The experts are lying

[Norman D Gutter]

Last Friday evening we went to Wal-Mart to purchase gifts for a gift exchange. While my wife took 60 minutes to complete what I did in 3, I took time to look through the book section. I read somewhere that a good exercise is to go into a bookstore and read the first sentence or paragraph of as many novels as you can, to see what the openings of published books are like, and to learn from them.

So I went to the best sellers rack, and read the openings of about 20 books, with authors such as King, Koontz, Roberts, Lewis, etc. To my surprise, more than half of them had prologues, and more than 2/3 of them were in first person. Now, other advice given by experts (editors, agents, and published writers) seems to unanimously be: don’t write in first person unless third person limited really, really doesn’t work; and don’t use a prologue unless you really, really know what you are doing. I have heard those two pieces of advice over and over again till I’m sick of hearing/reading them.

So I thought, the best selling authors can do what they want, and are probably better at these techniques than us wannabes, so naturally you would see these techniques used more by them and more successfully. So I went to the other shelves, the non-best sellers, and did the same thing. I was surprised to find that the numbers were close. Out of 20 or so non-best sellers, half were in first person, and close to half had a prologue. Obviously Wal-Mart is not a real bookstore. Then again, they only stock books they believe are going to appeal to the widest possible readership, and do an incredible job of tracking sales, and so know what tends to sell. I might add that the genres checked on both shelves were wide ranging, including fantasy, thrillers, romances, westerns, etc.

My conclusion: The experts are lying to us, talking us out of using writing techniques that sell best, so as to reserve shelf space for themselves as they use the very techniques they talk us out of using.

NDG
P.S. I was so shocked, I couldn’t even concentrate on the effectiveness of the first sentences/paragraphs, so I guess I’ll have to do this all over again.

[jamiehall]

Obviously Wal-Mart is not a real bookstore. Then again, they only stock books they believe are going to appeal to the widest possible readership, and do an incredible job of tracking sales, and so know what tends to sell.

I'd try it again in a real bookstore. Wal-Mart is about as far from real as you can get. I wouldn't count on finding a single ordinary midlist book in Wal-Mart.

And, the experts have always been allowed to break the rules. Any good book about the craft of writing will tell you to learn the rules first, then break them after you've mastered them. By then, you'll know how to break them.

By the way, experts are also allowed to write 850-page novels, something that a newcomer would almost never be allowed to do.

[Shadow_Ferret]

I'm not supposed to write in 1st person? Who made that rule?

[anodyne]

Just to clarify, "the experts" don't say don't write a prologue, they just say that no one reads them. Which is true. What they say is, don't put information vital to understanding the novel in the prologue, because then people will be lost.


The experts don't say, "don't write in first person" they say, don't head jump. Some experts say they don't particularly like first person. Others say they don't particularly like third person. But that's preference, not law.

[PeeDee]

Who are these experts exactly? I'm not exactly expecting the Spanish Inquisition here...


(DUNNNNNN!!!!!)

(NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!)

[pepperlandgirl]

Here's the thing, though. A lot of people who decide they want to be writers just aren't that good. And many of the things "the experts" warn against aren't newbie mistakes so much as newbie crutches. When you get to the point you aren't using 1st person, prologues, etc as a crutch but as the strong narrative tools they are, then it's no longer "prohibited."

[anodyne]

Haha. I was going to ask that, but I figured it was coming soon enough.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Our chief weapon is surprise. Surprise and fear. Fear and surprise. Our TWO weapons are fear and surprise and a ruthless efficiency. AMONGST our weaponry are such diverse elements as fear, surprise, a ruthless efficiency and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

Arrgh!

I'll come in again.

[Bartholomew]

You're worried entirely too much about what some group's opinion and less about writing.

Whichever group you're listening too--uh--they're full of poodle-doo.

Last Friday evening we went to Wal-Mart to purchase gifts for a gift exchange. While my wife took 60 minutes to complete what I did in 3, I took time to look through the book section. I read somewhere that a good exercise is to go into a bookstore and read the first sentence or paragraph of as many novels as you can, to see what the openings of published books are like, and to learn from them.

So I went to the best sellers rack, and read the openings of about 20 books, with authors such as King, Koontz, Roberts, Lewis, etc. To my surprise, more than half of them had prologues, and more than 2/3 of them were in first person. Now, other advice given by experts (editors, agents, and published writers) seems to unanimously be: don’t write in first person unless third person limited really, really doesn’t work; and don’t use a prologue unless you really, really know what you are doing. I have heard those two pieces of advice over and over again till I’m sick of hearing/reading them.

So I thought, the best selling authors can do what they want, and are probably better at these techniques than us wannabes, so naturally you would see these techniques used more by them and more successfully. So I went to the other shelves, the non-best sellers, and did the same thing. I was surprised to find that the numbers were close. Out of 20 or so non-best sellers, half were in first person, and close to half had a prologue. Obviously Wal-Mart is not a real bookstore. Then again, they only stock books they believe are going to appeal to the widest possible readership, and do an incredible job of tracking sales, and so know what tends to sell. I might add that the genres checked on both shelves were wide ranging, including fantasy, thrillers, romances, westerns, etc.

My conclusion: The experts are lying to us, talking us out of using writing techniques that sell best, so as to reserve shelf space for themselves as they use the very techniques they talk us out of using.

NDG
P.S. I was so shocked, I couldn’t even concentrate on the effectiveness of the first sentences/paragraphs, so I guess I’ll have to do this all over again.

[anodyne]

poodle doo, huh? Nice.

[PeeDee]

Our chief weapon is surprise. Surprise and fear. Fear and surprise. Our TWO weapons are fear and surprise and a ruthless efficiency. AMONGST our weaponry are such diverse elements as fear, surprise, a ruthless efficiency and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

Arrgh!

I'll come in again.

[The cardinals burst in]
Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms - Oh damn!
[To Cardinal Biggles] I can't say it - you'll have to say it.
Biggles: What?
Ximinez: You'll have to say the bit about 'Our chief weapons are ...'
Biggles: [rather horrified]: I couldn't do that...

[Elodie-Caroline]

I was going to do my first page of my novel as a prologue; it's set in the present... A top Policeman walking away from a Police enquiry and being faced by the media and how he feels about it inside of himself etc. The rest of the book describes the situation, over nearly 4 years of it, of how he actually got there. I suppose it'll just have to be one solitary page for chapter 1 then.

Ellie

[PeeDee]

My novel has a prologue which is a parable, which gives away the whole entire ending of the book and all sorts of clues for How Things Work....if you can figure it out. Otherwise, it's just a parable.

[anodyne]

Or set in italics at the start of chapter one. I've seen that done effectively.


:edit: because down is a direction, and done is not.

[Jamesaritchie]

I've never heard anyone I'd consider an expert say you shouldn;t write a prologue, and I think statements saying people don't read them are pure foolishness. Some people find reasons not to read this, not to read that, and not to read the other. But in truth, books with prologues do just as well, have just as many fans, and are just as pleasureable to read, as books without them.

It is not always wise to get advice from experts, or form wannabe writers. They share a side of the desk most readers don't give a rat's whiskers about, and the same old saws go back and forth, regardless of how much truth they hold with the reading public.

As for first person, it's always been extremely popular with the reading public. The reason most agents and editors warn against first person is not becaue the reading public doesn't want it, but because first person is much, much more difficult for most new writers to do well than is third person limited.

First person seems so natural, so easy to write, that agents and editors are often deluged with first person novels. But it is not easy to write well, at least without some experience. Certainly not without reading a lot of good first person novels.

And this may be the big rub. Many who try writing first person do not spend a lot of time reading it, and if you don't read it often, it's very difficult to write it well.

There's nothing at all new about finding many books of the shelves written in first person. It does depend on genre, some have a great deal more first person than others, it's common as dirt in the mystery field, the western field, and teh literary field, but every genre has its first person novels, and it's been this way for a long, long time. Huckleberry Finn, Moby Dick, and Catcher in the Rye are all first person novels.

But it can be tough for a new writer to tackle, and one who does needs to first read a bunch of first person novels.

As for Wal-Mart, it certainly is real world. They carry books the reading public wants, including quite a few midliest writers.

And if you look at a plain old bookstore, you find the same thing, and the same novels. Lots of novels, including many bestsellers, written in first person, and many very good novels with prologues.

The best way to know what the reading public wants is to check the racks, not to listen to the "experts."

[PeeDee]

The whole "dont' read prologues" drives me bugshit. Do they also not read odd numbered chapters? or Chapter fours? But only on Tuesday, or at night, unless it's raining?

[zornhau]

Last Friday evening we went to Wal-Mart to purchase gifts for a gift exchange. While my wife took 60 minutes to complete what I did in 3, I took time to look through the book section. I read somewhere that a good exercise is to go into a bookstore and read the first sentence or paragraph of as many novels as you can, to see what the openings of published books are like, and to learn from them.

So I went to the best sellers rack, and read the openings of about 20 books, with authors such as King, Koontz, Roberts, Lewis, etc. To my surprise, more than half of them had prologues, and more than 2/3 of them were in first person. Now, other advice given by experts (editors, agents, and published writers) seems to unanimously be: don’t write in first person unless third person limited really, really doesn’t work; and don’t use a prologue unless you really, really know what you are doing. I have heard those two pieces of advice over and over again till I’m sick of hearing/reading them.

So I thought, the best selling authors can do what they want, and are probably better at these techniques than us wannabes, so naturally you would see these techniques used more by them and more successfully. So I went to the other shelves, the non-best sellers, and did the same thing. I was surprised to find that the numbers were close. Out of 20 or so non-best sellers, half were in first person, and close to half had a prologue. Obviously Wal-Mart is not a real bookstore. Then again, they only stock books they believe are going to appeal to the widest possible readership, and do an incredible job of tracking sales, and so know what tends to sell. I might add that the genres checked on both shelves were wide ranging, including fantasy, thrillers, romances, westerns, etc.

My conclusion: The experts are lying to us, talking us out of using writing techniques that sell best, so as to reserve shelf space for themselves as they use the very techniques they talk us out of using.

NDG
P.S. I was so shocked, I couldn’t even concentrate on the effectiveness of the first sentences/paragraphs, so I guess I’ll have to do this all over again.

Now repeat the exercise pulling out ONLY debut novels.

[victoriastrauss]

An expert who tells you not to write in first person is not an expert. Ditto for anyone who tells you that people don't read prologues.

Dance, dance, dance on the head of that pin...dance, writer, dance...

- Victoria

[Celia Cyanide]

Now, other advice given by experts (editors, agents, and published writers) seems to unanimously be: don’t write in first person unless third person limited really, really doesn’t work; and don’t use a prologue unless you really, really know what you are doing.

I've never heard, "don't write in first person." A lot of readers seem to prefer first person. I have heard you shouldn't use a prologue, just as you should not do anything, unless you really, really know what you're doing.

You compared best-sellers to non-best sellers. But even non-best-sellers are published novelists. That still proves that they know what they're doing. It's not really the same thing as comparing it to an unpublished writer.

[IrishScribbler]

Out of curiosity, how many of those are established authors, and how many are first-timers? That may have something to do with it, as well.

[James D. Macdonald]

What motive do the experts have to lie?

And which experts, exactly?

I'm one of the people who says don't put anything in your prologue that the readers will need, because many will skip the prologue.

Another problem with prologues is that the reader may start to identify/sypathize with the main character in that prologue, then have to do it all over again if the main character in the entire novel is someone else.

It's easy, in first person, to slip into a Mary Sue.

I've done prologues. Lots of 'em. I've also written in first person, lots of times. My main advice is this: Whatever you do, do it well.

[Roger J Carlson]

I'm not supposed to write in 1st person? Who made that rule?"I'm not supposed to write in 1st person?" he asked. "Who made that rule?"

Get it right.

[badducky]

Yes, I'm sure the experts have all gotten together to forge some conspiracy to keep the unpublished hordes out of the club...

They totally have time in their day for that between jobs and contracts and families.

You know the secret member's only area of SFWA? That's what the experts do in there: plot everyone else's failure.

[JerseyGirl1962]

Now, other advice given by experts (editors, agents, and published writers) seems to unanimously be: don’t write in first person unless third person limited really, really doesn’t work; and don’t use a prologue unless you really, really know what you are doing. I have heard those two pieces of advice over and over again till I’m sick of hearing/reading them.


I read prologues, because I figure they must be in books for some good reason. :D

In fact, I just read one recently, a paranormal romance (a first for me), that had a great prologue - the writing was absolutely beautiful, and it imparted a lot of backstory (although not everything) in about 3 pages. It explained a lot of stuff going on in the "main part" of the story without resorting to scratching my head as to why the MCs were going to all the bother of their quest for a certain jewel.

As for first person...it's whatever works for that particular story. As others have said, what you've heard are just guidelines. None of these "rules" are set in cement. If you can pull it off, by all means, go for it!

Good luck.

