Yeah, I hear a lot about publishers not being too keen on prologues these days. I like to use them a lot of the time, but I keep them short: just enough to tempt but not enough to bore.
Okay, and introduce the "backstory" in bits and pieces? Also, could I add the complete backstory as a sort of a "bonus" in my book?
If everything flows from the nature of his birth, then, yes, that's important. Can you do it in a compelling scene? No more than two pages? Grippingly written? Then, I would do it that way. But don't call it a prologue.
Maybe when the character has a bad dream? Then he wakes up and the scene changes? Or, I might have a place to put it in the chapters. 1. 1 gets knocked out 2. 1 talks with 2 later about 1's dream that 1 had when 1 was unconscious what do ya think?
That's one way. If another POV character was there, you can describe it that way without using a dream sequence.
The only character that was there was the evil character, and 1 doesn't know of the evil character, as he was basically "inactive", in a way.
I think backstory is best worked into the story itself, whether through dialogue or exposition, and not in infodumps - so yeah, work it in a bit at a time. And don't overdo it, in my opinion. As the writer, you'll know a lot more about the characters and world than the reader will ever need or want to know. If you want to have an appendix with all the backstory and worldbuilding in it, I think that's fine. I never read those, but some people do.
This sounds very much like the theme of Orphan Black. It's towards the end of the first episode before we even get a hint about the backstory, and halfway through the first series before it is explained, and even then only partially. Point being, it's much more gripping to have an unexplained mystery somewhere in there, rather than telling the reader everything at the first available opportunity.
It's not always the case, either, but try to include back-story in parts. Spread it out, like you're feeding your story on a drip. Stories with chunks of character description, back-story, and continuous actions are like paint by number.
So, combining the mixed signals I'm getting, could I leave 1's origin story until the very end, where 2 tells him hestitantly? Or should I wait until later?
So in a sense it's like getting to know a person, yeah? They don't tell you all about their birth from the outset. Instead you do things together and then, over time, trust is built, or circumstances trigger accounts of past events, and after a while you get a sense of the person, but also learn about where they come from, etc.
Okay, I will scrap the idea of a prologue, but I will still keep the prologue "chapter" handy, just in case an opportunity that I may use the information arises. I now have a idea of what to do. Thanks, all of you.
Yeah, you should keep portions of your work you remove just in case they come in handy. But don't try to crowbar them into your story. If it doesn't work it doesn't work.
There's no requirement for a prologue. But I do wish people would quit saying there's this "bias" against them among agents, since I have yet to see that from other than a handful of agents and a whole lot of people who say there's a bias without offering proof. As to when you disclose your character's origins, you have to look at the story and determine when it's necessary for the reader to know. When does not knowing create curiosity and a need to continue to satisfy it, and when does it create frustration and confusion and a need to toss the book across the room? Before it gets to the latter, you'd better let them in on it.
"Well, when a man points a gun at your head, it's only prudent to assume it's loaded." - MacGeorge Bundy in "The Missiles of October". I can only say that the matter was discussed at the pitch conference I recently attended, and one editor in particular was rather emphatic about it. This is the view of someone in the field, so I will take that as a pretty good guide until such time as I hear from agents or editors who opine to the contrary. In my own, purely non-scientific sampling of recent works in the genres I like to read, I have seen only one with a beginning that could be considered a prologue and, as noted above, it was not labeled as such. YMMV. More to the point is how best to present one's work. BTW, @shadowwalker, I love the Zelazny quote in your signature.
Bolding mine. This is exactly what I mean. Do you read one author's opinion on how to write a book and decide that's the only way one should write? Of course not. A few people say something and suddenly it's The Truth. If prologues were universally hated by agents and editors, why are books still published that have them? There's a big break in logic - and fact - in such statements. Again, you found one author and that author [possibly] lied about the prologue, so all should. No. This lie is because of the misperception that books with prologues won't get published. You see how things snowball? Show me solid data to prove the assertion that agents/editors don't accept prologues and I'll quit pointing out the lack of proof. Until then, it's merely anecdotal evidence, and most of us know what that's worth. And the best way to present one's work is honestly. Either you (generic) believe in what you've written - or you're in the wrong business. Thanks. I've loved it for years but it took forever to find the exact quote.
