I'd say it's not an interesting start. But at least it's short & the next sentences come quickly to make up for it. It IS memorable, though.
Only thing I would add as these are very simplistic starters. "It was a dark and stormy night, and the ghosts were out" seems very schoolish story writing. "It was a dark and stormy night. One that hasn't been seen in ages by the local populace. It was the type of storm that came down in sheets, reducing visibility to no more than a few meters in front of you. But this night was different. This night, ghost were out." It's better to set up you narrative through a paragraph than just a short sentence. Most readers will give the curtesy of a very few sentences to hook them.
"From his dark tower in the wastelands, The Destroyer stared up at the stars and wondered what was there." Same with this line. You set up a dark tower, but don't give it any emotional weight. Is it dark in color or dark as sinister? Is he alone in his dark tower and feeling like he needs to think on his existence? What are the wastelands? That brings many things to mind and seems too vague to nail any of them down. Use a short paragraph to give it some emotion weight, then hit them with the "wondered what was there" in the last sentence as the punch to set the story up. Then we have a framework to get why he wonders.
Right...that's the surface. But what is the information that is being communicated? More specifically, what is the story hook that is being communicated?
It's 3 words only, so not much. "I'm Ishmael to you". "This is my story." I suppose if a reader had to stop right there & write a paper on what they read, they could infer things such as the speaker is hiding from their past or something in their past & now goes about under an assumed identity. Do IRL readers think that far into the 1st sentence? EDIT: I mean a 1st sentence that short.
Yeah, you've missed the point. Pretty much completely, in fact.
For one thing, this is a guide to the opening sentence, not the opening paragraph. More information to come in the opening paragraph can be assumed. The starters are simplistic and schoolish because this post is a lesson. They are to illustrate the mechanism.
To take your own paragraph, it honestly isn't very good. You've lost yourself in details, and twisted it into a knot in the process. So, starting with the concept, this is a ghost story. The environmental mood should be threatening and spooky. The sheets of rain and reduced visibility are certainly intense, but they aren't threatening unless your character has to go out and drive in it. Another problem is that rain has a symbolism of cleansing, rejuvenation, and rebirth - it's not spooky, and it certainly doesn't support the beginning of a ghost story (howling wind, thunder, and lightning, absolutely right - heavy rain, not so much). Then we come to the problems of sentences #2 and #4 - the first states that it's the sort of storm that hasn't been seen in ages, making it different. But then, having already established that the storm is different, in sentence #4 you add on a second "But this night was different," creating the knot. And only then do you get to the most important piece of information: there are ghosts.
It's true that a reader will often give you a full paragraph to hook them. But this doesn't make putting the actual story hook at the end of a paragraph a good idea. You get much better results if you use the opening sentence to hook the reader, and then the rest of the paragraph to draw them further in by adding details and information.
(As far as my own story goes, the dark tower isn't described in any detail in the opening sentence because it is almost completely irrelevant to the character and the story - it appears in the prologue and will never be seen again. The trope is invoked to inform the reader of a single thing: that The Destroyer is a dark lord in a fantasy story. What is important is the contradiction - this traditional, even cliched, dark lord is not acting like one. The rest of the prologue draws these contradictions out, adding details (such as descriptions of the tower, and the fact that he spends his days alone sitting on his throne) a bit at a time to build the picture. There are other reasons that it is left so vague and undeveloped, but you'll just have to read the story if you want to know more.)
Don't worry about the readers will think - worry about the impact it will have on them. If you were reading this sentence as a reader, would it hook you?
And if so, why or why not?
(And yes, if you haven't guessed, I teach writing in the fall term at my local university.)
I think you missed my point of the example of the storm. The rain was a description of the storm to set an emotion. To contrast it to any other storm. The difference between a spooky storm and a rain storm is based on the story, which I don't know. You can use different adjectives to make the storm whatever you like. I was literally just typing something out to lead to the final sentence, which shows something is happening (ghosts). The point was it was a storm that hasn't been seen for a while but even then, this night is different. Otherwise ghosts being out might be normal.
Maybe I'm being too simplistic or something but it seems they have to think something about the sentence if it's to have impact at all. Yes?
Would that sentence hook me? I think not. But I'd probably give the story the rest of the page to try to do so since I think I don't expect that much from 1st sentences.
The reader cannot read your intentions - only your words. Your words in this thread missed the point of what I was trying to teach, and provided an example that was convoluted, used inappropriate imagery (and thus undermined any emotional impact you were trying to create), and, worst of all, did not accomplish the illustration you were attempting to provide.
I've now been in front of a university classroom teaching writing for 5 years. Before that, I mentored my share of writers. When you are attempting to illustrate a mechanism, you have to use simple constructions to do so, in which the mechanism is stripped bare. There's only one time where I try to get clever, and that's when illustrating the dangers of trying to be too clever (quite literally, I tell my students that "Exploring the potential of three-dimensional space-time while efficiently exchanging oxygen and carbon dioxide" sounds intelligent right up until you realize what it says is "Occupying space and breathing").
Look, if there's a writing technique that you've refined and want to expound upon, then this forum is the place to do so. But if you do, make sure your examples are straightforward and illustrate what you are trying to say with clarity, and don't EVER drop into somebody else's lesson and try to torpedo it. (Seriously, how the hell would you feel if somebody went and did that to you?)
I'm just the student, here. 
"You may call me Ishmael, for that name will keep both of us out of trouble."
Very good!
Now I'm wondering what the speaker's name is, what the trouble is, and just who the hell this guy is in the first place.
