I didn't tell anyone what to write or not write, I'm just giving my own viewpoint and practices, as a reader and writer, when it comes to prologues. That's what the OP asked for, after all.
True. Absolutes in writing advice tend to annoy me, generally. Most of the advice that I've seen posted on these forums against prologues - at least from people I respect - has been in response to specific questions that, in many case, are examples of how NOT to use a prologue - such as, "I want to write this great story but there's all this history that comes before it" or "I'm writing this great novel in which I've created this incredible new world with its own laws of physics" or "I want to explain this new and different race where people grow younger instead of older and there are no genders". But one of the interesting aspects of forums like this is the swiftness with which measured, specific advice - "I wouldn't write that prologue" morphs into "I wouldn't read any prologue". It even sometimes happens with specific individuals, usually in the escalating heat of debate.
I love that people say "as a rule I always/never/don't ..." This is not to bash on those people, but I hardly find it necessary to do a number of the things I've seen people list "as a rule." In fact, I rarely do anything "as a rule." Every instance belongs to itself and every book, movie, poem, etc. to itself, and I just find it difficult to presume I can make a general rule for all cases. I may acquire new dispositions that guide me, but I find it more profitable to make allowances and take chances on things than to shut things out entirely. But that's just me.
I know exactly what it is. I didn't need you to explain it. I chose the more concrete interpretation because it best served my purpose. I still try to avoid such qualifiers because they lead to trouble (and that's all I'll say). Again, no offense, but I stand by what I said.
I didn't participate in the poll. A poll is worthless for conveying my opinions with respect to prologues. But I have discussed the pros and cons in many threads. Reading existing threads may require more effort, but it's the only way to find meaningful answers.
I wouldn't put down a book just because it has a prologue; I think that's incredibly sad that one would do that, the prologue might be really good and necessary. As long as it's a good story I don't care if there's a prologue or not. My novel has one - I wrote most of the novel then went back and wrote the prologue. Can't say for sure whether it will stay, but am not sure how to include the events otherwise as it takes place 12 years before the rest of the plot. The way I see it, if the reader didn't want to read the prologue and skip to chapter one then they can, but they're at a disadvantage.
Really? Really? You would completely discount the idea of reading a book purely because it has a prologue? Without knowing what the prologue's about, or why it's been included, or even how good the story and quality of writing is. Really? Sounds like you really hate prologues. That would be like me picking up a book and seeing it was about a guy called Roger and then me going "Ugh, I hate the name 'Roger', I'm not reading this crap" and putting it back on the shelf. It might be a great story, you never know. And, just as I could pretend that Roger was called Dave, you could just skip the prologue. It confounds me that someone would not consider reading a book based on something as trivial as a prologue.
You're free to be confounded. When I'm in the bookstore, I usually end up with eight or ten books under consideration, of which I'll buy a couple at any given time. I've read enough bad prologues that seeing one is a strike against the book, and when I'm trying to decide between a number of books, I may well put one back because of a prologue. Whether or not anyone else approves of the practice is of no interest to me, since I'm the one buying the books. If you want to buy some books for me, I can give you my paypal address and I promise to be prologue-neutral in all my purchasing decisions with those funds.
I think the main consideration here should be whether or not an author should worry about readers who won't read the prologue (or book because it has one). IMO, the answer is no. Not every book will appeal to every reader, and there are as many reasons why as there are readers.
People should write what they want. The only reason I can think of to worry about readers who skip prologues and go on to read the rest of the book is that if you put crucial information in the prologue, and enough people skip it and miss that info, you might end up with some bad reviews from people who found the story was missing something. It would be their own fault, but that doesn't help you as the author when you're trying to sell a book and people are reviewing it negatively.
Books will get bad reviews and from people who only read the first couple of chapters, regardless of its having a prologue or not. It's not a big enough worry, IMO, to base the decision on.
No story requires a prolog. But a particular telling of a story might. For what it's worth, I see prologs as completely neutral. A good writer will use them well; a bad writer won't.