~Nancy

[Higgins]

Our chief weapon is surprise. Surprise and fear. Fear and surprise. Our TWO weapons are fear and surprise and a ruthless efficiency. AMONGST our weaponry are such diverse elements as fear, surprise, a ruthless efficiency and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

Arrgh!

I'll come in again.

...nothing quite like ALMOST fanatical devotion. And adherence to the 4 principles of spleniological analysis: the pragmatic, the syntagmatic, the aromatic and the just plan matic. The last is almost automatic.

[ChunkyC]

Like a carpenter's apprentice, learn how to use a hammer to pound in a nail before trying to do it with your forehead.

I have no idea what that means. :tongue

Seriously, much of the prologue/first person type advice is not a rule so much as a caution to avoid things that might make it tougher to sell a first book to an agent or publisher, that's all. So what my silly analogy is saying is to echo what pepper said above. Learn the craft so that when you do write a prologue or in first person or whatever, you do so with skill.

[badducky]

My main advice is this: Whatever you do, do it well.

I break a lot of "rules" in my writing and use a similar phrase to explain how come I get away with it.

If you're going to break a rule, break the HELL out of it.

No prologues? I'll write the whole book in the form of a giant prologue! No head-hopping? By golly, I'll completely change narrator halfway through!

I still want to write a very large book in second person. I will, someday. And it will be a great novel. Because I won't just break the rule... I'll break the HELL out of it!

(clarifying: when you break the HELL out of rules, you break the rule to excess and you do it with such quality that everyone loves it because you broke the rule.)

[Higgins]

Last Friday evening we went to Wal-Mart to purchase gifts for a gift exchange. While my wife took 60 minutes to complete what I did in 3, I took time to look through the book section. I read somewhere that a good exercise is to go into a bookstore and read the first sentence or paragraph of as many novels as you can, to see what the openings of published books are like, and to learn from them.

So I went to the best sellers rack, and read the openings of about 20 books, with authors such as King, Koontz, Roberts, Lewis, etc. To my surprise, more than half of them had prologues, and more than 2/3 of them were in first person. Now, other advice given by experts (editors, agents, and published writers) seems to unanimously be: don’t write in first person unless third person limited really, really doesn’t work; and don’t use a prologue unless you really, really know what you are doing. I have heard those two pieces of advice over and over again till I’m sick of hearing/reading them.

So I thought, the best selling authors can do what they want, and are probably better at these techniques than us wannabes, so naturally you would see these techniques used more by them and more successfully. So I went to the other shelves, the non-best sellers, and did the same thing. I was surprised to find that the numbers were close. Out of 20 or so non-best sellers, half were in first person, and close to half had a prologue. Obviously Wal-Mart is not a real bookstore. Then again, they only stock books they believe are going to appeal to the widest possible readership, and do an incredible job of tracking sales, and so know what tends to sell. I might add that the genres checked on both shelves were wide ranging, including fantasy, thrillers, romances, westerns, etc.

My conclusion: The experts are lying to us, talking us out of using writing techniques that sell best, so as to reserve shelf space for themselves as they use the very techniques they talk us out of using.

NDG
P.S. I was so shocked, I couldn’t even concentrate on the effectiveness of the first sentences/paragraphs, so I guess I’ll have to do this all over again.

Break the rules and you'll end up unpurchased even in a Walmart, where there are so few books and such a lack of book-buying you will be trapped in that purgatorial hell forever and ever and ever......

[WildScribe]

I always write in third person, however my WIP is in first person (which is hard for me) present (which is even harder). It's fun to put myself in unfamiliar territory and learn something new, but let me tell you: my first draft is gonna stink to high heaven.

[PeeDee]

Watch it, Sokal, or we'll tie you to the rack! :D

[BruceJ]

I used a prologue before I knew any better (which was just now with this thread). Hope I did it well. Hadn't heard of such a prohibition before.

[Gillhoughly]

It'll just have to be one solitary page for chapter 1 then. Ellie

Much better. Read some Stuart Kaminsky Toby Peters mysteries, as that's how he starts them.

:editor hat on:

The big NAME bestsellers can break rules because they make the publishers lots of money. That often translates into "don't edit the money cow--even when needed."

Rice is convinced she doesn't need an editor any more. I think we've all read her Amazon rant against fans who were less than happy with one of her books. Wrong, everyone needs editing. Some more than most.

(I would never have posted any such thing, but that's just me. I never forget that it is my fans who put food on my table, and I'm GRATEFUL to each and every one of 'em!)

Clancy REALLY needs an editor.

Brown--well, his research sux, and his writing would have been shredded in one of my workshops.

King should know better, but does it anyway. IT could have been trimmed by half and been better for it. I stopped reading him, and replaced that free shelf space with other writers.

It's like when they make the break out sale they go into a "more is better" frenzy, as though to say "nyah-nyah" to the hard working editors who got them there in the first place.

Yes, you will find prologues, epilogues, pages of thank you notes, poetry, and all manner of page eating junk before the danged book STARTS.

As an editor, I groan and roll my eyes.

As a reader I SKIP the junk and get to the first line to see if it hooks me.

Midlist writers--and I'm one of them--can't afford to wander all over the map before starting things. I want to grab you on page one, no preamble-ramble, and KEEP my book in front of your face until I'm done. You may find the earlier works of the Names are free of the bells and whistles and they actually open with something interesting.

As for viewpoint, my 1st person 1st novel sold because the writing was good. I'd tried 3rd person, but it just didn't work for it. I've used 3rd for other books, because that is what worked for them.

Whatever viewpoint you use, let it be right for the story you're telling, then WRITE WELL.

Yeah, you knew there was a catch somewhere.... http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

[veinglory]

At this point King and Koontz could probably publish an ode to a sexy manatee in rhyming couplets. I think that's a separate issue from what a debut author needs to do.

[Norman D Gutter]

Shoot! I posted a lengthy reply, hit a wrong button, and lost it all. Let me try to recreate it.

I was being purposely provacative and more than a bit facetious in my title and conclusions. I did indeed go through this exercise on Friday, and the approximate quantitative data was as I said. However, let me add a few points.

- As a new novelist, yet unpublished, I feel that I need to study the craft as much as possible. So I've been to writers conferences and taken the fiction track. And I've bought a couple of books and read expert advice on-line at sites such as this. Much of the advice conflicts within itself, and much conflicts with what I want when I read a novel. However, unless I have compelling reasons to do so, ignoring the advice of those who have gone before me seems a bad idea.
- Without exception, until replies in this thread, all the advice I have read is that a beginning novelist should avoid first person POV because mistakes with it are too easy. Also, David Morrell (First Blood) goes so far as to say that unless the first person character has a reason to be writing an account of the events, first person makes no sense. My completed, unpublished novel is first person, and the POV character has a reason to be writing an account of the events, so I think I'm okay--except when I submit it to an agent or editor, are they likely to say "Ah ha! An unpublished novelist who has written in the first person. Reject without reading."? To listen to all that I've read, that is what is going to happen.
- Not as much has been written about prologues, but everything I've read says avoid them. Not because they aren't read, but because for most novels they are not necessary. They tend to be abused by the inexperienced. So, when I submit my novel to an editor/agent and they see it begins with a prologue, are they likely to say, "Ah ha! An unpublished novelist who has begun with a prologue. Reject without reading."?

Now then, having that advice, and going to a store that only cares about books that sell in quantity, and finding on the shelves such a large number of books that violate those general "rules," what is to be concluded? I don't really believe the experts are lying. I'm just trying to sort through it all, and generate some discussion from those in the same boat as me, and hopefully more experienced than me. My provacative title and conclusion worked in that regard. Anxious to gather the expertise at the Cooler for this topic.

Best Regards, though still trying to sort it all out,
NDG

[J.S Greer]

An expert who tells you not to write in first person is not an expert. Ditto for anyone who tells you that people don't read prologues.
- Victoria

Very true.

I say that if you do either, do them well and you should have no issues.

Another problem with prologues is that the reader may start to identify/sypathize with the main character in that prologue, then have to do it all over again if the main character in the entire novel is someone else.

James, what if the focal character of the prologue isnt the main character, but an important secondary character? In my prologue, the woman whose POV I write from will be integral later.

Ive often thought of scrapping the prologue because I hear so much about them not being necessary. I like mine though, because it serves a purpose but gives nothing about the main plot away.

[kwwriter]

You're worried entirely too much about what some group's opinion and less about writing.

Whichever group you're listening too--uh--they're full of poodle-doo.

Exactly. Thank you for saying so.

[Siddow]

Now repeat the exercise pulling out ONLY debut novels.

I've done that. Prologues and first person in a good bit of them. I've never had a problem with either, but I have heard certain people spouting off advice that you should never use them. Mostly it's those people who've never sold a book, but they can sell the heck out of some articles on writing.

And I understand now why agents can tell right away whether or not they'll like the book. I judged the first sentences; some were intriguing, and others bored me. After reading the books entirely, my first impressions did not change.

[DeadlyAccurate]

My completed, unpublished novel is first person, and the POV character has a reason to be writing an account of the events, so I think I'm okay--except when I submit it to an agent or editor, are they likely to say "Ah ha! An unpublished novelist who has written in the first person. Reject without reading."? To listen to all that I've read, that is what is going to happen.

No, they won't, unless a particular agent has a bias against first person. I wrote one book with my series character in third person. I knew writing it that I was getting very close to writing at a publishable level. I got a few nibbles but no serious bites. I started the next one, got a third of the way through, and realized I'd been fighting the natural POV the entire time. I started over in first person, finished it, and have gotten about half a dozen requests for the full manuscript and a few more requests for the partial (usually based on a smaller sample).

[ChunkyC]

- Without exception, until replies in this thread, all the advice I have read is that a beginning novelist should avoid first person POV because mistakes with it are too easy.
While I can't say all the advice I've read was the same as in your experience, I'd have to say the majority certainly was.

But I think the big key here is the word ADVICE. No matter who it comes from -- be it King, Brown, Rowling or Clancy -- it is advice, nothing more, based on their experience. Certainly, when you hear the same thing from multiple, respected sources, the advice gains weight. But it is up to each one of us to consider the source(s) and take from the advice what we will.

[rugcat]

But I think the big key here is the word ADVICE. No matter who it comes from -- be it King, Brown, Rowling or Clancy -- it is advice, nothing more, based on their experience. "Advice is a dangerous gift, even from the wise to the wise, and all courses may run ill."

O.K., It's official. By quoting Tolkien I've outed myself as a closet geek.

The basic thing to remember about advice, even good advice, is that it doesn't neccessarily apply to you. Of course, this is a dangerous slope, since we all feel in our hearts that we are special and can thus disregard any advice we don’t care for.

Still, to segue into a different hot button issue, what about advice whether it's a good idea to keep a firearm in your house for self-protection? Many experts will point out that the chances of being killed by an angry partner, or by a gun accident, or as a result of mistaken identity are far, far greater than the chance of being attacked by an intruder. This is absolutely correct. (This is where people jump in screaming WRONG!!) The advice of most experts: don’t keep a gun in your house.

But this advice can only apply in general, and may or may not apply to your specific situation.

What if you live in an extreme high crime neighborhood where violent break-ins are a daily occurrence? What if you live in the middle of nowhere, with the nearest help is an hour away?

What if you have three small children living in your home? What if your teenage son or daughter is depressed and potentially suicidal? What if you are demonstrably non-mechanical and accident prone?

What if you’re an ex-cop with years of firearm training and enemies from your job with personal grudges?

My only point is, advice does not exist in a vacuum. (With the possible exception of things like, “Hey, don’t put your finger in that!”) Advice, even good advice needs to be run through your own personal filter to see if it applies to you.

As always, a little self-awareness is a big help.

[Zolah]

Here's the thing, though. A lot of people who decide they want to be writers just aren't that good. And many of the things "the experts" warn against aren't newbie mistakes so much as newbie crutches. When you get to the point you aren't using 1st person, prologues, etc as a crutch but as the strong narrative tools they are, then it's no longer "prohibited."

I'm going to embroider that on a cushion and then, every time the damn Prologue/No Prologue debate lifts it's ugly head, I shall quote you, bow out, and sit back smugly.

[veinglory]

It is easy to be oversensitive. The most I have ever said is that I don't like prologues and generally don't read them (skip over them). I also remember then being effectively called arrogant and illiterate just for having that preference. But the onyl people making "rules" are acquisitions editors and they generally provide them explicitly in the form of submission guidelines.

[Zolah]

Seriously, much of the prologue/first person type advice is not a rule so much as a caution to avoid things that might make it tougher to sell a first book to an agent or publisher, that's all. So what my silly analogy is saying is to echo what pepper said above. Learn the craft so that when you do write a prologue or in first person or whatever, you do so with skill.

This debate always makes me clap my hands and laugh hysterically (so, since it turns up about once a week, I spend a lot of time laughing and clapping. My neighbours are kind of scared of me. But I digress...).

Guess what my first novel (that got plucked off the slushpile) was? First person, with a prologue.

I must seriously kick ass as a writer.

Or maybe publishers don't worry about that stuff as much as we worry they do.

Nah. I kick ass. Yay me!

