. Lack of external journey? All that magic, all that worldbuilding, is gone. Lack of internal journey? I've talked about only a few of the dangers here. Only dedicated action-adventure fantasies that are happy to use safe familiar worldbuilding can get away with that I think.

At some point, the majority of fantasy stories need to slow down. The characters need oxygen, to borrow a phrase from the Wendig review I talked about yesterday. So why not at the start? I'll admit this also fits my bias for slower more character focused stories but it makes sense to me in terms of giving readers what they want. My twitter feed is littered with excitement about characters, not fight scenes. Is it harder to get the majority of readers intrigued with slower starts? Maybe, although I'll admit to being curious if there's any data behind this. But harder is not impossible. And bluntly I think it'd be no bad thing to force authors to concentrate so much on their prose and characters that they don't need hooks.

It is not the only way nor should it be. It has however been a hugely successful way and will continue to be so. If people need reminding, then I hope they're reminded.