Scan barcode
carokfulf's review
5.0
Essential reading for any writer
Unsentimental yet empathetic advice for how to look at your own writing and the writing of others. Tough but helpful.
Unsentimental yet empathetic advice for how to look at your own writing and the writing of others. Tough but helpful.
noel_rene_cisneros's review against another edition
3.0
Buena guía para escritores principiantes, escrita desde la perspectiva de un editor. Aunque sus consejos son útiles, es un trabajo escrito desde y para un público estadounidense, pensando en su industria editorial y en la variante estadounidense del inglés, por lo que muchos de los consejos resultan superfluos en otros ámbitos (o en una prosa sin vida muy preocupada por mostrar y no decir). Quizá uno de los problemas del libro, aunque es entendible dado el público al cual está dirigido, sean las prohibiciones que lanza a cada paso (don't... se repite demasiado). Pero, insisto, para principiantes puede ser útil.
bporath's review against another edition
4.0
The First Five Pages is a writing book about the common problems in the first five pages of novels, and how to fix them so that your first five pages shine (and so that you don't get rejected).
The author, agent Noah Lukeman, points out in the introduction that problems found in the first five pages can indicate that the reader (an agent or editor) will find these same problems later in the novel (which is why you need to fix them all). Each chapter covers a different topic, starting with the smallest problems that readers would notice first, then moving into bigger problems that take more reading to notice.
Noah Lukeman managed to cover a wide range of problems, from presentation to characterization to sound. Each chapter includes the mistakes writers make with this writing element, solutions to the problems, examples, and exercises at the end of the chapter.
Overall, I thought The First Five Pages was a very helpful book for polishing your first five pages, but also for showing you that your novel might need more work than you think. I recommend taking notes for each chapter because there's a lot of information packed into each chapter.
It would also be a great book to read before or while revising- it's not a how-to book for revision, but it shows you how to find the problems in your writing and how to fix them.
Noah Lukeman describes each problem and its solution clearly and thoughtfully. Reading this made me reconsider a lot of things about my own WiP, and Noah pointed out many problems that I never even considered before.
The one thing that I didn't like about The First Five Pages was that at some times, it seemed a bit too basic. I know I'm not an especially advanced writer, but some of the problems mentioned would only be done by a very beginning writer. Also, almost all of the examples the author wrote were way too basic- I would have liked to see how to spot problems when they weren't spelled out so easily. At other times, the topics were more advanced- like sound, style, and subtlety.
I'd recommend The First Five Pages to all writers regardless of skill level. Beginning writers will learn a lot from it, but I bet some advanced writers could learn a thing or two from it.
The author, agent Noah Lukeman, points out in the introduction that problems found in the first five pages can indicate that the reader (an agent or editor) will find these same problems later in the novel (which is why you need to fix them all). Each chapter covers a different topic, starting with the smallest problems that readers would notice first, then moving into bigger problems that take more reading to notice.
Noah Lukeman managed to cover a wide range of problems, from presentation to characterization to sound. Each chapter includes the mistakes writers make with this writing element, solutions to the problems, examples, and exercises at the end of the chapter.
Overall, I thought The First Five Pages was a very helpful book for polishing your first five pages, but also for showing you that your novel might need more work than you think. I recommend taking notes for each chapter because there's a lot of information packed into each chapter.
It would also be a great book to read before or while revising- it's not a how-to book for revision, but it shows you how to find the problems in your writing and how to fix them.
Noah Lukeman describes each problem and its solution clearly and thoughtfully. Reading this made me reconsider a lot of things about my own WiP, and Noah pointed out many problems that I never even considered before.
The one thing that I didn't like about The First Five Pages was that at some times, it seemed a bit too basic. I know I'm not an especially advanced writer, but some of the problems mentioned would only be done by a very beginning writer. Also, almost all of the examples the author wrote were way too basic- I would have liked to see how to spot problems when they weren't spelled out so easily. At other times, the topics were more advanced- like sound, style, and subtlety.
I'd recommend The First Five Pages to all writers regardless of skill level. Beginning writers will learn a lot from it, but I bet some advanced writers could learn a thing or two from it.
pascalibrary's review against another edition
4.0
As a beginner, I thought this book was excellent. It made me think about a lot of aspects of the craft that I had never paid any attention to. The examples, while basic, clearly showed what not to do, which is useful for someone of my skill level.
I think this book should primarily be read by beginners, as it gives a basic overview of the most important points of writing. Advanced people should seek more depth in other sources.
I think this book should primarily be read by beginners, as it gives a basic overview of the most important points of writing. Advanced people should seek more depth in other sources.
samangl's review against another edition
3.0
some really bloody good writing advice in here, but the writer's need insistence on only using male pronouns for 'simplicity' is infuriating. Even the Mighty Steven Pressfield alternates between 'he' and 'she', keep up you BOOMERs
noranne's review against another edition
2.0
Okay. Some good exercises, but also a lot of useless ones. The made-up examples used are so facile that it makes it difficult to take much away from them. A good overall refresher though and a chance to really think about things from an agent's perspective.
kluidens's review against another edition
2.0
This is a quick, easy read that's worth a writer's time if he or she is looking to attract a literary agent's interest. The opening section in particular focuses on making a good first impression when querying, in which someone must judge your work based on the titular "first five pages" (or less).