[Marlowe]

I think all novels should be in second person. There, you heard me say it, and you know I am telling the truth.

[veinglory]

Oh no, I have a lot of revising to do!

[Azure Skye]

I've never heard anyone I'd consider an expert say you shouldn;t write a prologue, and I think statements saying people don't read them are pure foolishness. Some people find reasons not to read this, not to read that, and not to read the other. But in truth, books with prologues do just as well, have just as many fans, and are just as pleasureable to read, as books without them.

It is not always wise to get advice from experts, or form wannabe writers. They share a side of the desk most readers don't give a rat's whiskers about, and the same old saws go back and forth, regardless of how much truth they hold with the reading public.

As for first person, it's always been extremely popular with the reading public. The reason most agents and editors warn against first person is not becaue the reading public doesn't want it, but because first person is much, much more difficult for most new writers to do well than is third person limited.

First person seems so natural, so easy to write, that agents and editors are often deluged with first person novels. But it is not easy to write well, at least without some experience. Certainly not without reading a lot of good first person novels.

And this may be the big rub. Many who try writing first person do not spend a lot of time reading it, and if you don't read it often, it's very difficult to write it well.

There's nothing at all new about finding many books of the shelves written in first person. It does depend on genre, some have a great deal more first person than others, it's common as dirt in the mystery field, the western field, and teh literary field, but every genre has its first person novels, and it's been this way for a long, long time. Huckleberry Finn, Moby Dick, and Catcher in the Rye are all first person novels.

But it can be tough for a new writer to tackle, and one who does needs to first read a bunch of first person novels.

As for Wal-Mart, it certainly is real world. They carry books the reading public wants, including quite a few midliest writers.

And if you look at a plain old bookstore, you find the same thing, and the same novels. Lots of novels, including many bestsellers, written in first person, and many very good novels with prologues.

The best way to know what the reading public wants is to check the racks, not to listen to the "experts."

James, I like you. I enjoy reading your posts.

That's all.

[aadams73]

This debate always makes me clap my hands and laugh hysterically (so, since it turns up about once a week, I spend a lot of time laughing and clapping. My neighbours are kind of scared of me. But I digress...).

Guess what my first novel (that got plucked off the slushpile) was? First person, with a prologue.

I must seriously kick ass as a writer.

Or maybe publishers don't worry about that stuff as much as we worry they do.

Nah. I kick ass. Yay me!

A prologue is all very well if you do it, you know, well (which you apparently have, so yay you.) But I think a lot of beginning writers use it incorrectly and lump a lot of boring/irrelevent crap in there. It doesn't look good if that's the first thing an agent/editor sees when he starts flipping through your manuscript. (boring prologue, the rest is probably boring crap too)

[Sheryl Nantus]

my first novel is in first person.

getting published in August of 2007.

:D

[Novelist in Paradise]

.

So I went to the best sellers rack, and read the openings of about 20 books, with authors such as King, Koontz, Roberts, Lewis, etc. .

Um, which Lewis was that? (Just dreamin...)

[victoriastrauss]

I am honestly puzzled as to where this idea that you shouldn't write in first person comes from. Most of the other dos and don'ts have some basis in common writing advice, but I've never seen any punditry--other than individual people saying "I don't like first person narratives"--to back up this particular, and quite widespread, piece of new writers' lore.

- Victoria

[victoriastrauss]

A prologue is all very well if you do it, you know, well (which you apparently have, so yay you.) But I think a lot of beginning writers use it incorrectly and lump a lot of boring/irrelevent crap in there.Yes. Like so many of the other things you aren't "supposed" to do, it's not because these things are bad--it's because they are so easy to execute badly.

- Victoria

[scarletpeaches]

Just to clarify, "the experts" don't say don't write a prologue, they just say that no one reads them. Which is true. What they say is, don't put information vital to understanding the novel in the prologue, because then people will be lost.


The experts don't say, "don't write in first person" they say, don't head jump. Some experts say they don't particularly like first person. Others say they don't particularly like third person. But that's preference, not law.

No it isn't. I read prologues, and so do all my bookworm friends.

Not reading a prologue makes no sense. It's like saying, "I object to the number seventeen, so I'm going to body-swerve that chapter."

[veinglory]

Reading or not reading prologues is a matter of taste. Making it a virtue or a rule is no more sensible and saying there is a rule against writing them. We all seem to be quick to change our preferences into doctrines or virtues.

[arrowqueen]

'No it isn't. I read prologues, and so do all my bookworm friends.'

And the edition number and date of publication. And the list of other books they've written. And the dedication. And the epilogue. And Mrs McGlumpher's shopping list that she left in as a bookmark.

[scarletpeaches]

But if a prologue's part of the book you've paid for and want to enjoy...why miss it out?

[veinglory]

Why don't people eat the skin on chicken? That's between them and the chicken. I can read every second page of a book while hanging from the chandlier wearing a tutu--so long as I paid for it what does the author care?

I find it ironic that people seem more open to people writing books any way they wish but criticise how a paying customer might choose to read them.

[PeeDee]

But if a prologue's part of the book you've paid for and want to enjoy...why miss it out?

That's what I say. Why the hell do you buy a book full of words if you're not going to read the words?

[veinglory]

I also don't read the geneologies in historical romance, the bit that says what editions it is and who published it, acknowledgements, any appendices or maps and normally I skip the blurb. I do however buy a lot of books, about 4-5 a week. If you don't want my money that's fine with me. I don;t tell you how to write, don't tell me how to read.

[scarletpeaches]

When you buy a book, you pay to read the story.

None of you would pay for a cinema ticket then refuse to watch five minutes out of every hour, would you?

[scarletpeaches]

And the edition number and date of publication. And the list of other books they've written. And the dedication. And the epilogue. And Mrs McGlumpher's shopping list that she left in as a bookmark.

Where did that come from?!

And no, I don't read all of those things you mentioned...because they are not part of the story. If I pay for a book, I want to read the story and I read all the parts involved in this. Dodging the prologue makes as much sense as missing out every seventeenth page just to be awkward.

I also don't read the geneologies in historical romance, the bit that says what editions it is and who published it, acknowledgements, any appendices or maps and normally I skip the blurb. I do however buy a lot of books, about 4-5 a week. If you don't want my money that's fine with me. I don;t tell you how to write, don't tell me how to read.

They're not part of the story. The prologue is.

[PeeDee]

I also don't read the geneologies in historical romance, the bit that says what editions it is and who published it, acknowledgements, any appendices or maps and normally I skip the blurb. I do however buy a lot of books, about 4-5 a week. If you don't want my money that's fine with me. I don;t tell you how to write, don't tell me how to read.

I'm not telling you how to read. Read any old way that floats your boat. I'm expressing perplexion. That's all.

I don't read genealogies, I don't look at fantasy maps, I don't read appendices, and so on....but all the bits that are actual "story" I read. Doing otherwise perplexes me. That's all.

[Little Red Barn]

:Shrug: So many different rules and so confusing....I'm :e2drown:.

[veinglory]

Bad prologues actually aren't part of the story, and in my experience almost all prologues are bad prologues as irrelevant as the other fluff I mentioned. But really, this was where came in when I said that you're damned either way. It isn;t just some killjoys saying 'please don't write yet another dull prologue' there are the reading technique Nazi's who find people who hate them literally incomprehensable.

Why not just live and let live? People write prologues if they want, people read them if they want and nobody gets upset or starts laying down rules. I mean I don't relate to people not eating chicken skin but I don't sweat it either. I think it's the best part of the chicken, they think it's heart clogging poison -- there's an aphorism in there somewhere, or an analogy, or something.

[scarletpeaches]

I'm as confuzzled as PeeDee on this one.

To say 'almost all prologues are bad prologues' makes as much sense to me as "I don't read page 137 of any book because it gives you the pox."

[veinglory]

Tha's why I didn't say that. I am not very big on making absolute statements of any sort (never say never etc). What I suggested is that a sufficiently large proportion were bad that I stopped reading them. I assure you I am quite rational, I just read a lot of epic fantasy where bad prologues roam free and are prolific.

I accept writers want to write them and some are very good. I also get that you simply can't fit my moccasins on the issue. C'est la vie. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with my moccasins, thank you very much.

[scarletpeaches]

On the other hand, even if a prologue is very short, I don't get why authors don't just call it 'chapter one' !

[MHanlon]

I always thought you shouldn't sit down to write your first draft with a prologue. You should add a prologue after your first draft is done and you feel that a prologue would help explain a situation without having to start the story from that point.

[veinglory]

I agree that if it could be called chapter one, it should be. Prologues, as I encounter them are tyically along the lines of:

Title, a billion years before anything happened:

A God-like character you will never hear about again strides across a dramatic landscape with a sky that exhibited colors rarely seen and even more rarely described with quite so many polysyllabic words.

"Ah," he declares, "I shall now make a very very powerful magic object for no really good reason, and then break it into seven pieces and hide it all over the place for, um, well we need that to happen for the rest of the book to happen. Bwa ha ha ha"

Meanwhile a very gorgous women saw an ominous thing, or heard a poem or something (see beginning of chapter one for the poem, I wrote it myself). Anyway, she was very gorgous and virtuous and looked even more gorgeous when she cried and walked home through the desolate landscape with the very impressive sunset in the background, and it was probably raining.

"Golly, generic husband," she then said. "I seem to be pregnant despite the fact that we hae not copulated for many years. I wonder if I shall give birth to a a hero who will quest for a magical device and save our people from oppression?"

"How would I know," he replied. "I'm just here to signal that the real protagonist has a humble but very ominous childhood that the author is not going to bother describing. And shut the door the technicolor sunset is giving me a headache"

[PeeDee]

I'd read that prologue!

[icerose]

I'm with Vein on this. Most prologues are an excuse for a very poor info dump or worse a grouping of nonsense that has nothing or very little to do with the story but the writer just couldn't bear to cut it out. If the reader does not need the information of the prologue in the very beginning it does not belong in the prologue. If they are not going to use that information until page 133 it should go on page 133.

I have found only one good prologue in the hundreds if books I have read that included them. That was it. One. I end up reading the prologue, usually after I have read the book due to past experience unless it catches me on the first sentence.

Prologues are also an excellent way to sum up the previous story in a series without bogging down the flow of the book because I hate the summing in the beginning because it's like "Yeah, I know this story, get to the point."

[Sage]

- Without exception, until replies in this thread, all the advice I have read is that a beginning novelist should avoid first person POV because mistakes with it are too easy. Also, David Morrell (First Blood) goes so far as to say that unless the first person character has a reason to be writing an account of the events, first person makes no sense. My completed, unpublished novel is first person, and the POV character has a reason to be writing an account of the events, so I think I'm okay--except when I submit it to an agent or editor, are they likely to say "Ah ha! An unpublished novelist who has written in the first person. Reject without reading."? To listen to all that I've read, that is what is going to happen. I haven't heard as much against first person as against proogues, personally. And I think the key point is the one I just bolded. That's pretty much what the experts of this thread have said too. What it means is that if you avoid the mistakes, you can go right ahead & use first person. If you do it well, you can really get away with anything. But I can't see an agent rejecing it because it's first person, unless they dislike first person (& I'm sure some do, while others might even like it better than third).

- Not as much has been written about prologues, but everything I've read says avoid them. Not because they aren't read, but because for most novels they are not necessary. They tend to be abused by the inexperienced. So, when I submit my novel to an editor/agent and they see it begins with a prologue, are they likely to say, "Ah ha! An unpublished novelist who has begun with a prologue. Reject without reading."?I've heard a lot more against prologues, & the reason given is that "nobody reads them" or that they're just infodumps. Well, not all prologues are infodumps, & in the real world i have yet to talk to anyone who reads who doesn't read prologues (not like I've done a scientific study or anything. Just curious questions to people who I know like to read the last time the subject came up.)

On the other hand, even if a prologue is very short, I don't get why authors don't just call it 'chapter one' ! (Here we go again) Because it's not chapter 1. Often it's something that takes place outside the action of the main story, but still affects the story significantly (if done right). Maybe it's in another POV, or it takes place several years earlier. Putting it in a prologue is a clue to a reader that this "chapter" is different from the rest. So they aren't surprised when you jump location, time, voice, etc.

[Sage]

I agree that if it could be called chapter one, it should be. Prologues, as I encounter them are tyically along the lines of:

Title, a billion years before anything happened:

A God-like character you will never hear about again strides across a dramatic landscape with a sky that exhibited colors rarely seen and even more rarely described with quite so many polysyllabic words.

"Ah," he declares, "I shall now make a very very powerful magic object for no really good reason, and then break it into seven pieces and hide it all over the place for, um, well we need that to happen for the rest of the book to happen. Bwa ha ha ha"

Meanwhile a very gorgous women saw an ominous thing, or heard a poem or something (see beginning of chapter one for the poem, I wrote it myself). Anyway, she was very gorgous and virtuous and looked even more gorgeous when she cried and walked home through the desolate landscape with the very impressive sunset in the background, and it was probably raining.

