What makes you put a book down?

Hi,

There are very few books I put down, but one I disinctly remember is Norman Spinrad's The Men In The Jungle. Its a truly horrible work, not because of the writing but because of the characters - pure scum from start to finish, and I simply couldn't go on reading about rape, murder and cannabalism etc. Its still sitting on my shelves and I have no intention of ever picking it up again.

Another would be the Gap series by Stephen Donaldson, and I'm a huge fan of his. But he clearly has a depression problem, and by the middle of the second book I simply gave up. I came to the point where I decided the only way any of these people could find some sort of redemption was by committing suicide. It wouldn't matter if every wrong done to them or by them was fixed, if the entire galaxy bowed down to them, if they found true love, ultimate wealth or immortality, nothing could overcome the nightmare of their past. The woman for example had managed to get her entire family killed. How do you move past that?

Cheers.

 

I liked the Gap books

 

Steerpike, out of pure curiousity, why is the prologue an instant killer? While many prologues are just rambling, show-not-tell backstory, I've read some gripping prologues...like in horror novels for example....

 

Prologues aren't automatially bad, but most of the time the book is better off without them.

The sooner you enter the story, the better. Not the back story, or "what you need to know before we begin", or "coming attractions."

It's usually better to step right into the story, and pull in pieces from "outside" only as needed and in small, carefiully chosen tidbits. It's better to have the reader a little off balance and full of questions than laden with unneeded answers to questions not yet asked.

Write story, not backstory.

 

^This

And when I am at the bookstore I am usually deciding between a handful of books that look interesting, so the ones with prologues usually go back on the shelf first because I know from experience that many prologues are poorly written and not needed, so they irk me

 

But many prologues doesn't mean all prologues. So why judge the book by the fact alone that there is a prologue, when it may have been one of the times it was a good one? Sure, it may not happen often, but it's not as though it takes you more than a few minutes to read the prologue and decide if the author has handled the prologue properly.

I guess I'm just on the other end of the spectrum. I like it when a book has a prologue. I have yet to find a book where the blurb on the back does it justice. By reading the prologue, you can learn more about an author's stylization and experience and make a better judgement on whether it is a good buy.

 

I don't read the blurb. I will scan the prologue sometimes. A prologue tells me that the book starts somewhere other than where the story starts.

 

I agree, To me it's not the presence or absence of a prologue that tells you if it's a good book. If the prologue is poorly written the entire book is probably too, so that wouldn't necessarily mean all books that has prologues are bad. There are many poorly written books too, (even those that doesn't contain one) and few people would stop reading books just because of that, I think.

 

It's not just a matter of being poorly written. Many prologues are completely unnecessary and the author should simply start the book where the story begins - at Chapter 1.

 

To me, prologues are more an internal-advertising tool than a story-deliver tool. If I see a prologue, I figure the writer doesn't trust their story or abilities alone are good enough to keep me engaged, and instead need to try to advertise the story to me. If your story needs a promo AFTER I've already picked up the book and have access to Chapter 1, then I don't trust the writer, and put the book down.

It's akin to the sort of people that say 'the funniest thing happened to me' and then explain they're about to tell you a funny story and how funny it is and man it's going to be funny... as if they're avoiding actually telling the story, knowing it's not funny, and it usually isn't (in part because it's undermined by the buildup).

Something interesting is interesting without needing to set it up by saying it's interesting. A good joke is funny without needing to preface it by saying 'boy, you're going to laugh at how funny this joke is.' And a good novel is good without the writer needing to write some awkward promo to convince you to keep reading.

Often, what happens, is the prologue is just the interesting part of the story 60 pages in (or the actual end of the novel!) that the writer should have STARTED the novel with, but instead it's like an IOU for being interesting. Hey, I owe you the interesting plot point I just hinted at in my prologue, but first let me spend 50 boring pages working up to anything interesting and engaging.

No thanks.

And no, I've never read a single prologue that was worth having. At worst, they're like above, at best, they're redundant and unnecessary. But to me, either way, they're reasons to put the book down.

 

^^^^That's sad. I've read some pretty good prologues.

Written word is enough to make me put a book down.

 

I think that is part of it as well.

The very fact you have a prologue in a book means the writer has decided that point "x" should be Chapter 1, the true start of the story proper. And has then said "But hey, maybe I need to throw in this other stuff BEFORE the story..."

Just start where the story starts

The word "prologue" itself means something like "speech before," if you look at the roots. Speech before what? Before the action? Before the important stuff? Just start with the important stuff.

 

Me too, I actually like prologues (surprise, anyone ) both writing them and reading them. And I have read many good ones. Sometimes when i get the first ideas for a novel it starts with just one particular scene and what happens after that or under certain circumstances, so in that case I make that specific scene the prologue and then I just keep writing from there. It feels right, but I have written equal number of novels without it as with it. Sometimes it just feels right, I don't know why that is. Starting the first chapter that way would be weird. I guess when I just have a general idea for a novel I just start writing without any need for one.

 

I'm the opposite. I don't see starting that as Chapter 1 as being weird. If that's where the story starts, to me it is weird to make it a prologue Different tastes.

 

What's wrong with trying to capture someone's attention right from the start? People generally don't have very long attention spans, which is why an artist needs to capture their audience's attention immediately. A prologue is a good way to do this, as long as it is done right. I think you are using bad prologues and poor writing as a reason why you shouldn't use prologues and instead start with chapter one. But there's nothing worse than trying to make a prologue into the first chapter. It almost always sounds out of place and nonsensical.

A prologue can be used as a good lead in tool. Making a blanket statement that all prologues are bad makes it sound like a rule. As we all know, there are always exceptions to every rule.

 

Why not capture their attention at the start of Chapter 1? If you need a prologue to capture attention, then Chapter 1 probably needs a revision.

 

but what if that scene would be chapter one but starting 15 years before that, still told as if it was happening right now and not as a flashack? if it was that particular event leading up to the story, a complete scene with dialogue and all, not exactly the traditional "Info dump", and the continue was several years after that? wouldn't it be strange calling it chapter one and chapter two? I mean for the time that pass before it goes on... I can't help but feeling a little weird about it. Maybe because I can't recall one book that has begun that way without a prologue But I mean, if the text is the same, what difference does it make if I call it prologue or chapter one? I can't understand why it would be so annoying.

 

Yes, I've seen that done and it is one area where I feel more positive about a prologue. But I've read books where there is a Chapter 1 and then many years pass between that chapter and Chapter 2, and that seemed to work just as well. I guess it comes down to subjective feeling about it. On the whole, I don't know that too many people would be completely put off by the jump between Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, but quite a few people seem to be put off by prologues, so from a standpoint of attracting the most readers, the former may be better. But it may be just me!