First verses Third

[Nickeris86]

Ok I have started writing out my introduction to the my story in first person, when it is finished is their anyone that would like to read it and let me know what they think, i will then commence writing it in third and present that to those who wish to read it as well.

Let me know

[newtinmpls]

"Ok I have started writing out my introduction to the my story in first person"

Okay there is your mistake right there. Sure, go ahead and write an introduction or backstory for yourself, but not for the reader. The reader wants the story to start, and an intro is a cheap-ass way of not jumping right into plot or character or good dialogue - the meat.

I HATE introductions (as a reader), use them all over the place as a writer.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Okay there is your mistake right there. Sure, go ahead and write an introduction or backstory for yourself, but not for the reader. The reader wants the story to start, and an intro is a cheap-ass way of not jumping right into plot or character or good dialogue - the meat.
I HATE introductions (as a reader), use them all over the place as a writer.

Your preferences are not universals.

This reader really likes the things that can be done with a good introduction, and tends not so much to like stories that are very obviously trying to hook hard and fast and early.

Some stories want to open with a hook. Others, like for example The Lord of the Rings, want to open with a net.  Both options are valid.

[Nickeris86]

"Ok I have started writing out my introduction to the my story in first person"

Okay there is your mistake right there. Sure, go ahead and write an introduction or backstory for yourself, but not for the reader. The reader wants the story to start, and an intro is a cheap-ass way of not jumping right into plot or character or good dialogue - the meat.

the reason i am doing an 'introduction' is because i have a very interesting back story for the character that if i don't at least give a fragment of in the beginning my readers may be lost on why my character is the way he is. Primarily it explains where he got a rather nasty burn scare that covers the left side of his neck and down over his upper arm and chest. this scare plays a big role in the first book and if i just straight into the meat of my work people will wonder where he got this scare and why its so important to him.
I HATE introductions (as a reader), use them all over the place as a writer.

[Nickeris86]

ok i have the first person version. its very rough so be gentle. if you want to read it let me know

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

the reason i am doing an 'introduction' is because i have a very interesting back story for the character that if i don't at least give a fragment of in the beginning my readers may be lost on why my character is the way he is. Primarily it explains where he got a rather nasty burn scare that covers the left side of his neck and down over his upper arm and chest. this scare plays a big role in the first book and if i just straight into the meat of my work people will wonder where he got this scare and why its so important to him.

Why is people wondering that a problem ?

That would strike me as the kind of mystery about a character that actually does catch my attention.

[Bearracuda]

the reason i am doing an 'introduction' is because i have a very interesting back story for the character that if i don't at least give a fragment of in the beginning my readers may be lost on why my character is the way he is. Primarily it explains where he got a rather nasty burn scare that covers the left side of his neck and down over his upper arm and chest. this scare plays a big role in the first book and if i just straight into the meat of my work people will wonder where he got this scare and why its so important to him.
I HATE introductions (as a reader), use them all over the place as a writer.

Well, there are a couple ways you could do this without an introduction. (I'm not criticizing or saying you should avoid an introduction, just brainstorming here)  But you could have thoughts going through his head that are relevant to the scar during moments in which the scar is important. 
Ex: Imagine he's sitting at a campfire, debating a crucial decision.  It's going to be difficult, and there will be a lot of hardship ahead.  In the end, he decides he's going to do it, and he's going to put his whole heart into it.  He's going to do it because he can't let an innocent person go unprotected *looks down at scar*  Never again...

That way you get to tell the reader that he's got this scar, that it's on his mind, and that the current situation is similar to the situation in which he got his scar.  Then maybe as you go on he could have nightmares or flashbacks where you reveal bits and pieces of how he got this scar without giving away the whole tale.  It creates suspense, and it reveals backstory on the scar while keeping your main plot moving along nicely.

Also, I'd love too look over a copy.  I'll do my best to provide constructive feedback.

[newtinmpls]

"Your preferences are not universals."

Good point, since that is not even true in my own mind. What I hate, is an introduction that "explains", I like show don't tell, or better yet "make me think." I loved the introductions in the Belgariad, because they had absolutley nothing (overtly) to do with the story. They were short, well done, equivalents of bed time stories that later in the book I could go "oh, I get how that fits in!"

"This reader really likes the things that can be done with a good introduction, and tends not so much to like stories that are very obviously trying to hook hard and fast and early."