"Golly, generic husband," she then said. "I seem to be pregnant despite the fact that we hae not copulated for many years. I wonder if I shall give birth to a a hero who will quest for a magical device and save our people from oppression?"

"How would I know," he replied. "I'm just here to signal that the real protagonist has a humble but very ominous childhood that the author is not going to bother describing. And shut the door the technicolor sunset is giving me a headache"

Based on your presentation of this type of prologue, sounds like you wouldn't much like the rest of the novel either.

[veinglory]

I don't mind archetypes/cliches, I just want to hit the main narrative straight away. Maybe we need a thread about good and bad prologues. I must go leaf through my collection.

[Toothpaste]

I think though the reason you can skip a prologue is that by virtue of it's name, it isn't a part of the main story. Nor is the Epilogue. Technically you shouldn't need to read either in order to enjoy the story being told. It's sort of comparable to reading a cast list at the beginning of a play. Often it says something like "Lord Stevens - son of the Emperor, Lord Burlington - cousin of Lord Stevens" etc etc. I don't read these because within the play itself it should tell me all I need to know about their relationship. So too does a prologue explain for example where a prophecy came from, or why the magic amulet exists. But in the end it doesn't matter to the plot of the story itself. Yes it adds colour and texture, and books aren't all about plot. But skipping a prologue is a very different thing to skipping chapter 14. If you just want to get on with the story itself, why not? People read for different reasons and like different thing.

That said, I wrote a prologue for my book, and my editor seems to like it, so ha!

[aadams73]

:Shrug: So many different rules and so confusing....I'm :e2drown:.

Don't stress yourself over them. You can twist the rules into all kinds of bendy shapes provided you do it well. :)

[jamiehall]

Just to clarify, "the experts" don't say don't write a prologue, they just say that no one reads them. Which is true. What they say is, don't put information vital to understanding the novel in the prologue, because then people will be lost.

In my experience, I've heard an awful lot of people say that they usually skip the prologue, and I often mostly-skip it myself. I'll give the prologue a try. If it hooks me, I'll read it all, but if it strikes me the way that prologues usually do, I'll skim it and start truly reading with chapter one, only going back to re-read the prologue if I come across some confusing backstory element that I remember was mentioned in the prologue.

The only exception to this practice of mine is when I've heard that a book is really, really good or when I am using a book for research purposes and can't risk skipping anything that may prove important. Then I'll force myself to read the prologue, usually getting pretty sick of the book and setting it aside for a few weeks while the sour feeling goes away, then diving in at chapter one.

In other words, if you write a prologue, write a d**ned good one and write the rest of the book with an expectation that many readers might have skipped or skimmed the prologue.

[scarletpeaches]

What titted me off was the assertion that it's a fact no-one reads prologues. It's up to the individual whether they read them or not. I do. Some people don't. Many people I know, do.

What's true for one person isn't so for all readers, and shouldn't be stated as if it were. That's all.

Now! I need a cup of tea. Someone put the kettle on! :D

[engmajor2005]

I read prologues, and epilogues. If they were not pertinent to the story, they would'nt be there I say (okay, that's not necessarily a blanket statement...).

I have a prologue for my novel, and it has events important to the story. It is also set some, oh I don't know, 500 YEARS before the first chapter. Wouldn't be logical for it to be chapter 1.

As for first person, it works for some stories and not for others. Big fantasy epic? Third-person all the way. Mysteries? Well, if they were third-person then we'd know things that spoiled the fun of reading a mystery: solving the puzzle along with the MC. Romances? Go either way.

As with use of figurative language, adverbs, or strict adherence to the rules of grammar, if it works it works; if it doesn't, change it.

[The Lady]

I'm just chiming in to say I love Prologues, and every single prologue I've ever read gets somehow twisted back in to the main novel and I love waiting to discover that moment. I also like the maps but I only refer to them after about a 100 pages. I loathe and despise appendices full of makey uppy languages. I mostly put those books straight back down. Those people have not made up a language. They have just cobbled together a few hundred or so words (often stealing a lot of them from Irish so I wonder why they bother.

Back to, strange rules for beginners and the equally strange justification for, strange rules for beginners which is that beginners would do well to never lift their eyes past third person, past tense, tight POV containment and, God forbid, flashbacks or prologues. You can loose as much time figuring out that the rules are crazy as you saved by observing them in the first place.

Just read a story in a top magazine which was first person, present. Try getting that past your critique group. And it was very good too and easy to follow, despite the narrator descending into senility.

[veinglory]

What titted me off was the assertion that it's a fact no-one reads prologues.

Did anyone say that?

[jamiehall]

What titted me off was the assertion that it's a fact no-one reads prologues. It's up to the individual whether they read them or not. I do. Some people don't. Many people I know, do.

What's true for one person isn't so for all readers, and shouldn't be stated as if it were. That's all.

It's not a fact. Generalizations are almost never true, because variation is a part of life. Of course there are some people who usually read prologues, and some people who usually skip them.

However, if a sizable proportion of readers usually skip them, even if that proportion is less than half (say 30% as a guess) then it is still valuable information for aspiring authors to know. If enough readers may end up skipping the prologue, the prologue itself and the rest of the novel should be crafted with that possibility in mind.

And, even though I can't find any statistics on it and some people here say that most of their friends claim to read prologues, from my experience those people must be moving in different social circles than me. Many people I've known claim to have a strong tendency to either skip or skim prologues. From the sheer number of people I'd heard say this, I would guess that it is not an inconsequential habit of the reading public.

[AncientEagle]

Just to clarify, "the experts" don't say don't write a prologue, they just say that no one reads them. Which is true.

I read them. So it's not true.

[Elodie-Caroline]

Ah, whilst you guys and gals have been arguing the pro(logues) and cons of reading prologues, I've written over 3,800 words since my answer to this lol ;)

Personally; if I bought a book and it had a prologue, I would read it because I'd class it as part of the story... I wouldn't be reading who it's dedicated to or the authors biography bits etc though.

I always write in omniscient myself, it seems easiest, and I like getting into all of my characters heads anyway. Besides my own life-story, I think first person might be a bit tricky... dunno? I haven't tried it yet, but never say never!

Ellie

[Linda Adams]

I'm one of those who tends to skip prologues. Especially after running into stories where the prologue gave away a crucial plot element and ruined the supsense of an otherwise good story.

[ORION]

OK I just had to jump in. I am a debut author. My book just went to auction and sold. I have both a prologue AND I write in first person.

[jamiehall]

OK I just had to jump in. I am a debut author. My book just went to auction and sold. I have both a prologue AND I write in first person.

Congratulations. :D

[glassquill]

Just out of curiosity, when would you include a prologue in your work? Is it something that is based on individual preferences, or are there situations where a prologue is necessary?

[janetbellinger]

The main reason I don't usually read prologues is that I try to get through the book as quickly as possible and the prologue holds me up. Besides, I don't want to read anything that isn't relevant to the story. I usually scan the prologue first and if it looks like it's got some vital information in it, I'll read it.

[Alex Bravo]

I always read prologues, unless it's a non-fiction book.

I put a prologue in my book to explain that my novel was based on reality. Many of the things depicted in my novel seem fanciful but are in fact possible. One reader told me to take a part out because my depiction couldn't really happen, but after pointing out that it really could happen, they said to keep it in. So that's why I use a prologue. Oh, and I wrote my novel in 3rd person.

[ORION]

I rarely read a preface but I always read a prologue. I use a prologue if the the beginning action takes place in a different time. Either a long time ago or in the future as compared to the rest of the story.

[Flapdoodle]

Last Friday evening we went to Wal-Mart to purchase gifts for a gift exchange. While my wife took 60 minutes to complete what I did in 3, I took time to look through the book section. I read somewhere that a good exercise is to go into a bookstore and read the first sentence or paragraph of as many novels as you can, to see what the openings of published books are like, and to learn from them.

So I went to the best sellers rack, and read the openings of about 20 books, with authors such as King, Koontz, Roberts, Lewis, etc. To my surprise, more than half of them had prologues, and more than 2/3 of them were in first person. Now, other advice given by experts (editors, agents, and published writers) seems to unanimously be: don’t write in first person unless third person limited really, really doesn’t work; and don’t use a prologue unless you really, really know what you are doing. I have heard those two pieces of advice over and over again till I’m sick of hearing/reading them.

So I thought, the best selling authors can do what they want, and are probably better at these techniques than us wannabes, so naturally you would see these techniques used more by them and more successfully. So I went to the other shelves, the non-best sellers, and did the same thing. I was surprised to find that the numbers were close. Out of 20 or so non-best sellers, half were in first person, and close to half had a prologue. Obviously Wal-Mart is not a real bookstore. Then again, they only stock books they believe are going to appeal to the widest possible readership, and do an incredible job of tracking sales, and so know what tends to sell. I might add that the genres checked on both shelves were wide ranging, including fantasy, thrillers, romances, westerns, etc.

My conclusion: The experts are lying to us, talking us out of using writing techniques that sell best, so as to reserve shelf space for themselves as they use the very techniques they talk us out of using.

NDG
P.S. I was so shocked, I couldn’t even concentrate on the effectiveness of the first sentences/paragraphs, so I guess I’ll have to do this all over again.

I've never read that you shouldn't do prologues or use first person.

The problem with prologues and novice writers seems (To me) to be that they are used as a means to add a lot of clunky exposition to explain what's going on. Usually Gods discussing in a clunky manner just what is going on.

Writing in first person can be great, but unless you know what you're doing, you can get stuck (I.e, get halfway through and realise that you want to show something from a different character's POV.)...

[Philip64]

I'm not convinced the 1st person really is harder to pull off than the 3rd. The 1st conveys (often) one great advantage over the 3rd: it comes over more readily as a genuine 'voice'. This is something that less experienced writers can take many years to develop using 3rd only.

I accept that the limited p.o.v. inherent to 1st person can make constructing a story harder. Monotony can also creep in very easily. However, I have been struck in recent year by the number of first novels - especially successful ones - that are written in the 1st person. And I have talked of a number of novelists who have enjoyed success with that tense at the outset, only to struggle badly when switching to 3rd in subsequent books. They clearly found the latter much harder. This is especially true for writers whose early work is drawn heavily from direct personal experience. People who write in that vein can find it hard to establish an authorial voice without having their narrator in the story.

[illiterwrite]

I'd like to know where the stats are to support "most people don't read prologues." I've asked before (here), but my question was ignored. In fact, the only time I've heard anything negative about prologues (or first person) is here on this board. My editor's never said anything. My agent's never said anything.

I always read prologues and don't understand why you wouldn't. But I also don't try to "rush" through a book, because I'm just reading for pleasure.

For the record, my first book coming out in March features first-person narration AND a prologue. :) And no, my book isn't autobiographical in the least.

[Roger J Carlson]

Well, I've heard acquisitons editors say that people don't read prologues and you shouldn't write them. I take that advice very seriously.

So here's a question.

In the first chapter of my fantasy novel, the main character is born. It is a difficult birth and Something Strange happens that is vital to the story. The next several chapters are about her life at 6 months, 2 years, and 4 years, which build upon the Strange Thing in the first chapter.

I've been advised that since the most important parts of the story take place in the character's teen years, I should cut out all the early years. If I do, how do I introduce the absolutely vital foreshadowing in chapter 1. I thought to redo chapter 1 as a prologue. If that's out, what's left? It doesn't really work as a chapter 1 only to have chapter 2 happen 12 years later. The only thing I can think of is a flashback from one of the other principles of chapter 1 and flashbacks are frowned upon to.

Any ideas?

[Bufty]

If 'something strange' happens, why can't it be chapter one. Seems to me all you then have is a time-lapse till the next scene or chapter, whichever method you feel best leads to drawing the reader smoothly into the developing story.

On the other hand a Prologue may well work in your case.

Good luck.

[Roger J Carlson]

On the other hand a Prologue may well work in your case.Well, I thought so too, which is why this general prohibition against them irks me. Even if it does work well, I don't want someone to toss it in the reject pile just because of the word 'Prologue' on the first page.

[Bufty]

Would it really make any difference to the story if the first page simply read Chapter 1 instead of Prologue - I don't know - I'm just asking.

Well, I thought so too, which is why this general prohibition against them irks me. Even if it does work well, I don't want someone to toss it in the reject pile just because of the word 'Prologue' on the first page.

[BruceJ]

I guess I'm an oddball, Roger, but I read prologues. I figure the author put it there for a reason and it's probably value-added to the story.

But then, I'm a proponent of singing all verses of a hymn, too, so I guess that pretty much qualifies my input, eh? :)

[Roger J Carlson]

Would it really make any difference if the first page simply read Chapter 1 - I don't know - I'm just asking.I don't know. But I think 12 years is a huge gap between chapters, especially chapter 1 and 2. As to why I think it would work as a prologue:

All the characters introduced there appear later in the book as characters we care about.
It is vital backstory
Events that take place there foreshadow later events.

[Azure Skye]

OK I just had to jump in. I am a debut author. My book just went to auction and sold. I have both a prologue AND I write in first person.

