That maybe true when it comes to saying "agents and publishers don't like." It was the same in the italics for thoughts thread where several people asserted the same thing. But it's not necessarily false to say some people find prologues off-putting. Clearly readers have had experiences with prologues that make them problematic. That's a red flag to proceed with caution, but don't be afraid to include a prologue if after careful consideration you think it works in your piece and you think you've done it right. So says the writer who has a prologue, flashbacks and italics for thoughts in my first novel.
Not really, it's just a misunderstanding of what hearsay is. If someone is relaying their own opinions about something, or relating their own experiences, that's not hearsay.
You're a lawyer, you're likely to have a pedant's view of the word, hearsay. I just took it to mean repeating something word of mouth when the source of the 'fact' is lost in the grapevine.
Nah, I was using it in a more colloquial sense. If I were talking about the legal definition, I'd say its something like "an out of court statement presented into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." At least, that's pretty close to the rule. But what I mean with respect to the above is if you have statements provided by agents or editors about how they feel about something, or their experience in the industry, or if you have a person blogging their experiences in trying to get an agent, that's not really hearsay. They're relating something based on personal experience. If I say "My aunt Sally heard in her book club that agents don't like prologues," that's more like what I'd consider hearsay in a colloquial sense.
I didn't disagree with your interpretation of the vocabulary. I'm just saying, the meaning of his sentence was still clear, 'repeating something word of mouth when the source of the 'fact' is lost in the grapevine'.
Yes, I think that makes sense. Interestingly (not that it has anything to do with this thread), from a legal perspective, the same exact statement could be hearsay or not, depending on what you're trying to do with it. For example, if you told someone John is Melissa's father, and that someone attacks John because they believe he has abandoned his daughter, then: 1) the statement would be excluded at trial as hearsay if you tried to introduce it to prove that John is in fact Melissa's father; but 2) the exact same statement could be admitted at trial to show the state of mind of John's attacker (i.e. not to prove that John is actually Melissa's father, but to demonstrate that the attacker thought he was). How's that for pedantic?
I've spent a deal of time asking myself why this issue of prologues matters to me so much. Why is it a red-line issue for me? I'm normally pretty easy-peasy about writing, and do accept that folks like different things, etc. So why does this issue always get my back hair up? I think it's because it boils down to prejudice. Prejudice is deciding ahead of time what something (or someone) will be like and rejecting it on that basis. It has nothing to do with the quality (or lack of quality) of any particular prologue (or person.) It has to do with what you assume a prologue (or person) will be like, based on a label. What makes this issue particularly insidious is that somehow, this particular prejudice has now become a 'rule' in the eyes of many. You shouldn't write prologues. Why? Well because some agents don't like them. Why? Because some readers don't like them. Why? Well, because some readers think they will be boring. Why? Because they've been told they are boring, or have read some boring ones. Where does this pandering to prejudice end? What is the lowest common denominator here? I don't like reading stories about teenaged superpower heroes (because I find them boring!) but I would never tell somebody that they shouldn't write one. So why do some people think it's okay to tell other people they shouldn't write prologues? There is nothing wrong with learning what makes an effective prologue, or learning what can make a prologue boring to read. But just rejecting all prologues because they might be boring, or because you are sure (beforehand) what they will contain? Heck, some books are boring. Does that mean we should quit reading? Surely—as writers—we should beware of encouraging writing prejudices of any kind. AND we should learn to recognise these prejudices and not turn them into rules. Otherwise, we are on the road to being told what we shouldn't write and shouldn't read. Is that what we want literature to become?
Hi, For me I'll always read the prologue. It's just a part of the story - in my view the set up that helps explain it - and I wouldn't think of starting a book at say chapter two. I won't always read author's notes. Some are fascinating - especially the ones that try to explain some of the science behind things. Some are fun - Piers Anthony's for example as he tells you about what's going on in his life. But some are disturbing - Robert Heinlein springs to mind. Cheers, Greg.
@jannert - who is making a rule out of it? The OP asked for subjective preferences, and it looks to me like that's where most of the discussion resides.
