Otter, I know of no formula, but I remember Kurt Vonnegut was supposed to have said about a novel-length piece of work, "throw away the first two pages; it's trash," or words to that effect.

People who write will tell you jump into the middle of the action. I have to keep reminding myself, because I always want to set it up and explain things, when what the reader sees should explain itself, as it rolls on.

How many times have you been in a waiting room or in a line, wondering about the relationship and involvement of the people you see. Just wait long enough. Watch what they say and do. You don't need a narrrator explaining the plot to you. Most of it is clear after 20 minutes or so, and what is not, is a mystery, ready for discovery.

I am trying to get out of the habit of setting things up too much at all. Just jump in and see where it goes. Not everything has to spelled out, i keep telling myself.

thanks Westerly,that will help me out alot,greatful for the imput.

That's right. You can trim the fat off an intro by keeping in mind that your reader probably has as much life experience as yourself. Unless the story has some particularly obscure setting the reader can usually grab the tone of relationships, moods etc through dialogue and sparse descriptions.

The answer is that it is in the style of the writer. If you force yourself to write to some formula, you will write formulaic pieces that will get ripped apart because they won't be original.

Think about the story before you begin to write. What is the core element and what do you need around it to make the story work?

Lets say I am writing about a group of ordinary people who decide to rob a bank. I will probably want to spend a large piece of the story developing backgrounds for all the participants because the WHY is more important than the HOW. On the other hand, if I am writing about a day in the life of someone, I will want to get out of the beginning in a sentence or two and get into the meat of the story and develop the character through the events of the day as they unfold.

If I had to give you one hard and fast rule it would be that there are no hard and fast rules but that would be a hard and fast rule so ... just write and then read what you wrote. Most new writers fail that last step. They refuse to be readers and believe that every word they wrote is sacrosanct because it is a part of them. They will stay at the same level forever by taking that stance.

Writing is about readers. If you write for yourself, call it a diary and don't ever let anyone see it. Once you post a story, it belongs to the readers, not to you and if you don't write for some reader, not necessarily the one who picks it up, you are doing everyone a disservice.

The critiquing process is the core to learning. As you advance, you need to choose more advanced critics because the "nice story, I loved it" doesn't teach you anything. someone taking it apart has a reason for what he or she said and if you listen, you will learn two things: One, how to see a story as a reader sees it and how to tell the difference between a real critique and someone who has no idea what he or she is saying except what someone told that person. Most good critics have been critiqued themselves and understand what the reader is trying to say and then looks at his work in that light.

Thanks, everyone. I was hoping for an easy way in, but nooooooo.

I hear you and will continue to follow my ever changing instincts.

Good for you. Now we don't have to worry that you will start to sound like Danielle Steele ... or worse yet, Anne Rice!

...or Robert Ludlum...