*gasp*

:e2faint:

Congratulations!

Back to the topic: I'm not usually a reader of prologues and I can't even give you a logical reason why but I just picked up a Garth Nix book and I confess, I did partake of the fruit, and I did eat. It was tasty but I'm not sure how it will affect the rest of the story for me.

I'm just sitting here wondering if it's really a good idea to get hung up on "rules" and what the "experts" are saying -- hung up to the point that we don't write what we want to write.

[Elodie-Caroline]

Roger, I cheated with someone's early life in one of my WIPs. I had her do her own website with her life story on it... Her early years are very important to the story, it shows what made her the person she is today; she's famous in the story, so her life is relevant to the person finding out about her... Like I said, I cheated; but I think writer's should use any tricks of the trade to get their story over to their readers.

Ellie

[jamiehall]

I've been advised that since the most important parts of the story take place in the character's teen years, I should cut out all the early years. If I do, how do I introduce the absolutely vital foreshadowing in chapter 1. I thought to redo chapter 1 as a prologue. If that's out, what's left? It doesn't really work as a chapter 1 only to have chapter 2 happen 12 years later. The only thing I can think of is a flashback from one of the other principles of chapter 1 and flashbacks are frowned upon to.

Any ideas?

The early years of a MC's life are one of the better things to put in fiction prologues. Rewrite, take out everything that you reasonably can from the earlier years, then take a good look at your book. Does the remaining early material seem more prologue-like (longer, more involved) or more flashback-like (shorter, very easily summarized)? Don't do one really long flashback unless all your beta readers rave about how well you did it.

[jamiehall]

I always read prologues, unless it's a non-fiction book.

I'm the opposite. Prologues in nonfiction tend to get read, because I've sometimes found vital information neatly summarized there, or important facts mentioned that are never mentioned again. I've found this much less often in fiction.

[BardSkye]

I don't know. But I think 12 years is a huge gap between chapters, especially chapter 1 and 2. As to why I think it would work as a prologue:

All the characters introduced there appear later in the book as characters we care about.
It is vital backstory
Events that take place there foreshadow later events.

If it's very short, maybe put it in italics at the beginning of Chapter 1?

For myself, I read prologues unless it's something like Anne McCaffrey's Pern series. Her prologue to each gives a brief history of how the society came to be. I read it the first time but don't need to read it each time.

What I don't read are poems, songs or excerpts from Galactic Encyclopaedias put at the beginnings of chapters.

[icerose]

You are missing the point. Those of us who don't read most prologues, we don't read them because the author failed to generate one that was worth reading. If you write a prologue worth reading, I will read it. I would think it's a very GOOD thing that a lot of readers skim or skip the prologue especially those poorly written ones because it's giving you the writer a second chance to impress them. So what's with the griping? If you feel a prologue is neccessary, then add one in, but make it a good one and worth my time as a reader. Don't have it be an info dump, don't have it be an irrelevant chunk of information tha has nothing really to do with the story but a passing mention and don't have something that doesn't matter until mid to end book because chances are good you will have confused the heck out of me as a reader when I start into your actual story. A prologue = prestory. I have a prologue but it is about a girl and how her father died and her childhood. The actual story begins several years later. A reader could easily skip the prologue and jump right into the story, reading the prologue adds another dimension to this character but isn't neccessary for the story to survive.

The reason why they say don't do these things is because most beginning writers who also can't craft a readable book can't do them well, which makes their book even worse. So just like a gradeschool teacher going over basic math, they push aside the harder equations such as algebra (prologues, first person) and go with the basics. So are the experts saying stick with the easier stuff, master it, study the craft, then move onto the harder stuff.

[ChunkyC]

Those of us who don't read most prologues don't read them because the author failed to generate one that was worth reading.
Precisely. If there is a tendency to skip prologues, why? Probably because in that reader's experience, the prologues they've read have added nothing to the story. That's bad writing.

Just out of curiosity, when would you include a prologue in your work? Is it something that is based on individual preferences, or are there situations where a prologue is necessary?
In the novel I'm currently shopping, I have a prologue in third person. It's a flash-forward to the climax, but gives nothing away of the resolution of the climax. It does, however, show the reader that twin brothers are going to reach a point where one is ready to kill the other, with their little sister caught in the middle. The rest of the story goes back to their childhood and shows how things got to that point, then carries on to the resolution, and is told in first person by the little sister.

Without that prologue, I believe a HUGE amount of tension would be lost. That foreknowledge colours every event in the story and if it is skipped, the reader will not experience the story the way I mean it to be experienced.

Now, in formatting the book for print (if such a wonderful thing ever comes to pass), it would be simple to just have the story start without any bold faced heading type that says PROLOGUE. You'd just have a title page, and on the next page, the first line of what I'm currently calling the prologue, with no heading above it.

At least that's how I envision it.

[farfromfearless]

That sounds like a load of arse-kibbles to me. I have read such rules before and I often hear my English teacher's voice chiming in with some stern warning or another, though as far as I'm concerned , write however you wish, communicate clearly, creatively and tell your story. Someone out there will like it, just hope that 'someone' is an agent (I am certainly not an expert).

Oh, and I'm one of those folks that reads books cover to cover - prologue and all. I actually enjoy the prologue as it's a great teaser; though I do agree - don't put any information vital to the plot in your prologue. A little back story is good; go easy on the history lesson; give me a glimpse of potential characters I might encounter later.

[Euan H.]

Generalizations are almost never true, . . .
Except that one? ;)
Even if it does work well, I don't want someone to toss it in the reject pile just because of the word 'Prologue' on the first page.
So call it Chapter 0, rather than Chapter 1. Or divide your ms. up into books, and have the first book consist of only one chapter. Or use a date (like '1974'--I think IT does this) instead of a chapter heading. Or simply have no heading at all (The Piano Tuner does this, as far as I can recall).

A prologue doesn't have to be labeled as a prologue, and if you're worried that the label 'prologue' is going to get your ms. ditched rather than the content 'prologue', then the easy thing is just to change the label. You can still keep the same content. OTOH, if it's the content 'prologue' that agents and editors are going to object to, then you'll need to start at the teen years and insert the birth somewhere else.

[Atlantis]

So many writers are so caught up in listening to all of the rules I'm amazed they're able to write anything down at all. Its one thing to follow all of the rules for submission, its another to let so called "experts" govern every aspect of your novel. If you want a prologue, have one. If you want first person, do it. The first 100 pages of my novel are almost a mini-novella in itself then I proceed into a different story all apart of the same book (Its multi-generational father and son tale) some people won't like it and I toyed with the idea of splitting with it but have decided to leave it how it is. The best thing writers can do is to let their stories evolve naturally and learn that some rules are meant to be broken.

[johnzakour]

Just chiming in:

Somebody once told me that they thought prologue was “Greek for skip this.”

When writing, I used a prologue once, didn’t like it, won’t use one again. When reading, may read it, may not read it. Depends on my mood.

As for writing in the first person, when you write humorous pulp SF detective novels, the first person just fits so much better.

Books are successful due to good writing and better marketing. I don’t think it matters much if you a prologue or write in the first person.

[Inkdaub]

I wouldn't worry about what any 'expert' claims is a rule. I wouldn't take anything an 'expert' says to heart unless they are speaking about what their experience was as opposed to what mine must be.

Write what you want. That's the only rule anyone should be worried about.

[Euan H.]

Write what you want. That's the only rule anyone should be worried about.
The only cast-iron rule you need to follow is Harlan Ellison's:

Don't write crap.

All the other are just corollaries.

[JanDarby]

For a study like this, be sure to know and check the genre. First person is virtually unheard-of in romance, but ubiquitous in chick lit. Prologues seem to happen frequently in historical romance, but not so much in contemporary romance. Epilogues, on the other hand, are fairly common in both contemporary and historical romance.

JD

[PeeDee]

Of course, all studies and experts are true and accurate. (http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728/sr=8-1/qid=1166022938/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-2280131-7676859?ie=UTF8&s=books)

[LloydBrown]

You know, I thought these grapes would be sweeter.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Norman,

There's an old saying, I don't know if you've heard it or not. But it goes: you have to learn the rules before you can break them properly. (Or something to that effect.)

I don't claim to be an expert here, but I do know that this saying is true. For example, if you don't know how a carbueretor works, you won't be able to tweak it to work more efficiently unless it's by pure chance. Like the carbueretor, so we all need to know the language and what works well, before we can effectively and properly tweak it to work more efficiently for us as writers.

I think that's the reason the experts tell us all the rules in the first place. If we don't know the rules, we won't be able to use them or abuse them, as the case may be, with any knowledge of what we're really doing. That's why the experts tell us the rules, IMO, and preach them so heavily to aspiring writers such as ourselves. It's not that they want us to fail; it's that they want us to know the ropes before we go climbing on them.

[jamiehall]

I think that's the reason the experts tell us all the rules in the first place. If we don't know the rules, we won't be able to use them or abuse them, as the case may be, with any knowledge of what we're really doing. That's why the experts tell us the rules, IMO, and preach them so heavily to aspiring writers such as ourselves. It's not that they want us to fail; it's that they want us to know the ropes before we go climbing on them.

Very true. The experts aren't out to ruin our fun, any more than agents laugh with a wicked gleam in their eyes when sending us our form rejections. The experts are telling us things that we should be aware of, even if we chose not to act on the advice. No do-gooder is more reviled than a dispenser of advice, because, deep down, none of us really want to be told to do things differently. But the world would be a far poorer place if experts never dispensed advice.

If the experts are telling us to try to omit prologues from our writing, then we should probably at least mull that advice around and think of what it means before rejecting it. If there is a significant chance that readers may skip our prologues, then, at the very least, we want to try extra-hard to write good prologues and to write the rest of the novel in such a way that a reader who skipped the prologue won't be totally lost.

[JeanneTGC]

I don't know. But I think 12 years is a huge gap between chapters, especially chapter 1 and 2. As to why I think it would work as a prologue:

All the characters introduced there appear later in the book as characters we care about.
It is vital backstory
Events that take place there foreshadow later events.

Roger, I had the same problem with mine. I was told that I was moving too quickly through the main protagonist's early years. I ended up cutting out ALL the backstory and have it ready as the outline for the prequel trilogy. (I am not kidding. I write in series and I write long and I like to be prepared.) I started the story where it truly begins, which is when all my characters are adults and several vital characters in the backstory are already dead.

Cutting out all the backstory stuff forced me to add in another couple of supporting characters into the main storyline and also forced me to dribble in the backstory throughouth. It has made the book and the entire series better. It was HARD to do, but the book is far better now.

[Kentuk]

I'm lost, how you can not read the prolouge yet read the rest of a novel? I've read some prolouges I wish I hadn't and I've quit books because of the prolouge. Iv'e never thought it could be skipped. I used to skip reading the forward until I learned to appreciate what I was missing.
I think you want the reader to invest attention, time and a degree of determination into reading your book. Wouldn't want to write a book someone might read in a hundred and twenty minutes and then toss saying "At least it was painless." I want them to say "That was worthwhile" and put the book on the shelf in anticipation of reading again.

[Inkdaub]

On prologues...why not read them? I consider them a part of the story. In fact, I love prologues and epilogues both.

Long Live 'Logues!

[J.S Greer]

You are missing the point. Those of us who don't read most prologues, we don't read them because the author failed to generate one that was worth reading. If you write a prologue worth reading, I will read it.

How do you know unless you actually read it? I can see not reading a particular authors PL if they have written poor ones in the past, but unless you actually read it in whole, then you cant say if its good or not.

I'm lost, how you can not read the prolouge yet read the rest of a novel?

Its a part of the book to me. Unless it is just atrocious, how can you skip it? Then again, why would you want to read the rest of the book if it was? :tongue

[icerose]

How do you know unless you actually read it? I can see not reading a particular authors PL if they have written poor ones in the past, but unless you actually read it in whole, then you cant say if its good or not.



I said this in a previous post but I will say it again.

I pick up a book, open to the first bit of writing, the forewords bore me to tears because it generally has nothing to do with the story, I'm not there to learn about the author, I don't read biographies unless the writer has thoroughly impressed me and I have a passing interest in their background of how they got there. Once I've read about a certain author I don't ever read about them again, what's the point?

I then go to the prologue if there is one. I read the first sentence or two. If it sucks I skip it, if it grabs me I read it, if it starts to meander at all once inside I skip it. I then go to page one where the story actually begins as most prologues are information that the story would have been better off without.

Books with prologues get a second chance at a first impression from me because of my low regard to prologues. Again I think this is in the author's best interest because otherwise I would have skipped their book all together.

I then start reading. If the writing in the main sucks I chuck it, and it is the author's fault. If the story grabs me I read on. If I get confused, I go back and try to choke my way through the prologue to see if I missed any important information that was misplaced by the author. Again, author's fault but yet another chance granted to them for their sloppy writing.

If I find my answer I continue on with the story, if I don't and am thoroughly confused I chuck it, authors fault.

