Comment by setgree 3 days ago
The second chapter of Anne McCaffrey's 'Dragonflight', written in 1968, opens with: "F'lar, on bronze Mnementh's great neck, appeared first in the skies above the chief Hold of Fax, so-called Lord of the High Reaches."
I seem to read more fiction now than I ever have, but much of it now slips through publishing (and editing)
So novels that start like that make me read uphill. Way better to plunge into the book.
The first few lines of books I recently liked...
"DEATH CAME FOR him through the trees."
"Gallegher played by ear, which would have been all right had he been a musician - but he was a scientist. A drunken and erratic one, but good."
“Like any good story, it began with a girl. It was supposed to end with a bullet."
"The level was at his top lip now. Even with his head pressed hard back against the stones of the cell wall his nose was only just above the surface. He wasn’t going to get his hands free in time; he was going to drown."
a little conflicted on this one:
"ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1988, the Jason Taverner Show ran thirty seconds short. A technician, watching through the plastic bubble of the control dome, froze the final credit on the video section, then pointed to Jason Taverner, who had started to leave the stage. The technician tapped his wrist, pointed to his mouth."
The books that made me read uphill in sentence 1 loosely correlate with the rest of the book.
Makes me think of the MrBeast pdf from yesterday wrt the first crucial seconds of a youtube video.
it has four, going on five, esoteric proper nouns in one sentence. it's not hard to parse, but it isn't something I love reading either.
I'm reminded of the Illuminatus Trilogy, which at times is barely more than proper nouns arranged into sentences at random. like Finnegan's Wake but with more flower power
Compare with the first sentence of The Silmarillion by J.R.R. Tolkien:
> There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Iluvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought, and they were with him before aught else was made.
except for 'Arda', every new word is defined/clarified.
I'm a huge LOTR fan and a moderate Silmarillion fan, and I can see how maybe Tolkien is guilty of this 'new words for familiar things' problem.. I guess when Tolkien does it, I'm enchanted, e.g. the first non-introduction line in _Fellowship_:
> When Mr Bilbo Baggins of Bag End announced that he would shortly be celebrating his eleventy-first birthday with a party of special magnificence, there was much talk and excitement in Hobbiton.
To me this immediately evokes: we're in a foreign land, but it's going to be vaguely small-town England in its manners and interests.
> it has four, going on five, esoteric proper nouns in one sentence.
F'lar is unexplained within that sentence. Mnementh is also unexplained, but sounds like a constellation.
Fax and the High Reaches are explicitly marked as the names of a person and a place. Those are going to appear as proper nouns no matter what genre you're reading. It's the only possible way to do things. This is like complaining that Robin Hood's primary antagonist is the Sheriff of Nottingham. What's the complaint?
Not surprisingly, Robert Anton Wilson, one half of the writing team behind Illuminatus, was a huge fan and scholar of James Joyce. Indeed in the first volume, the character Epicene Wildeblood writes, a damning dismissal of what is obviously meant to be the trilogy itself, describing it as "a very pretentious imitation of Faulkner and Joyce"[1]. I can't think of anything more Joycean. (Epicene doesn't think much of science fiction either, even when she transitions into a more relaxed Mary Margaret Wildeblood in the later Schrodinger's Cat trilogy.)
[1] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/Illuminatu...
> it has four, going on five, esoteric proper nouns in one sentence. it's not hard to parse, but it isn't something I love reading either.
Even so. If the sentence was something like "Kowalski's Mosquito soared high above the Führerbunker, Hitler's final redoubt in Berlin," no one would find that problematic. McCaffrey's sentence is only troubling if you've already assumed that made-up names are inherently bad writing.
The thing about the alternative you offer is that none of the names in it are made-up, other than that Kowalski may be a fictional character.
There is nothing inherently wrong with made-up names, and some genres will require more than others, but I suspect that sentences in the style of McCaffrey's are partly intended to draw in the reader who feels, vaguely and probably subconsciously, as someone who has the inside scoop on esoteric knowledge from having deduced what sort of entities these names denote. To be clear, I am not immune to the effect, and it can be pleasant in small doses if the rest of the story is engaging.
Made-up names are bad to read for me too. I don't like too many things in my head with unfamiliar names. I can't think of things with unfamiliar names, and it bothers me.
What's funny is that this register and conceit is one that I dearly love among science fiction and fantasy writers,
provided they fulfill the implicit promise, that on a second reading all such things will be clear.
It's an intentional device. Andre Norton is particularly adept at this: when accounting for my deep love of her many thin "pulp" novels, many of which exist in the same universe, something I regularly praise is the way she almost as a signature drops you without exposition into drama.
The conceit of a chatty expositional conversational narrator who can in effect be imaged to be turning to their friend-from-out-of-town to helpfully explain what this thing is or what the significance of that is—often with a presumed familiarity with the frame of reference their audience might hanve—is by contrast a crutch and now most characteristic of what we call Young Adult fiction.
Trust in the reader, and trust in their sufficient interest to file such things away, is, I think, characteristic of a different era—one that demanded more of readers. I don't think it's a coincidence that our own era finds this off-putting.
We're lazy now, and we have small token windows.
EDIT: and I could probably have reproduced, or at least completed, that line of McCaffery's, from memory—though that particular book shows its age and its history in being the first short story she wrote about her world Pern. She got a lot softer and more sentimental as she went along, and less prone to patriarchal stereotypes she brought along from her work as a romance writer.
McCaffrey is on that TV Tropes list, I have only read a few of her novels and she does jump out for obvious examples of this trope.
It's tricky to write an opening sentence though. We all recognise "Call me Ishmael" and probably "Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again" is obvious to lots of people but for example, "I am always drawn back to places where I have lived, the houses and their neighbourhoods" doesn't exactly promise Breakfast at Tiffany's does it?
By the second chapter I think you've earned a lot of leeway, either the reader is engaged and will soldier on despite your six new nouns and what might be a new word or possibly a new meaning for a word they know already - or they have probably set the book down some time ago and will never see this sentence anyway.
Ooh this is fun trivia - originally dragons had a hard time with human names, so it became a tradition for dragon riders (particularly males) to adopt the dragon’s pronunciation as an honorific. So “Simon” becomes “S’mon.”
You say it with a bit of a slur - suhMON or fuhLAX - where the first syllable is not only unemphasized but uttered as quickly as possible then slurred into the next. F’lar really is just “fuhLAR”
The apostrophe here most likely represents a glottal stop (as in Hawai'i).
Unlikely, since no English speaker would be able to pronounce that cluster. The odds are overwhelming that it represents nothing at all, just like the apostrophe in "don't".
IIRC, dragonriders always elide part of their name, and indicate the gap with an apostrophe. It's consistent and explained in the text at some point.
Maybe because I read a lot of scifi and fantasy, despite not having read any Anne McCaffrey, but that doesn't seem particularly hard to parse or understand.