The only refinement I'd suggest is that "for that name" is a bit of an old fashioned construction, and not the way people really speak in conversation. Instead, you might want to use "You may call me Ismael -- that name will keep both of us out of trouble."
Thank you! I chose that wording to remain somewhat consistent with the age of the original story. If I were writing in a contemporary setting, I suppose I'd (eventually) edit it to "You may call me Ismael. That name will keep both of us out of trouble." But then it's 2 sentences instead of just the 1st one. 
He's a university professor of writing. I think they DO lecture to get educational material across. At lease they did when I was in college. 
You've said some interesting stuff here, but I don't think it's helpful to tell people not to 'torpedo' your lesson. You've been teaching for 5 years; surely you've had some students who try to pick apart your arguments. Do you accuse them of trying to 'torpedo your lesson' as well? Or do you trust that they're here to learn?
If you're presenting yourself as a teacher in this thread, then everyone who comes here is your student. They're not 'dropping into someone else's lesson' like some rando barging into your classroom to argue with you. This is their lesson too.
I am a sessional instructor in a 4th year professional prep course, teaching engineering students writing and disaster analysis. There are three types of lessons I do:
- Lectures, in which I stand and talk, and then field questions at the end.
- Workshops, in which the students bring in their assignments, get into groups and edit each other's work, and the TA and I work the room to sort out any questions or problems that might crop up before anything gets handed in and marked.
- Seminars (in the disaster analysis section), in which I ask questions and the students do most of the talking, with me occasionally adding something here and there.
Never once have I had a student stand up and declare that the basics of what I was teaching was wrong or not of value in the first place. I've fielded plenty of questions that amounted to "but what about this," and if the student had a point, I always conceded it (an air of infallibility makes for bad teaching, and one should never be afraid to admit when one is wrong, or doesn't know the answer to a question). I've had plenty of students argue that a mistake was made in their assignment during my office hours (in fact, I encourage students to do it - I want them to know how to argue the merits, and I enjoy being able to raise a student's mark). But what happened here wasn't anything like what I have seen in my classroom - it was somebody saying "everybody should disregard this and do my thing instead." There is a big difference.
Or, at the risk of coming across as unlikable or unapproachable (and if I come across this way, I apologize), let me put it this way: if everybody who comes here into this thread is my student, then this thread, by extension, is also my classroom. If I would not tolerate a type of conduct in my classroom, why should I give it a pass here?
Maybe it's a difference in field, but I've certainly asked stuff like "why don't people just disregard this and do this other thing instead" in university classrooms, and have never been told that it's intolerable conduct.
I guess I just don't see the line between "but what about this" and "why don't people just disregard this and do this other thing instead" and "everybody should disregard this and do my thing instead", except perhaps in tone. And as someone who has had trouble reading tone in the past and faced harsh accusations of bad faith (not from university professors) as a result, I'm ... not a huge fan of rules that discriminate based on tone ...
I personally don't mind a 'teachery' approach, but I feel like people on more casual internet forums like this one also tend to like being equals and not put much regard towards credentials, so you can expect people to approach you with a challenging stance and not playing the role of a respectful student the way you may be used to :]
EDIT: Replying to your reply here instead of tagging you in a new comment because you were having a bad day so I guess I should probably not drag this on and let the thread get back on topic 
Gotcha, that's definitely specific enough for me to work with :] I have seen people get in arms over something like "why don't people just disregard this and do this other thing instead" though, because they interpreted it as a rhetorical question, which is basically a statement in disguise. So I guess in those situations I'll just clarify it was intended to be a genuine question
I think there's a fine line between "doubling down and making flimsy and transparent excuses" and "disagreeing with your explanation of why they were wrong, and trying to explain to you why you were wrong about them being wrong". From his perspective, it may well have been his initial challenge that was "explaining why you were wrong" and your first reply to him that was "doubling down and making flimsy and transparent excuses".
Depends on how good your excuses were. I personally don't see the difference between an 'explanation' and an 'excuse'. Saying that I missed the point without explaining what your point was would have irritated me, though I believe you have both accused each other of missing the point (and you have both followed up with an explanation of what the point of your previous post was intended to be)
I wasn't going to reply to you anymore as you are just coming off as a "I'm the teacher so listen to me" kind of guy. You putting your "sessional instructor in a 4th year professional prep course" is an appeal to authority, which you have none here. This is a forum, not a class you have control over. I, or anyone, is coming here to see your opinion and maybe adding our opinion to it. I never said you were wrong. I just said there is another way to do this that isn't so simplistic. Just another opinion. If you want to just lecture, stay in your classroom where people paid to hear you. This is a forum, expect discussions and don't try to shut down those discussions by putting out you are a teacher.
That's because it's not intolerable conduct. Any teacher worth their salt is there to be a resource. Asking questions is just picking their brain.
Well, one is a question and one is a statement. A question is an inquiry about a thing - a statement is a declaration of a thing. There's a big difference. But if you want to know why I came down on him, it wasn't his initial challenge that set me off (although I did find it quite off-putting). You may note that in my first reply, I just explained why he was wrong. It was when he doubled down on it and started making flimsy and transparent excuses that I came down on him (and, I will admit, on a personal level, I can't stand that sort of garbage - if you get caught out in making a mistake, just own it, take responsibility for it, and move on for crying out loud!). That's when the kid gloves started coming off.
Let me ask you this: if instead of replying to your concern with a detailed explanation of where I was coming from and what my approach was, I had started making excuses and suggesting that your concerns were invalid due to missing the point, how different would your second reply have been, and what tone would you have taken with me?