Continuing on to the story if I liked it and haven't yet read the prologue I then go back and try to see what the point of the prologue was and generally find none and it really was as bad as the first two sentences led it to be.

Anyway, I don't have to justify my reasons for not reading a prologue and why, this is who I am as a reader. Don't like it? Too bad. Pray I never pick up your book and you haven't done your job. If you do your job as an author you won't have a problem with me as a reader.

I don't see why anyone cares though. If I read every book backwards.

WHO CARES?????????????????

It is my taste, my time, my chance for a bit of pleasure and escapism, it's not you the writer who dictates how I enjoy that or utilize that time. If I buy a book and read from chapter thirty through thirty five and then pass on the book that's my call. Not your's, not anyone elses, mine and mine alone. All you worry about is writing the book to the best of your ability, make it interesting, the characters complex and then send it out. That's it. Everything else is far beyond your control and it is much better that way.

Don't sweat the small stuff, write your story as you see fit, just try to comprehend why those things were put out there rather than feeling wounded because someone else said "It's best to avoid this and this and this as a beginner."

[veinglory]

I feel like maybe people aren't reading the whole thread if they don't know why many people skip prologues--which makes their incomprehension more than a little ironic.

How do I know it won't be good? How do I know I won't like a chick flick, olives, or the singing of Kylie Minogue? I tried it. But it's pretty stupid to just keep trying things that you know you'll almost never like. Even so, I often venture the first sentence before wincing and moving ruefully on.

[LloydBrown]

I used to read every bit of a book--the cover, jacket flap, everything. Now I'm very spoiler-phobic and don't want to know anything until the author reveals it to me.

However, if the author wrote it, I read it. I read prologue, epiloques, bios, glossaries, appendices, bibliographies--everything. Tolkien's backmatter has a higher word count than some novels I've read.

I am clever to realize that I am not typical, nor should I assume that I am even if I were. Therefore, my book design is based on what and how most people read (or most people within my genre). Based on the fact that most people don't read them, I wouldn't include any information necessary to my plot in the prologue (and I'm sure my editor wouldn't let me anyway, because he/she knows the same thing). If you want to write one, write it.

Just understand that not all of your readers will read it.

[victoriastrauss]

Even if it does work well, I don't want someone to toss it in the reject pile just because of the word 'Prologue' on the first page.If publishers were rejecting manuscripts just because of prologues, why would there be so many of them in published books?

Check it out. We're not just talking fantasy and science fiction here. Mysteries and thrillers frequently have prologues. So do mainstream books.

When I turned in The Burning Land, it had no prologue. My editor recommended that I include one. I didn't want to. But there are editorial suggestions you can dispute, and those that are unwise to resist, and this was one of the latter.

Since I was stuck with the prologue, I wanted to write one that would be meaningful, rather than an info dump. So I came up with something that foreshadows some of the book's important themes, and also sheds light on the psychology of certain characters--kind of like the overture to an opera. If you skipped it, would you miss part of the main story? No. But you would miss information that makes the main story richer.

I know that fantasy readers often don't care about such subtleties. If you just want magic and adventure, there's that too. Some fantasy readers like something more chewy, though, and I'm confident that they will read the whole book--prologue and all.

- Victoria

P.S. How many people pay attention to chapter headings? I'll bet a lot of you prologue-haters have read prologues and never realized it.

[TeddyG]

ohhhhhhhh a prologue discussion :D
I love these...

I happen to love prologues...(okay tar and feather me...but you will have to take a ticket and stand in line :D)

I think they are great actually. They need a lot of work, they need to be "just so" and of course I sometimes like epilogues (when they are in place) as well.

I never understood why people are so up in arms about them. Worse comes to worse think of it as another chapter!

But of course if it was up to me I would put a prologue in a short story as well! :D
(I actually did that in a 8K word short story which is being published next month.)

So YEAH! I love Prologues! :D

[icerose]

Since I was stuck with the prologue, I wanted to write one that would be meaningful, rather than an info dump. So I came up with something that foreshadows some of the book's important themes, and also sheds light on the psychology of certain characters--kind of like the overture to an opera. If you skipped it, would you miss part of the main story? No. But you would miss information that makes the main story richer.
- Victoria

P.S. How many people pay attention to chapter headings? I'll bet a lot of you prologue-haters have read prologues and never realized it.

This is the kind of prologue I would read and probably enjoy. And we hate them for good reason not because of some odd bias. And we have read them and hated them, for good reason.

Arg, never mind, there's no point in explaining all this.

[veinglory]

There really isn't. I am happy for people who like prologues, very occassionally, so do I (The Bone People comes to mind). But I do wonder at the complete and utter inability some demonstrate--to even conceive of an opinion other than their own on the matter.

[Roger J Carlson]

Anybody want to take a whack at the advisability of opening your novel with a dream sequence?

*ducking and running*

[Zonk]

I opened mine with my protag waking up from a dreamless sleep, ;) and he was still tired.

The Dreams came later. :tongue

:D:D:D

[JeanneTGC]

Anybody want to take a whack at the advisability of opening your novel with a dream sequence?

*ducking and running*

:roll: Nooooooooo!

[ChunkyC]

Since I was stuck with the prologue, I wanted to write one that would be meaningful, rather than an info dump. So I came up with something that foreshadows some of the book's important themes, and also sheds light on the psychology of certain characters--kind of like the overture to an opera. If you skipped it, would you miss part of the main story? No. But you would miss information that makes the main story richer.
Exactly! If prologues annoy readers, then the prologues those readers have read have been badly written. That's the fault of the author(s).
How many people pay attention to chapter headings? I'll bet a lot of you prologue-haters have read prologues and never realized it.
Very likely. And this hilights what I think is the major issue those who like prologues have with those who skip them. Why skip ANYTHING in the book just because of the heading? Personally, I find skipping prologues as incomprehensible as skipping Chapter 8 in every book you read because you read a few bad Chapter 8s in your time.

I have to say that I am always surprised to see how many writers don't do their fellow writer the common courtesy of reading their book the way they intended it to be read. Yes, I understand that once the book is in print it's out of the author's control, but we're writers. We know the blood sweat and tears that go into producing a novel. So if a fellow writer says they'd skip a part of a book I slaved over just because it says PROLOGUE at the top of the page, I can't help feeling hurt by that. It's like you're saying there's no way it can be good just because it has that one word at the top, like the fact I chose to put that word there marks me as an inferior writer somehow.

An author can't beg the average reader to read their prologues, or any other part of their book for that matter, but can't we writers at least do our fellow writers the courtesy of investing a few minutes of our time to read books the way they were written? If the author did their job well, you'll enjoy the book more by doing so. But if you skip any of it, that possibility is gone forever.

Just my personal feelings on the issue. :)

[willietheshakes]

Experts be damned -- my approach has always been to do what's best for the work at hand, and for me. The only measure of what's "right" is whether it works. If it does, I go with it. If it doesn't, I fix it.

[blacbird]

Most published books with prologues (labeled as such or not) don't bother me. In general, they are from skilled writers and have been through some reasonable degree of editorial insight, and it shows. The problems I've encountered with prologues (nearly always labeled as such) is in manuscript critiquing, where far too many are nothing but info-dumps, providing what the writer conceives of, incorrectly, as necessary background for the reader. This malady especially tends to afflict writers of fantasy, I've noticed.

caw

[icerose]

Very likely. And this hilights what I think is the major issue those who like prologues have with those who skip them. Why skip ANYTHING in the book just because of the heading? Personally, I find skipping prologues as incomprehensible as skipping Chapter 8 in every book you read because you read a few bad Chapter 8s in your time.

I have to say that I am always surprised to see how many writers don't do their fellow writer the common courtesy of reading their book the way they intended it to be read. Yes, I understand that once the book is in print it's out of the author's control, but we're writers. We know the blood sweat and tears that go into producing a novel. So if a fellow writer says they'd skip a part of a book I slaved over just because it says PROLOGUE at the top of the page, I can't help feeling hurt by that. It's like you're saying there's no way it can be good just because it has that one word at the top, like the fact I chose to put that word there marks me as an inferior writer somehow.



Let me try to explain one tiny little more time.

IT'S NOT THE LABEL THAT BOTHERS ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Never has, never will be. They could call it "The Page of Nothingness" and I would give it a shot just to see what it was all about.

I have given every prologue a shot to impress me and I can honestly say that only ONE, one single prologue has been able to do that.

The reason why I skip most prologues is because the opening SUCKS. REALLY REALLY SUCKS.

Please actually read my posts and you might actually understand what we are saying.

We aren't saying don't write prologues, we are saying write them well. Most aren't. They are misplaced information, info dumps, telling a dull pointless history, giving reason for feable plot points and plain bad writing.

Bad writing is bad writing is bad writing. Whether it's labeled prologue, chapter one, or chapter one hundred and fifty-two.

It doesn't matter because it's BAD WRITING. All the fault of the author.

I have 0 obligation to that author who didn't do their job. If they want me to read it as it's intended they should have done a good job at it.

End rant.

[ChunkyC]

Please actually read my posts and you might actually understand what we are saying.
I have read your posts and I was not aiming my post at you personally, ice. I was merely stating in general terms why I don't understand those people who skip prologues merely because they are prologues. You've made it clear you are not one of those people, but there are those on the boards who have stated in the various prologue threads that keep cropping up that they do skip prologues without giving them a chance. All I'm saying is I don't understand why anyone would do that. :)

[icerose]

I have read your posts and I was not aiming my post at you personally, ice. I was merely stating in general terms why I don't understand those people who skip prologues merely because they are prologues. You've made it clear you are not one of those people, but there are those on the boards who have stated in the various prologue threads that keep cropping up that they do skip prologues without giving them a chance. All I'm saying is I don't understand why anyone would do that. :)

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Roger J Carlson]

Elmore Leonard’s Ten Rules of Writing (http://www.elmoreleonard.com/index.php?/weblog/more/elmore_leonards_ten_rules_of_writing/) are said to be good advice on Making Light (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/). When Theresa or Patrick say something is good advice, I take it very seriously.

It doesn't say Write Prologues Well, it says Avoid Prologues.

That said, I always read them, can't understand why people don't, and would very much like to put one in my WIP.

[ChunkyC]

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Same here. :) < am I using this guy too much? ;)

[ChunkyC]

Leonard's rules of writing and avoiding prologues ... it all comes back to what ice said a couple of posts back:
Bad writing is bad writing is bad writing. Whether it's labeled prologue, chapter one, or chapter one hundred and fifty-two.
Judging by how many bad prologues there seem to be out there, writing a good prologue is tough. Therefore, do it well, or avoid it, especially since it seems clear there is a bit of a stigma about them. Put the proverbial gun to its head and make it earn its place in your book.

My prologue is cowering at the moment....

[icerose]

Same here. :) < am I using this guy too much? ;)

Awww, *sniff* do I feel a hug coming on? :Hug2:

Leonard's rules of writing and avoiding prologues ...

Exactly, AVOID. Not "do not do this" as many people have stated here. The experts aren't saying this is a do not, they are saying this is tough ground, tread carefully.

Judging by how many bad prologues there seem to be out there, writing a good prologue is tough. Therefore, do it well, or avoid it, especially since it seems clear there is a bit of a stigma about them. Put the proverbial gun to its head and make it earn its place in your book.

My prologue is cowering at the moment....

If all the prologues written out there had undergone this sort of scrutiny, I doubt there would be a stigma at all. Prologues have a bad stigma for a reason. They are like milk and cookies waiting for santa when the kid put salt into the cookies instead of sugar and the milk went sour from sitting out all night.

It just leaves a bad taste.

When a prologue is done well, they add such things to a story that it makes the story all that more unforgetable.

When done right prologues are amazing. However, very few have pulled a good prologue off and use them as excuses for lazy and poor writing because they aren't willing to do the work to make their story stand on it's own.

So when experts say avoid something, they say it for good reason. It doesn't mean it's off limits.

Think of it like a ski resort. There are cautions and flags and signs for the different levels. As a beginning skier, you want to start out on the bunny hills. If you started on the expert runs you would be one of the many tourists who wind up dead due to not knowing how to manuever around the more complicated twists and turns. You have to avoid not only uneven snow, steep slopes, but also wild life and trees and if you aren't real careful an avalanche as well. All of which end disasterously if you don't know what you are doing and sometimes even if you do.

So when you've learned the basics and mastered the bunny hills, then you can move your way further up the slope. That doesn't mean you can't experiment or shouldn't, it just means mind the signs and you won't get as banged up during your learning process. Once your writing bones have solidified and you have a good grasp on the techniques and process, you'll be able to try those harder slopes and conquer them.

[ChunkyC]

Awww, *sniff* do I feel a hug coming on? :Hug2:
I'm always up for a hug. :e2kissy: Well, except from one of Elmore Leonard's characters, you never know what they might be holding in the hand you can't see. ;)

[icerose]

I haven't ever read a book from Elmore Leonard. What genre does he write in?

ETA: nvm I found his website, but I would like to hear about some examples of what were in his characters' hands.