There have been many people on the forum over the years I've been a member here who assert that you shouldn't write prologues because agents don't usually like them. Or you shouldn't write them because you should be including prologue information within other chapters, or call the whole thing Chapter One, or whatever. As far as I'm concerned, these are stated as if they are 'rules,' which need to be followed or you're unlikely to get published if you're a first-time writer. This may well be true, BUT it's based on prejudice about prologues. It's the prejudice I'm bothered about. I am not in a position to go through all the millions of posts on the subject and start quoting them, but I'm sure you've seen them the same as me. Your own partial quote from this particular thread: Agents are often asked about the things that make them pass on partials or complete manuscripts. When agents who represent fantasy/sci-fi get this question, they often remark on prologues. Simply put, most agents hate prologues. Why? Mainly because prologues: Only serve as an excuse to drop into the action of a key conflict or world-defining event...and this is automatically bad because...? Offer unnecessary backstory that could be worked into the novel - this is a valid objection, but not all prologues do this. Often show the POV of secondary characters ...and this is bad, because? It can be a great way to get the reader up to speed when the story starts. And some excellent novels employ the POV of a secondary character throughout. Notice how similar those are to the reasons fantasy authors like prologues?" So, this is all anecdotal, based on things I've heard or read from authors, agents, and editors over the years, and also on things I've heard in discussions with people who are simply readers and not writers. Doesn't mean you shouldn't use a prologue if that is your vision for a work - you have to write the book the way you want to write it. But it doesn't make any sense to pretend that there aren't plenty of people out there who don't like prologues, including agents who may pass on a book when they see one and readers who may read the book but skip the prologue entirely. This judgement of theirs is based on prejudice about what they think any prologue will be like. Prejudice is rejecting a book before you read it. Just because agents do it, doesn't mean it's not prejudice. Every story is different. So why not concentrate on getting writers to write good prologues? The problem isn't prologues. It's cack-handed use of prologues. And the frequently repeated advice that prologues are BAAAAAD, and should be eliminated because people think they are BAAAAAD and won't read them. What percentage of agents, editors, or readers this group makes up, I don't know. I've never seen anyone study the issue to produce that kind of data. But I've seen the advice so often that I don't think it is an anomaly either. I've read plenty of bad prologues from aspiring writers, and more than a few in published books, that shouldn't have been there. My advice when it comes to prologues is to ask yourself whether it really is necessary, in an absolute sense (which I think is never the case, personally, but that's another discussion), this is exactly what I mean ...how on earth can you say that? Surely each story stands on its own merit. If you decide ahead of time that a prologue is not necessary, then that is prejudice! and if it isn't strictly necessary, then whether it is important enough to you to put up this detour for the reader to follow before getting to real start of your story, which is probably chapter 1. If it's simply a detour it's probably not a good prologue. Thinking every prologue is a detour is prejudicial! After all, there is a reason you called it Chapter 1, and more often than not it's because you know that is where the story begins. It's where the present-day story begins. But knowing something extra before the present day story begins is NOT ALWAYS A BAD THING. To think it is, is prejudice. What I'd really like to see more of (on this forum) is how to write good prologues, and when a prologue can enhance a story ...instead of 'I never read them, people shouldn't write them, your chances of publication are lessened if you write them,' etc. My post above is simply to underline that automatically rejecting prologues simply reinforces prejudice. And takes a very useful tool out of the writer's tool box, if the writer succumbs to this currently fashionable pressure.
@jannert I'm on my phone, so I'll post a more complete response later, but when I say a prologue is never necessary, what I mean is that there are always other options. You can take any prologue and work that same information into the story in another. In fact, most of the choices a writer makes about how to approach a story aren't strictly necessary, they are the author's chosen path from the myriad paths available. That's how I'm using the word necessary. Not to say in that given book the prologue might not be critical to an understanding, but simply to point out that at the time of writing there are always other options.
