I once read advice from a novel editor who said, “There has to be a likable character other than the protagonist within the first couple of chapters or the reader will put the book down. The reader just won’t bother.”

This assertion awakened my B.S. sensors. What about books about characters stranded on deserted islands like Robinson Crusoe? What about anti-hero stories where even the main character is unlikable? What about man-versus-nature survival stories with only one character pitting his wits and physical endurance against snow, hunger, sleet, or frostbite? Are those kinds of books always failures?

I also wonder: Who is this “The Reader” that the editor seemed to know so well? It was my understanding that there is no “the reader” unless you are writing for only one person, say, as in a letter or email. Otherwise there are many readers – at least potentially. I am a reader myself, and I have trouble seeing any connection between myself and the skittish and impatient creature called “The Reader” that the editor describes.

In fact, from everything I have observed, readers have different passions, cultural upbringings, educational backgrounds, personalities, preferences, and levels of patience. Like all humans, some readers are judgmental, while others are forgiving. Some dash off at the first slump in story action, whereas others will slog through pages of description to get to the “good” parts.

Since readers are not a homogeneous mass, no one can be sure of what readers in general want. Even if the mythical beast called “the reader” did exist, knowing what it wants would be impossible for writers unless they could read minds.

Besides, if the checklists made by publishers actually worked, you would expect more books to be mega-best-selling hits. Instead, only a meager number of traditionally published books ever sell more than a few thousand copies – if that. There may be other reasons for the dismal sales that have nothing to do with writing quality, but still, would it not be better for writers to write the book they want to write, using themselves as a frame of reference for what is interesting? A story fully authored by the author is more likely to ring with authority than one burdened by imaginary rules that exist only to enforce conformity to precedent.

The attempt to find a formula that will please a phantom called “the reader” assumes that readers all like the same things and that they have certain expectations based on what they have seen before and that, if those expectations are not met, “the reader” will walk away shaking his head and cursing under his breath.

To what extent is this actually the case? Being a reader myself, I do have some expectations when I go into reading a novel. Mainly I hope that it will be interesting. And I hope it will enrich me in some way, challenge my perspective, teach me something, or deepen my understanding of the world.

However, some editors have rules for satisfying “the reader” that are arbitrary and trivial, the editorial equivalent of a lucky rabbit’s foot.

According to one publisher, a fantasy book should always begin with an action scene – unless you are a big name author like Brandon Sanderson who already has a sizable following. The argument for this was simply that “the reader” expects it; that is, it is a convention or rule of the genre. In other words, “All the other fantasy writers are doing it. What makes you think you get to be an exception?”

Suppose the publisher has a point; why would a fantasy writer not want to draw their readers in with a snappy action scene? Why not begin with a sword fight, a chase scene with dragons, or a rolling wrestling match on the rooftop of a collapsing castle?

Those kinds of beginnings are not wrong, but scenes should be chosen based on the unique needs of a particular novel. It is possible, while setting the stage, to bring in characters compelling enough to arrest interest without fisticuffs and exploding buildings on page one. Dialogue can be more violent than gunfire if skillfully handled, plus it can develop character, foreshadow major events, and create subtle tension.

Plus, there are excellent reasons not to begin a novel with an action scene. I hate most Hollywood superhero movies partly because they begin with explosive action involving characters that are not yet developed. It is hard for me to identify with – or care about – characters when the movie has given me no clue as to who they are or what they want; the actors are just bodies clashing on a screen. I would prefer that explosive action arise naturally from character-driven choices so that when violent physical events do appear, they will have a story context to give them meaning and awaken real emotion.

Action that does not serve a dramatic purpose is boring, no matter how many explosive moments it has. Even if a starting gun action scene is expected, is that enough of a reason for writers to shoehorn one into a story that does not call for it?

According to Hollywood, the answer appears to be yes. In my experience Hollywood adventure movies never deviate from “the rules.” For example, if sympathetic characters are escaping a building that has a bomb in it, the building will always explode a split second after they escape to a safe distance.

Maybe at some point in cinematic history, some clever director thought he could add intensity to the drama by creating a split second bomb escape. Maybe he succeeded in surprising his audience while magnifying their relief about characters escaping in way that rocketed them into high, euphoric alertness. Whatever the origins of the “narrow bomb escape” tradition, it has been done too often to be surprising anymore; it is a glaring and implausible contrivance that takes me out of the story, yet it still happens. Every time.

I wonder: What if the building did not explode as soon as the characters escaped to safety? Would movie-goers leave disappointed? Would they grumble that they had wasted their money? Is the split-second escape “convention” the best and most exciting scenario that any writer or movie-maker could dare hope to achieve?

There is another exhausted Hollywood tradition I have to mention: In horror movies when the main character finally knocks the monster villain onto his back and the monster appears dead, the main character wipes the sweat off her forehead and sighs with relief that the trauma is all over. Minutes later the monster always reanimates and makes a final, roaring, flailing stand. It happens so often that it is hard to imagine it could still shock anyone except the youngest kids – but it happens every time.

Again, I wonder if movie audiences would jeer a horror movie that failed to resurrect the monster. Would they leave the theater feeling that the experience was incomplete? And is the resurrection the best option dramatically, the pinnacle of horror, so great and ineffable and perfect that it dare not be questioned? Is there nothing in the cosmos of human imagination that could be more surprising or dramatic?

I am not saying that it is always necessary to “reinvent the wheel.” Some writing techniques generally do work better than others. Some cliché’s are cliché’s for a reason. But they should never become automatic. Writers need to ask whether “the rules” are really serving their specific story. Whether in movies or in books, rules based on nothing but tradition stifles creativity.

I love self-publishing because it allows writers to experiment with alternatives. With self-publishing you can take or leave the genre “conventions,” which too often are just copycat strategies for pushing the emotional buttons of an audience. Rather than writers being forced to deliver what “the reader” expects, they can concentrate on fulfilling readers in a way that is interesting, surprising, and new.

As a self-published writer I do not have to be Brandon Sanderson to begin a fantasy or science fiction novel with a non-action scene. I do not need to drop X number of likeable characters into the first few scenes and stir. I can decide what is best for my particular story rather than relying on compulsive imitation and absurd generalizations about what an imaginary creature called “the reader” likes to eat.

Self-publishing allows me to be “the reader” whose preferences matter, and if I write what is exciting to me, there is probably going to be someone else in the world who is excited about it too.

Even if I become part of a statistic proving how few writers sell their books, I will not have wasted my time. I will at least have the satisfaction of knowing that I have written the story I wanted to write, which guarantees that at least one reader will come away from the experience happy – and without the need for telepathy, magical thinking, or a rule book.

If you enjoyed this post you might like my other writing. Take a moment and sign up for my free starter library. Click here. Also my new novel “Remembering the Future” is available for purchase on Amazon.