I bought The Writer today (the July 2011 edition) and there was a great article in there I wanted to share and/or talk about. It's called "Don't Start Your Story With a Strong Hook" by Nick Mamatas, and it's about how writers often *try* to start with a hook, but do it badly or fail altogether.
One part in particular caught my eye:
"Rather than correcting the error of a boring beginning by eliminating the boring beginning or by changing the story's structure so that it is interesting from beginning to end, they simply added some action up top."
Mamatas uses the examples of starting with "...gunfights, monsters, characters cursing (four-letter words are very common story openings these days)..."
I was irresistibly reminded of a lot of the stories I'd read as part of Critters. In one week, I read six stories all that started with fights that had nothing to do with the rest of the story. You could eliminate the fights entirely, cut pages from the manuscript, and not have lost a thing except paragraph after paragraph that boils down to "The main character is a bad-ass."
Do you think new writers are trying too hard to find a hook, with the result that they're just gimmicks and not an integral part of the story? Jim does it right, I think. Even "The building was on fire, and it wasn't my fault" *was* an integral part of the story because it's basically the end of a short story about how he got Mouse. It wasn't just a great first line or a great hook, it had a story to tell in itself and one that had a major impact on the rest of the series.