There are always other options, no matter what you write. The trick is to choose the best option for your style and your story. Sometimes a prologue IS the best option. Sometimes not. People (agents, readers, publishers) should get into the habit of judging a story as written. To do otherwise is succumbing to prejudice. Judging ahead of time. Pre-judice. "You can take any prologue and work that same information into the story in another (way)." No, you can't. For example, if the reader needs to know something at the very beginning of the story, you can't just work it in later—especially if it's something the POV characters don't know themselves. It might have happened in the past, or to another group of characters, or in another locale. You can't even use flashbacks (another thing some agents hate) because a character can't flash back to something they never knew about in the first place. And calling this Chapter One (so prejudiced people will be fooled into reading it) can be misleading, because the chapter won't fit with Chapter Two and the others. It will be essential information, but it will be different in some way from the rest of the book. Calling it Prologue signals this is the case. Calling it Chapter One does not. People spend a lot of time standing on their heads trying to avoid a prologue, when in many instances, it's the simplest and most engaging way to get essential information across at the very beginning of a story. Yes there are other options, but they are not always better. I am a huge advocate of learning to write good prologues. Same as good chapter ones, good endings, good middles, etc. They can truly enhance a story, if the writer knows what he or she is doing. Boring, unnecessary, peripheral, info-dump, detour, are not characteristics of good prologues. The trick is to consider all options as an author, then make the best choice. It's nice if the readership trusts you enough to give your choice a chance—without prejudice.
@jannert you agreed that there are always other options, but then when I said you can always take the prologue and work the information into the story in some other way, you can't 'New Member Quick Start
So if I go to edit my post, above, I see all the text there. But on my screen it shows a link to the quick start guide
@Steerpike - for some reason this thread is behaving weirdly for me as well.... I just tried to reply to one of your posts, and had another one pop up instead. Maybe this is the software telling me/us to shut up? Anyway, while I don't want to split too many semantic hairs over exactly what was said and meant, I do wonder how you would work information into a story 'some other way' that needs to be known by the reader right at the start. Especially if this particular information is not known to the POV characters. I can think of one or two other ways to do this, but none better than a prologue. And none of them seem worth the pretzel I'd make of myself trying to avoid calling it a Prologue, simply to avoid anti-prologue people from rejecting it out of hand. By declaring you won't read a prologue because there are always 'better' alternatives, or that you won't consider a book that begins with a prologue for publication (if you're an agent) then you're allowing prejudice to dictate how somebody 'should' present a story. I think that's not a good thing.
Wow, a firestorm of posts. Okay, I started this poll because I've recently completed the 3rd edit of my 73K novel and I have an Author's Note at the beginning. As I was getting ready to query agents, I noted several blog posts that frowned on Author's Notes and/or Prologues and wondered if my 'Author's Note' would do me a disservice -- that is, turn off prospective agents before they even read the first chapter. This morning I read all the posts in this thread and I'm still not sure if I should include the Author's Note or not -- I think I'll print the AN and first chapter, sit it aside for a week or so, then re-read for context. I thought of posting the AN and Chapter 1 in the workshop and link it here -- I may do that. Not sure if that's appropriate.
I'm not sure, but I don't think author's notes are usually part of the query process? That's something you'd add in later, like a Table of Contents or Index, while the thing is getting set up for publication.
When it comes to a prologue, you can make plenty of arguments either way, as you've seen. Personally, I wouldn't send the author's note to the agent or editor when you submit. That seems more like something you decide closer to publication. To me, when you submit you hit them with the story straight off, not with commentary.
Yes, it's a sticky situation -- The AN, as I used it, is to set "that which the character(s) would never know" before hand, but the reader should know going in. If the character(s) knew this, let's call it ideology or -ism, before hand, then they would have not allowed themselves to become "slaves"...
Also, as between a author's note and prologue, I think you'd be better off writing it as a prologue. I'm not sure I've ever bothered to read author's notes, and my guess is that a lot of readers are going to skip right over it. If the information is absolutely crucial, you're going to hamstring the novel. At least with a prologue there will be a decent number of people who read it. I'm not convinced that even a majority of readers read author's notes.