[doeraymee]

The whole "dont' read prologues" drives me bugshit. Do they also not read odd numbered chapters? or Chapter fours? But only on Tuesday, or at night, unless it's raining?

LOL (falling off chair, giggling at computer)
please please don't make me laugh like this. ... I am at work and pretending to work damnit.... I should NOT be laughing at the computer! People will know!
You wouldn't want to get me fired just before Christmas, would you?

[James D. Macdonald]

Experts be damned -- my approach has always been to do what's best for the work at hand, and for me. The only measure of what's "right" is whether it works. If it does, I go with it. If it doesn't, I fix it.

That is, as it happens, exactly what the experts say. Neither more nor less.

[ChunkyC]

Identifying the bonafide experts is the trick, though I think Jim has given us one of the main things to look for.
but I would like to hear about some examples of what were in his characters' hands.
.38 specials, shivs, other assorted tools of the bad guy's trade. The movie Get Shorty is based on the Leonard novel of the same name, perhaps you've seen it. Rumour has it Leonard liked how John Travolta portrayed mobster-turned-movie-mogul-wannabe Chili Palmer.

I have to admit I have not read one of his novels in its entirety, just bits and pieces. One thing is for certain, his reputation for writing great dialogue is well deserved, from what I have read. I've always had him on my list of authors to read. I'm gonna have to get off my duff and buy one of his novels, or at least snag one from the library ... once I get through the foot-high stack of books on my nightstand....

[icerose]

Sweet, I'll have to check him out the next time I'm at the library.

[Judg]

I, personally, always read prologues, and it never occurred to me in my wildest dreams that anyone skipped them. But apparently a large number of people do, and that is very good information to have. (Thanks, Uncle Jim.) I have a prologue in my WIP and I intend on keeping it, at least for now, but I will make sure the story can survive without it. I will also do everything in my power to make sure that those who do bother reading it are rewarded for their efforts. Something like a good appetizer before a fine meal. You might not need it to enjoy the evening, but it's oh, so good.

At least that is what I will attempt. It remains to be seen whether I will succeed.

[Roger J Carlson]

I have a prologue in my WIP and I intend on keeping it, at least for now, but I will make sure the story can survive without it. .But if your story can survive without it, why even put it in? Seems to me a prologue should be vital to the story or it shouldn't be there.

[rugcat]

You know, I read them- but I seldom like them.

[Judg]

But if your story can survive without it, why even put it in? Seems to me a prologue should be vital to the story or it shouldn't be there.

You might be right. I'll ask myself that question very seriously some time around the end of draft 2.

In the meanwhile, the tentative answer is that it will be a description of the event that happened 1000 years earlier and that sets up much of the plot. I could leave it out and just go with the characters' understanding of it. But seeing as the event itself is quite dramatic, I kind of favour putting it in. Sometime when the book has taken a more definitive form, I will ask myself whether I think the book is better with or without it. I can't answer that yet. I hope that the answer will be that it's a fine book without it and a better one with it. And if that's the case, I will include it.

I'm at least several months away from being able to answer that. Probably more, as this is my first concerted attempt at novel writing and I'm learning how much I have to learn as I go.

[ChunkyC]

I think that's a good way to approach it, Judg. May the words flow for you.

[Judg]

I think that's a good way to approach it, Judg. May the words flow for you.

Thank you, ChunkyC. Although if they're going to flow, I'm going to have to avoid this place a little more strenuously...

[D.Hall]

People don't read prologues? Who came up with that one? Why would someone skip over a prologue? I can't imagine someone paying 15 bucks for a book then skipping a prologue that's usually only one or two pages. The pro. may be vital to understanding the rest of the novel.

[Euan H.]

The pro. may be vital to understanding the rest of the novel.
I can't remember ever reading a prologue that was vital.

[icerose]

People don't read prologues? Who came up with that one? Why would someone skip over a prologue? I can't imagine someone paying 15 bucks for a book then skipping a prologue that's usually only one or two pages. The pro. may be vital to understanding the rest of the novel.

Please read all your replies and you will see a few of them answering this specific question over and over and over again.

[scarletpeaches]

I can't remember ever reading a prologue that wasn't vital...but then I don't read sci-fi or fantasy. Crime novels have prologues, as do many historical novels, biographies and literary fictions. If the author wrote it and I paid for it, the least I can do is pay the writer the courtesy of reading their words.

[veinglory]

People don't read the threads they reply to? Who came up with that one? Why would someone skip over the disussion but still add your 2c at the end? I can't imagine someone thinking we all want to hear their opinion when they are obviously skipping everything that had already been said over the last one or two pages. The prior posts may be vital to understanding the rest of the issue.

[veinglory]

I can't remember ever reading a prologue that wasn't vital...but then I don't read sci-fi or fantasy. Crime novels have prologues, as do many historical novels, biographies and literary fictions. If the author wrote it and I paid for it, the least I can do is pay the writer the courtesy of reading their words.

Perhaps you're younger, more fortunate, less widely read or less critical than some other readers out there, because otherwise we must live in different parallel universes that differ only in the quality and are somehow connected by the internet.

I think that the obligation is on the *payee* to write a prologue worth reading--why should buying a book give put any outside obligation at all on the consumer, that makes no sense. Once I have paid my money, if I use the enitire book for toilet paper the witer can still bank the check. Quite why authors who rank at having their freedom of expression constrained feel the entitlement to dictate reading habits I don't know. If I buy bread and parts are burnt I don't have to eat it--in fact the baker is lucky I don't ask for a partial refund.

I mean really, can you not for one second credit people with a little sense. We don't read them because we find them to suck. The only thing less logical than not reading part of a book you paid for is reading a part you will actively dislike. It's like paying someone to stab you with a sharp pencil.

[scarletpeaches]

Perhaps you're younger, more fortunate, less widely read or less critical than some other readers out there...

Perhaps I don't like being patronised.

Thirty years old. Fortunate? Well, that's a matter of opinion. 'Less widely read'? Oh, that makes me laugh...and as for less critical? Nah, I'm just choosy about the quality of books I read.

[Roger J Carlson]

If I buy bread and parts are burnt I don't have to eat it--in fact the baker is lucky I don't ask for a partial refund.Actually, a better analogy might be the heel of the loaf. My wife refuses to eat the heel of a loaf of bread. I cannot fathom why. It tastes exactly like the rest of the bread, so I eat it quite happily. Yet she does not. Different people have different tastes and to wonder why someone's tastes are not like yours is ridiculous.

On the other hand, I have to wonder how you know a prologue sucks until you've read it? How do you know it has little or no relevance to the rest of the story until you read that? How can you be certain you're not missing something vital because you've skipped the prologue?

The MOST logical thing, it seems to me, would be to avoid books with prologues altogether, since your experience with them has been bad. Which is why I'm troubled about putting one in my novel. I'd rather have as few "auto-reject" features as possible.

[icerose]

On the other hand, I have to wonder how you know a prologue sucks until you've read it? How do you know it has little or no relevance to the rest of the story until you read that? How can you be certain you're not missing something vital because you've skipped the prologue?

The MOST logical thing, it seems to me, would be to avoid books with prologues altogether, since your experience with them has been bad. Which is why I'm troubled about putting one in my novel. I'd rather have as few "auto-reject" features as possible.

Because we have read them, I read them and I rarely find that time spent was worth it. I don't read it all in the beginning because the opening sentences suck. Some don't make any sense so they get skipped. You don't need to drink the entire gallon to know the milk's gone sour.

As for the most logical thing, you don't get to dictate what I read and don't read. How I read, and what I like to read. I don't owe anyone anything. Not before I buy it, not after I buy it. I owe them NOTHING. This sense of entitlement is bizarre.

If you would read my post on how I read a book you would see that me skipping most prologues is a good thing. Because I don't have an auto-reject feature. In fact I give books tons of chances to impress me. Why? Because I love reading. And I have found that most despite their sucky prologues, still have worth-while stories between their covers.

So I will continue to read the books how I choose and which books I choose in any order or fashion I choose. I am perfectly capable of making up my own decisions about how I want to spend my time.

Thank you.

[ChunkyC]

Which is why I'm troubled about putting one in my novel. I'd rather have as few "auto-reject" features as possible.
A very good point, Rog.

We could replace the word prologue with any other part of your average novel, such as flashback, flash-forward, epilogue, etc. etc. etc. I think the fundamental thing is what has been brought out in this thread: the writing must be as good as it can be if you want the reader to read it and be glad they did.

The other thing is that if there is an apparent trend, it is worthwhile to examine it and determine if it is something you wish to embrace or avoid. Novelists in the twentieth century gradually moved away from the author-intrusive style of omniscient narration that was far more prevalent in earlier times, so much so that now if a new novelist tried to write in that style, they'd very likely get laughed at, or at the very least be drastically narrowing their potential audience, if their novel got picked up for publication at all.

With all that said, I certainly understand why unpublished novelists (like myself) grapple with these things. We are trying to break in and we've heard all the stories about how difficult it is. I attended a panel at a conference where the top people at Tor talked about their weekly slush pile reading sessions, in which manuscripts were often rejected in less than a minute because the first few sentences or paragraphs didn't immediately spark an editor's interest. Faced with that, it's understandable we are deathly afraid of making some error due to ignorance that could cause us to lose the one chance we might have had to get published. When we hear that there's a dislike for prologues (or whatever) out there, it's only natural to think that including one could give said editor the reason they need to turf our manuscripts and move on to the next one in the huge pile they have to wade through. (avoiding the publisher's slushpile is one of many reasons it's good to have an agent, an editor is going to be able to give much more time to an ms brought to them by a reputable agent)

With that said, all we can really do is keep on writing, keep on improving our craft, write the hell out of everything we write including grocery lists (practice is practice!), and keep on submitting to give ourselves as many chances as possible to break through.

[icerose]

I wanted to add one more point.

Here's the thing that drives me crazy.

I don't like most prologues thus I skip most prologues because they were written in such a manner that they didn't deserve to be read. My history of reading, my experiences have taught me that most prologues aren't worth reading and add nothing to the story.

I am not sitting here telling you not to read prologues, I'm not even telling you not to write prologues.

But then you guys come in and say it's not okay for me to skip them? What kind of BS double standard is that??????

And the entitlement thing. I don't feel anyone one owes me anything. I wrote a few books, so what. No one owes me to publish them because I wrote them, no one owes me an acceptance, if they do get accepted, no readers owe me to read them, no one owes me to buy them. If they buy them no one owes me on how they read them, no one owes me to even like it. They could fire back a vicious letter saying how bad it sucked and they can't believe they just wasted X amount of hours that they will never get back in their precious life and they would be fine.

No one owes me anything. If I put in a prologue and someone doesn't read it, and doesn't want to read it, I'm not going to stop them and say "Hey, I wrote that and you owe it to me to read it."

It doesn't work that way.

[icerose]

On prologues and calling them chapter one. If you are still writing it as poorly as the prologues I skip, then your book will be skipped entirely. It's all about the writing, not the title.

[JimmyB27]

I am not sitting here telling you not to read prologues, I'm not even telling you not to write prologues.

But then you guys come in and say it's not okay for me to skip them? What kind of BS double standard is that??????


I can't see any posts ordering you to read prologues, merely expressing confusion as to why you would choose not to.

On prologues and calling them chapter one. If you are still writing it as poorly as the prologues I skip, then your book will be skipped entirely. It's all about the writing, not the title.

This is exactly what I would do if I read a book with a really bad prologue, rather than just jumping over the badness to the rest of the book I would assume the poor writing would continue.

[ChunkyC]

Ice has already said she gives prologues a shot, but will skip to the main part of the book if it doesn't grab her. A reader can stop anywhere in a book if their interest flags. She could easily put it down for good before getting through the prologue, but she gives it one more shot. I think that's more than fair.

I once bought a novel that had been edited by a friend. I made it about 100 pages in, and put it down because it was boring boring BORING. Nothing was happening. The next time I communicated with my friend, I told her I couldn't get beyond that point. I even felt apologetic about it, because she is a friend and I wanted so much to like the book. (an aside: I think she did a good job, things like grammar & sentence structure were fine which is what she had been tasked to do, it was the story that didn't grab me).

Anyway, when I told her I found the book tedious and said I couldn't get past page 100, she said, "Oh, but the action really picks up around there."

Well, it was too late. Way too late, in fact. I only made it to page 100 because she had worked on it. If I had randomly pulled if off a bookstore shelf, I might not have made it past page thirty. The author had lost me long before "the good part" started.

And that's the lesson I took from that. I need to make sure my work grabs the reader right from the first sentence. Here's the first sentence from the prologue of the novel I mentioned upthread that I'm currently shopping around:
Jase flipped through the air and tumbled deep into a thicket amid cracking branches and sharp-edged foliage that lashed his cheeks and forearms ... but there was no sudden agony.
Now, I'm no James D. MacDonald (not by a long shot), but I think (hope -- pray) this sentence will make the reader want to read the next one. That's what we want, whether it's the first sentence of the prologue, or chapter one, or part three. Make every sentence compel the reader to read the next one.