Except that I'm not taking just one opinion. I mentioned one editor in particular at this one conference because she was our group leader and discussed it at length. She wasn't saying that she didn't like prologues, she was saying that in her experience as a freelance editor, dealing with agents and other editors through a quarterly conference and working with clients, year after year, this is what she is seeing. Anecdotal? Yes. As is most of what we learn about the publishing industry. As for "one author...possibly lied", I never said anyone lied. Sheesh!! All I said was that a passage that walked like a prologue and quacked like a prologue was not actually labeled a prologue. Or anything else. And that's the point. In an industry in which first impressions count a whole lot, prologues have apparently become something of a red flag. Lots of readers (judging by past discussions on this board) don't read them. And since agents (by all accounts) are more inclined when reading a cold query to look for reasons to say "no" rather than to say "yes", labeling your opening passage a prologue appears to be akin to a batter always taking the first two pitches in every at-bat - it increases the likelihood of striking out. For the record, the advice coming out of the conference was: if your work needs a prologue, call it something else. If anyone has heard anything contrary from anyone established in the field - an agent or editor - I'd love to hear about it.
If it "walked like a prologue and quacked like a prologue" but "was not actually labeled a prologue" - that's trying to fool people. That's lying. What I've seen is that a lot of writers on forums who don't read them like to say so. I've seen many comments from new members - and in groups which are mainly readers and not writers - to the effect that they've never heard of people not reading them, and why wouldn't someone read them? Consider the context. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it - if an agent is so narrow-minded, so closeted in their thinking that merely seeing the word prologue would cause them to dismiss my book, I doubt I would have been able to work with them anyway, nor would I want to. Thus - lie about it. Pretend readers, agents, and editors are too dumb to realize that you've written a prologue. Call it Chapter One and ignore their confusion and frustration when Chapter Two moves into a completely different arena. And perhaps here is where the mods could just insert some links to the numerous and repetitive arguments about prologues so we wouldn't have to rehash old and tired ground...
I don't get the emotion on this. Lying?? It's a prologue. Use one. Don't use one. I told you what one (successful) author did, and what an editor advised a group of writers to do. We all have to make choices in our writing and the marketing of our writing. We make our choices and we live with them.
What would you call deliberately not using the wrong term in order to get agents/editors/readers to read it? It's the implication that "most agents/editors/readers" don't like them so one shouldn't use them that gets my goat. Say "I've heard some agents/editors/readers don't like them, but I've seen no real proof it wil prevent your book from getting published.", because that's the reality, isn't it?
Just read this tweet from a literary agent and thought it worth sharing here - made me chuckle. I had no idea the debate regarding prologue was so heated. Strong opinions on both sides, most of which ironically have some kind of preface
Which is why so many businesses have bad reps. I'm just saying don't tell people their chances of getting published are diminished simply because they have a prologue - not unless you have solid substantiated proof. That does not mean having a handful of agents/editors say they don't like them, or word of mouth ("I heard so-and-so say that agents don't like them). It's a bogey-man, nothing more.
We have now crossed into the area of silly. If I hear advice from a professional, or, better yet, several professionals, I will repeat it if I think it's valid and let each writer decide for himself/herself whether or not to heed it. If you don't like my advice, feel free to ignore it. If you have actual support, beyond your own disbelief, then go ahead and post it. Either way, I'm done.
Why is it so difficult to state that some agents/editors don't like them and there is no universal opinion? I've had "several" doctors check my back over the years and tell me I'd just have to live with the pain. Then I found a doctor who actually did something about it. Should I have just accepted what those "several professionals" told me and lived in constant pain for the rest of my life? Professionals don't know everything - and the opinion of some does not always reflect the opinions of all. I asked you to prove that prologues in and of themselves will adversely affect the chances of getting a book published. If you can't do that, well, yeah, there's not much more to say.
