Quote:
Originally Posted by fantasyfan
I agree. That makes a lot more sense. The simplest answer is usually the best.
|
All writers (and most readers) know that openings are critical, none of any experience would make the opening sequence any more complicated than absolutely necessary. Thus we open with the deed three quarters done; the audience doesn't need to details of those first three deaths beyond the entirely eloquent and expressive second paragraph: "The knife had done almost everything it was brought to that house to do, and both the blade and the handle were wet."
It helps, of course, that the given sequence makes sense. If you intend to wipe out an entire family then starting with the members most likely to cause problems (if given the chance) is only logical. The author gets to place the family members in ascending order in the house (it's not an illogical order) to further confirm the smooth unveiling of the story. An assassin doesn't really expect an 18month old toddler is going to be able to outrun them even if they wake early, so there should be no rush.
By the time we get an explanation for killing the entire family the story is almost done and a reader involved in the story no longer cares much why it came out this way. That the explanation is left quite vague ("nativities") lets the involved reader continue without unnecessarily complicated elaborations. If a reader is not involved in the story by this time it's too late to satisfy them anyway.