[icerose]

I can't see any posts ordering you to read prologues, merely expressing confusion as to why you would choose not to.



This is exactly what I would do if I read a book with a really bad prologue, rather than just jumping over the badness to the rest of the book I would assume the poor writing would continue.

The reason why I said that is because someone would voice their perplextion, and those of us who skip over them would answer, then they would voice thier perplextion once again stating "It's part of the story, you can't skip that" type of expression, so we would state again our reasons for not reading them, and they would again voice their perplextion as if our explaination isn't good enough and unaccepable and that we should give in and start reading all prologues from beginning to end because it was "meant" to be there. That doesn't mean it's any good and often a bad prologue doesn't indicate a bad story because in prologues there are info dumps, unrelated topics, characters that never appear again or are as obscure as they can get.

And you stated that second part is another prod on how I should read. I read how I read. You don't get a say in that. I give every book a fair shot and I am a rather forgiving reader compared to the masses.

[Norman D Gutter]

Well, provide a provocative title, get a provocative thread!

The discussion herein about prologues seems to justify what the "experts" are saying, that in general prologues are a bad deal for a writer, especially for a new writer. A bunch of you as a rule don't read them, having been burned by bad ones. A bunch of others of you give them a shot, but don't really expect much of them. Still others read them 'cause you paid for them and want to get what you paid for regardless of quality (I'm in that group).

If only I hadn't seen evidence to the contrary in my store search. If in general prologues are so bad that they shouldn't be there because the won't get read, how come so many published books have them? Including books that are expected to sell though are not by big name authors?

I think I'll avoid them in the future, but keep them in my too WIPs.

[ChunkyC]

If you keep making it the best you can, Norman, there's every chance your prologue(s) will make the reader sit up and say, "now that's how a prologue should be done."

Good luck! :)

[icerose]

If you keep making it the best you can, Norman, there's every chance your prologue(s) will make the reader sit up and say, "now that's how a prologue should be done."

Good luck! :)

Exactly.

And if I had to guess how many of the bad prologues make it into the book is because the editor knows how forgiving us readers are when it comes to prologues and even if it's bad we still give the book a shot, so it matters little whether or not it's there.

Write a great one and you will get a higher percentage of readers reading it than if it is poorly written. However if you write a poor prologue and that's on the front of your manuscript, the first thing agents and editors are going to read then it raises or almost guarantees your rejection because you can bet they aren't as forgiving as I am. Remember, you can always work with your editor to add in a prologue after you are already in contract which is what I suspect is when most prologues by non-famous writers are added.

[Roger J Carlson]

If you would read my post on how I read a book you would see that me skipping most prologues is a good thing. Because I don't have an auto-reject feature. In fact I give books tons of chances to impress me. Why? Because I love reading. And I have found that most despite their sucky prologues, still have worth-while stories between their covers.

So I will continue to read the books how I choose and which books I choose in any order or fashion I choose. I am perfectly capable of making up my own decisions about how I want to spend my time.

Thank you.Icerose,

I'm sorry if it sounded like I was trying to dictate how you should read. That was not my intent. What I'm trying to do is figure out how I should write.

The business of the "MOST logical" was in response to Veinglory's statement: "The only thing less logical than not reading part of a book you paid for is reading a part you will actively dislike." I was simply taking it to the next step to say that if a person actively dislikes part of the book why read it at all? In fact, why pay for a book that has a part he or she actively dislikes?

My mention of "auto-reject" was not aimed at you, but at my perception that agents and editors may be automatically predisposed against a novel if it has a prologue.

Now, it sounds as if you dislike prologues based on experience, but you still give them a shot. A shot is all I'm asking, but I'm afraid that others won't do that. It's trite but true that in publishing you only have one chance to make a good first impression. And you may only have a few seconds to do that. I want to remove as many road blocks to publication as possible.

And yet, I have a prologue that I think would work well as a prologue. It is a pre-story that would lose a lot of impact if told in pieces or as a flashback. My fear is that an editor will look at it, see the title "Prologue", and for just a second think, "Oh, no. Not another prologue!" I don't want even that tiny bit of prejudice to color their experience.

So the reason I asked the questions I did was not to challenge you, nor to dictate to you, but to understand why you feel that way. That understanding helps me as a writer.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

People don't read the threads they reply to? Who came up with that one? Why would someone skip over the disussion but still add your 2c at the end? I can't imagine someone thinking we all want to hear their opinion when they are obviously skipping everything that had already been said over the last one or two pages. The prior posts may be vital to understanding the rest of the issue.


I will sometimes do that, but only to answer the OP. Then I'll go back and read other people's responses afterward.

[icerose]

It's okay Roger, it's one of those situations where I needed to step back and not take it as a personal response.

All I can tell you is write it well. If the writing is good the agents and editors won't care what you call it. That's why writers are warned against prologues.

It is far too often used as a crutch to carry an already thin story over, or a place to dump information, or to place a scene of two obscure or never seen characters where only the original author finds relevance. These prologues are the ones that give the good ones bad names. I also hate it when prologues are a snippet of a later part of the book. I mean what's with that? Why would you repeat yourself? They often have secondary or minor characters champion the prologue so you fall in love with that character then are forced to completely switch gears.

The one that I loved was done fabulously. It was prestory. It took place before the main of the story and belonged in the prologue. It added such a dimension and understanding and personality that the book wouldn't have otherwise been. This one even had a minor character, but it was a foundation character. It was the hero who had been before, his journey, most of it was glossed over narrative, but it was done in such a way that it sucked you right in. And then it got to the current point in time on chapter one. To show you how much I was impressed by that prologue, I can still remember it but not the title of the book. (I am terrible with names.)

If the information is relevant, if it belongs in the prologue and not just because you say it belongs there, but it really belongs outside of the story but is important for the story, then it belongs in the prologue. If it belongs inside of the story it goes in the body, just as the epilogue is after the story or outside of the story but at the end, then it exists.

I myself have a prologue for one of my stories. The story doesn't absolutely need it to make sense, but it does need it to add that extra dimension to my main character. It's how she began, how her father and mother died and how she was thrust out into the world. The actual story begins years later and this event exists outside of the story, thus it is prologue material, I do, however, treat it as if it were my first chapter, my first chance at impressions rather than an after thought or dumping ground and I hope that makes all the difference.

[Roger J Carlson]

The other thing I notice is that there are a lot of diverse thoughts on:

whether people read prologues or not
elements that make a bad prologue bad.
whether agents and editors are prejudiced against prologues.
But what I'm not seeing is a discussion of what makes a GOOD prologue?

ETA: Cross-posted with icerose who coincidentally decided to discuss the very thing I said hadn't been discussed. Go figure.

[icerose]

ETA: Cross-posted with icerose who coincidentally decided to discuss the very thing I said hadn't been discussed. Go figure.

Hehehe, I'm sneaky like that.

[Euan H.]

I can't remember ever reading a prologue that wasn't vital...but then I don't read sci-fi or fantasy. Crime novels have prologues, as do many historical novels, biographies and literary fictions.
Yes, I know lots of novels have prologues. But ones that are vital? As in not reading the prologue means you can't understand the book? No, I've not read one like that. (At least, not as far as I can remember.)

If prologues are vital (as you're saying), then that means veinglory and other people who don't read prologues don't understand any of the books they read . . . which is plain silly.

Prologues IMO should serve the same function as movie trailers. They're there to whet the appetite. A good prologue will be detailed enough so I know what's going on--but also mysterious enough so that it propels me into the rest of the book.

[Kentuk]

Prolouge, preface, introduction, dedication, forward, title page, table of contents...hmmm a lot of crap can squeeze in front of a story. It pays to chose wisely and write well.

[icerose]

I don't know if this is considered a prologue or what but I bought a book today and it was based solely on the prologue. It wasn't titled prologue so I can't say it with any certainty if it was or not.

The book title is "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell" By Susanna Clarke. I have never read one of her books before and it was spine out. The cover is a beautiful shade of a matte finished earthy read, but the weird title and the color caught my eye.

So I picked it up and turned past the table of contents and saw a sketch of an old man and below it is written:

"He hardly ever spoke of magic, and when he did it was like a history lesson and no one could bear to listen to him."

Then after that it goes right into the story. And I was hooked. I'll tell you later whether or not it was vital, important, or otherwise interwoven into the book but it did it's job, it hooked me, got me to buy it and I can't wait to read it.

That is a good prologue.

[JeanneTGC]

I don't know if this is considered a prologue or what but I bought a book today and it was based solely on the prologue. It wasn't titled prologue so I can't say it with any certainty if it was or not.

The book title is "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell" By Susanna Clarke. I have never read one of her books before and it was spine out. The cover is a beautiful shade of a matte finished earthy read, but the weird title and the color caught my eye.

So I picked it up and turned past the table of contents and saw a sketch of an old man and below it is written:

"He hardly ever spoke of magic, and when he did it was like a history lesson and no one could bear to listen to him."

Then after that it goes right into the story. And I was hooked. I'll tell you later whether or not it was vital, important, or otherwise interwoven into the book but it did it's job, it hooked me, got me to buy it and I can't wait to read it.

That is a good prologue.

I believe this was her first book, so that might be why you hadn't heard of her before.

And, I don't think that's called a prologue. I do something like that with one of my novels, and I'm positive I was told it was something else. But I can't come up with what that something else is called.

[icerose]

I believe this was her first book, so that might be why you hadn't heard of her before.

And, I don't think that's called a prologue. I do something like that with one of my novels, and I'm positive I was told it was something else. But I can't come up with what that something else is called.

Whatever it is, she did a great job.

[JeanneTGC]

Whatever it is, she did a great job.

So I've heard and her sales have shown. And it's a huge book, too, from a first-time author. Giving hope to those of us out there who write "long". :D

[James D. Macdonald]

I believe this was her first book, so that might be why you hadn't heard of her before.

And, I don't think that's called a prologue. I do something like that with one of my novels, and I'm positive I was told it was something else. But I can't come up with what that something else is called.

It's called an epigram.

Susanna Clarke had three previous short-story sales.

[icerose]

It's called an epigram.

Susanna Clarke had three previous short-story sales.

Well thank you for that information James, so still no prologue examples from me, but I know I like this epigram. :D

[James D. Macdonald]

Heck, here's the prologue to one of my own books: http://www.sff.net/people/doylemacdonald/POTSHEAD.HTM

[JeanneTGC]

It's called an epigram.

Thank you!

[aruna]

Susanna Clarke had three previous short-story sales.

She was also in publishing before she sold this book, and had many contacts. I think she was writing it for ten years! I've heard it's a fantastic book. Though I love long books, I probably won't read it, which I know is silly. Ever since Harry Potter I've been on strike against magic.

[icerose]

She was also in publishing before she sold this book, and had many contacts. I think she was writing it for ten years! I've heard it's a fantastic book. Though I love long books, I probably won't read it, which I know is silly. Ever since Harry Potter I've been on strike against magic.

I have reached page 100 so far and I suggest it to you Aruna. It starts out with a stuffy gentleman society of magic who only study magic and don't actually perform it, then an even stuffier and much more reclusive man steps forward revealing he can actually practice it. It does not have the glitz and glamor, it is not for kids, it is dry british writing much like Jane Austen.

In short, I think you would like it.

[scarletpeaches]

JS&MN doesn't have a prologue - it's the front page of Volume One, with a quote from the book on it. Each volume of the novel has the sketch/quote format.

Many books have quotes to start them off, either from the book itself or other people; doesn't make it a prologue though.

[icerose]

Many books have quotes to start them off, either from the book itself or other people; doesn't make it a prologue though.

Yeah, Uncle Jim explained it's an epigram.

[Euan H.]

The book title is "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell" By Susanna Clarke.
And just as a total side-track into irrelevancy*, that's a damn good book, and if you don't have it, you should buy a copy. Really. I wish more fantasy was written like that.

*Although thinking about it, talking about good books on a writers' board isn't really irrelevancy, is it?

[J.S Greer]

So I've heard and her sales have shown. And it's a huge book, too, from a first-time author. Giving hope to those of us out there who write "long". :D

Finally!!!:D

[icerose]

And just as a total side-track into irrelevancy*, that's a damn good book, and if you don't have it, you should buy a copy. Really. I wish more fantasy was written like that.

*Although thinking about it, talking about good books on a writers' board isn't really irrelevancy, is it?

I know, I've been reading into the night two nights in a row since I got it. So far I am beyond hooked and she has done a fine job.

The author intrusions threw me off at first but I figured she was writing like the old school british did where if they thought of something relevant or that needed to be explained like how the cathedral looks and feels on the streets of Britian then they pop in and say "And I feel my readers need to know..." or "I need to impress upon my readers..."

She handled it rather well, but it was unexpected.

[ChunkyC]

My list of books to read just keeps growing and growing.... :) < there he is again!

[Judg]

Heck, here's the prologue to one of my own books: http://www.sff.net/people/doylemacdonald/POTSHEAD.HTM

Not having read the book, to me this feels like a first chapter. I can practically hear the fire door slamming. What makes it a prologue?