The rest of the book is essentially generic advice on writing, some of which seemed obvious to me but all of which was legitimate. I hope that every writer is aware of these principles long before they start looking for an agent, but we all know that's not necessarily the case. At any rate, it never hurts to be reminded of some basic elements of wordsmithing and storytelling, right?
As Lukeman notes in the introduction, "There are no rules to assure great writing, but there are ways to avoid bad writing." I'd say this book won't assure you an agent's interest, but it does offer ways to avoid getting immediately tossed from the slush pile. Again, being such a quick read, it's at least worth skimming.
The rest of the book is essentially generic advice on writing, some of which seemed obvious to me but all of which was legitimate. I hope that every writer is aware of these principles long before they start looking for an agent, but we all know that's not necessarily the case. At any rate, it never hurts to be reminded of some basic elements of wordsmithing and storytelling, right?
As Lukeman notes in the introduction, "There are no rules to assure great writing, but there are ways to avoid bad writing." I'd say this book won't assure you an agent's interest, but it does offer ways to avoid getting immediately tossed from the slush pile. Again, being such a quick read, it's at least worth skimming.
nicovreeland's review against another edition
1.0
Am I the only one who discounts a craft book if it’s poorly written?
This one starts with one of the clunkiest opening lines I’ve ever read: “Most people are against books on writing on principle.”
This sentence has layers of badness. The double “on” was my first stumbling block. Then there’s the passive blandness of “are against” and its vagueness—what does being “against” a book actually mean? Finally, there’s the lack of specificity and the ensuing wrongness of “most people”—in actuality, most people never think about books on writing.
That’s four big problems and the sentence is only nine words long!
Let’s try an edit. Active voice, specificity, and take out that horrible double “on.”
“Most writers hate books on writing.”
It’s not great, and I very much think it’s a lie, but at least you only have to read it once.
As you might expect after that disastrous first sentence, the craft advice in this book is not particularly helpful. It vacillates between basic (don’t include “realistic” dialogue like “hello, how are you?” “I am fine, how are you?”) and unhelpfully vague (good similes can really improve your style, but don’t use too many!). The examples of bad writing are comically bad, and the examples of good writing are mostly taken from famous books. So…. you can just go read those famous books?
I was hoping that the advice on character and plot might be deeper, but it very much is not. Here is an actual passage from the chapter on “characterization”:
“try to utilize a less expected vocabulary for character description … instead of “brown” eyes, you might call them “almond”; instead of saying “he was a large, healthy man,” you might call him “ursine.””
A) this advice is asinine, and b) it’s still incredibly superficial. This chapter is supposed to be about characterization, and it mostly deals with how to describe them and how to name them (not too “stock” but not too “exotic” either).
The underlying problem with is that it’s advice on what to make your writing LOOK like, not how to make it work.
(Non sequitur: there’s also the absolutely batshit idea that you should polish a manuscript first and then go back and check for developmental errors. Seriously, wtf?)
There are about 30 pages out of this book’s 200 that go deeper than this extreme superficiality. But none of it is unique, so save your time and read other books instead.
This one starts with one of the clunkiest opening lines I’ve ever read: “Most people are against books on writing on principle.”
This sentence has layers of badness. The double “on” was my first stumbling block. Then there’s the passive blandness of “are against” and its vagueness—what does being “against” a book actually mean? Finally, there’s the lack of specificity and the ensuing wrongness of “most people”—in actuality, most people never think about books on writing.
That’s four big problems and the sentence is only nine words long!
Let’s try an edit. Active voice, specificity, and take out that horrible double “on.”
“Most writers hate books on writing.”
It’s not great, and I very much think it’s a lie, but at least you only have to read it once.
As you might expect after that disastrous first sentence, the craft advice in this book is not particularly helpful. It vacillates between basic (don’t include “realistic” dialogue like “hello, how are you?” “I am fine, how are you?”) and unhelpfully vague (good similes can really improve your style, but don’t use too many!). The examples of bad writing are comically bad, and the examples of good writing are mostly taken from famous books. So…. you can just go read those famous books?
I was hoping that the advice on character and plot might be deeper, but it very much is not. Here is an actual passage from the chapter on “characterization”:
“try to utilize a less expected vocabulary for character description … instead of “brown” eyes, you might call them “almond”; instead of saying “he was a large, healthy man,” you might call him “ursine.””
A) this advice is asinine, and b) it’s still incredibly superficial. This chapter is supposed to be about characterization, and it mostly deals with how to describe them and how to name them (not too “stock” but not too “exotic” either).
The underlying problem with is that it’s advice on what to make your writing LOOK like, not how to make it work.
(Non sequitur: there’s also the absolutely batshit idea that you should polish a manuscript first and then go back and check for developmental errors. Seriously, wtf?)
There are about 30 pages out of this book’s 200 that go deeper than this extreme superficiality. But none of it is unique, so save your time and read other books instead.
bookjerm's review against another edition
5.0
This is the greatest book I've read on writing and the craft, and I've read a lot. Very tight writing, with examples, soultions and exercises at the end of each chapter. It covers everything, as far as I can tell. A must read for anyone intrested in writing