I once read an author describing how he worked as "when I'm writing, I skip over the boring parts." and I find that sometimes I need to write them - so I understand them - but I don't need the reader to read them. I'm all for writing more than is needed and trimming.

I also really like the "show, don't tell" example of the burn/campfire. Well done.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Good point, since that is not even true in my own mind. What I hate, is an introduction that "explains", I like show don't tell,

That would be one of those things that never quite made sense to me at some levels. It's all words; everything is telling.

I once read an author describing how he worked as "when I'm writing, I skip over the boring parts." and I find that sometimes I need to write them - so I understand them - but I don't need the reader to read them.

The thing about that is that everybody has different notions of what the boring parts are.  Neal Stephenson writes infodumps that go on for pages and pages and pages in ways that are absolutely fascinating and would harm his books a lot to be cut.  Myself, I often find action scenes boring, particularly if they're not doing anything other than being action scenes.

[newtinmpls]

Me: Good point, since that is not even true in my own mind. What I hate, is an introduction that "explains", I like show don't tell

the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh: That would be one of those things that never quite made sense to me at some levels. It's all words; everything is telling.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or serious. It's the difference between:

SHOW: "The memory makes McAshlan's hackles rise, but he doesn't fume. His voice drops slightly in pitch and becomes icy calm. His hands rest lightly on the desk top. His eyes focus on a car corner, and his words are trimmed in Scottish. They are precise words, individual, each set apart from the next, call cast in iron and covered with chrome."

and TELL: "I could tell that remembering the situation upset him by the way he spoke."

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh: That would be one of those things that never quite made sense to me at some levels. It's all words; everything is telling.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or serious. It's the difference between:

I'm being entirely serious.

SHOW: "The memory makes McAshlan's hackles rise, but he doesn't fume. His voice drops slightly in pitch and becomes icy calm. His hands rest lightly on the desk top. His eyes focus on a car corner, and his words are trimmed in Scottish. They are precise words, individual, each set apart from the next, call cast in iron and covered with chrome."

and TELL: "I could tell that remembering the situation upset him by the way he spoke."

See, one of those is a precise and accurate third-person camera-eye.  The other is a first-person description which gives you the information that the first-person viewpoint isn't interested in giving you all those precise details, and that is every bit as much characterisation information for your first-person narrator as the first example is of characterisation of the person you describe.

Different techniques. Different results. Equally valid.  Which one to use depends on what you care about conveying to the reader.

[newtinmpls]

Me: SHOW: "The memory makes McAshlan's hackles rise, but he doesn't fume. His voice drops slightly in pitch and becomes icy calm. His hands rest lightly on the desk top. His eyes focus on a car corner, and his words are trimmed in Scottish. They are precise words, individual, each set apart from the next, call cast in iron and covered with chrome."

and TELL: "I could tell that remembering the situation upset him by the way he spoke."

"See, one of those is a precise and accurate third-person camera-eye.  <snip> Different techniques. Different results. Equally valid.  Which one to use depends on what you care about conveying to the reader."

I'm not asking if you prefer one or the other, or what other words you would use to describe the different techniques. My only question is: is this enough information for you to understand the distinction that I (allowing that others may vary) make when I say "Show" vs "Tell".

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

"See, one of those is a precise and accurate third-person camera-eye.  <snip> Different techniques. Different results. Equally valid.  Which one to use depends on what you care about conveying to the reader."

I'm not asking if you prefer one or the other, or what other words you would use to describe the different techniques. My only question is: is this enough information for you to understand the distinction that I (allowing that others may vary) make when I say "Show" vs "Tell".

No. Not remotely.  I see two different styles of telling.  It sounds like you are seeing the information you're leaving out of the shorter one and not focusing so much and the extra information you have added in.

[Nickeris86]

Ok I just finished the third person rough draft opening. Like literally I just finished five minuets ago.

If you would like to check it out let me know and I'll send it to you in a PM.

As for the conversation at hand: I too prefer when an author shows rather than tells however some others show to much and get hung up on all the details *cough* Steven King *cough*.

[newtinmpls]

I once went on a haunted ... stuff ... tour down in New Orleans. The tour guide went on a cute rant about how "this was the house that Anne Rice mentioned in her books" and how that could be recognized because she described a particular painting "in detail.... in great detail ... some would say in obsessive detail." Had the folks who had read her books cracking up.