Do you prefer a novel that starts slowly, giving lots of back-story and allowing you to get to know the characters more before the action really starts, or do you prefer a novel that jumps straight in, action from word go?

I know in a short story, you are supposed to immediately grab the interest of your reader, making a short snappy intro, and not dragging out the story with an 'introduction'. However, with a novel it's different, or can be different. I know a lot of it is due to the style of the writer, and how they chose to write the start of their novel. How do you prefer to write the first few chapters of your novel? Do you like to jump straight in, or do you prefer a slow start, with more time for introductions?

I enjoy either one, if it's done well.


I lean towards jumping straight in, to some extent, though I've written novels both ways. Jumping straight in probably works better for most stories, and publishers prefer it, but I also think that slow starts are neglected in modern writing. Slow starts, due to giving the opportunity to add extra depth, can be very effective, though they're harder to get right.

I, too, can enjoy anything so long as it's done well. As Kipling said, "There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays / And every single one of them is right."

The question is what any particular story needs. If the story is set in a world very unlike our own, but which doesn't have one single unifying principle, it often needs a fairly slow start to give the reader some bearings so the story will even begin to make any sense ... but in something like Aubrey's Erde, where everything follows from one single principle, it can be possible to begin "in media res" and explain things as the story goes along.

And if the story is an "action" story, full of battle scenes in which the narrator is constantly fighting for his life and narrowly escaping death, or with fast car chaseschariot races, starting with such a battle could work (though most craft-of-writing books I've read counsel against just starting in the middle of a battle like that, because we need some reason to care about these characters other than their immediate peril), but such an approach will lead to reader confusion or anger if the story is one where the tension comes from the need to think every move through but there isn't much overt action in the story.

I've struggled with this in one of my own stories. The narrator-protagonist sees her country conquered by their sworn enemies and her entire society collapse, and finally traces the responsibility for it back to a time when she had the opportunity, and was being strongly prompted, to do something, but deliberately chose to do nothing; regretting that, and the patterns of her life leading up to it, she prays for a chance to live her life over again ... and is granted it. And all that (except the "is granted it" part) is the prologue, which has to be fairly lengthy because I have to introduce her, her world, and her entire "first time through" her life and lead up to her realization before I can get to "the story itself."

I prefer something in the middle. Most modern books jump in too fast and don't allow you to savour the story and characters before all the action begins. On the other hand, something like Brothers Karamazov or some other older book that uses the first fifty pages to just give backstory is way too much over the top. There needs to be some sort of balance in the middle.

I like both. Let me explain -

I love a book that throws you straight into the middle of the action to get you captivated, and having then caught your attention, goes on to explain the back story at leisure. I like this especially with before and after beginnings, so starting with the aftermath and then going back to explain why it occurred. A great example of this would be "The Last Day I Remember" by Andrew Klavan. The opening is startling, intriguing and engrossingly active, and then when you get a chance to breathe, it goes back to explain the leadup.

I agree!
I think that the first scene is crucial because it is the foundation for the story, and it should let you build a relationship with the main character. That can happen in both types of beginnings! I heard once that you should "begin on the day that something was different." Allow the reader the chance to discover backstory along the way- reveal or hold back information to either increase or release tension as you want. Same thing with introducing new characters- don't bring in them all in the first chapter!