You'd drive me away, but not others. There's no answer yet, sadly. I guess that's part of the debate.
But an author always has to decide where to pick up a story, right? If something interesting happens to a character when they're 20, when do you start? A few days before, to set the "normal" stage before the interesting event? Right at the interesting event? Or do you start with their birth and dramatize all of the events in their life that lead to them being in the interesting place at the interesting time? To me, a writer has to make a call as to where the story really starts - the point at which it makes sense to dramatize. When I see a prologue, I often gets the sense that the author knows damn well the point at which they should start dramatizing is point A, but they've decided to put in a bunch of stuff about point B first. That's what I mean by material that comes before the story.
I actually do skip middle chapters. But as I said, I'm a bad example. I hope you understand where I'm coming from, though.
I'm not sure I do, but I accept we all have differing viewpoints on this issue. I guess I'm just trying to argue against prejudice about books and dictums about writing. I'd rather see people being shown how to write a good prologue, and taught to judge when having a prologue might enhance a story, rather than being told not to write one at all because 'agents don't like them.'
Allow me to clarify the conversation. You said: To which I replied: In direct response to which, you said: The first statement I quoted, above, was one in which you complained about the finality of people saying don't write prologues if you want to get published. Which no one actually said, and which is empirically false. So I replied that you were misreading the thread, because no one was making such categorical assertions. Your direct response back to me then fell back on the qualifier "probably," which is more in line with what the thread is about but has nothing to do with your post about finality and the odd notion that someone has alleged no prologues can ever be published. In other words, your first post was hyperbole and a misrepresentation of the thread, and when I pointed out it you backpedaled and then pretended not to understand what was going on. I hope that clears up your confusion and you'll now feel confident in employing a instead of a .
People are warning writers away from prologues based only on anecdotal evidence. I'm pointing that out. And every time I see that, I will point out the fallacies in that advice. I don't think that needs any clarification.
You calling it a fallacy does not make it so. I don't see how you can call it a fallacy when it's coming from people in the industry, particularly when you offer no evidence (not even anecdotal) to the contrary other than your own opinion. No one is saying that using a prologue will make it impossible to get published. Certainly, not me. But the fact that there is something of a bias in the industry against prologues is something that every writer contemplating commercial publication needs to know. As I said in my tumbler example earlier in this thread, there are any number of things that an agent may see in an ms and decide "it's not for me". If you know in advance what one of those factors is, then you have an advantage in an extremely competitive marketplace. I'm sure there are agents out there who have no problem with prologues, but we have no way of knowing who they are or how large a segment of the population they might be. Let's pick a number, say 40%. That would mean you eliminated 60% of the agent population when you decided that your novel must have a prologue. That's a significant reduction in the probability of success. But maybe you're right, maybe it must. If that's the story you must tell and the way you must tell it, then it is, and you write it and let the chips fall where they may. @jannert says she has already decided to self-pub because she wants her book how she wants it. I respect the hell out of that. And when she does, I will buy it. But what is not reasonable is to have a scouting report about the industry - and it's not infallible, we know that (nor was it presented as such) - and to say, "Well, I don't believe it so it's bullshit." I've been told some things in my years on this forum that I've accepted and that later turned out to be completely untrue. I've also been told things that I did not accept because they were stated as absolutes that later turned out to be partly true. I read recently that writing groups - and this is a large, online writing group of sorts - can be a good source of bad advice, because so many people talk through their hats and there often is no way to know who really knows their s#!+ and who doesn't. There are, to my knowledge, just two regulars on this site who are commercially published. I pay very close attention to what they say but also keep in mind that neither writes in my genre. There are several others whose opinions I trust because over the past few years, their advice has consistently proven to be correct.
Well, as I've asked for several times already, where is your proof? You're the one making the "pronouncement". I could go out and gather my own anecdotal evidence and state that "agents/editors have no prejudice against prologues" - several have noted on blogs and in forums to that effect. But it would be no better than that which you have provided. Some hate them, some love them, some just want good writing. But I'm not telling people they should write a prologue, nor am I making generalized statements about what agents/editors or accept or reject. Again, I'm pointing out the FACT that there is no solid proof that having a prologue will damage your chances of getting published - unless, of course, you submit to one of those narrow-minded agents/editors who automatically dismisses them. Why do you keep asking me for proof anyway? I say it's anecdotal evidence - the proof of that is obvious. I say there is no solid proof - am I supposed to go hunting for it, when you're the one making the statement? It's not up to me to prove your statement.
Anecdotal evidence isn't a fallacy. In fact, anecdotal evidence is used in science. Anecdotal evidence can be used in a fallacious manner (as can other types of evidence). If someone points out that they've heard or read from multiple sources in the industry that there are agents and editors who very much dislike prologues, that's not a fallacy. It is simply providing anecdotal evidence (which, by the manner of its presentation, is clearly anecdotal). You're trying so hard to come up with reasons for opposing views in the thread to be wrong that you're not even thinking through your own arguments.
Bull. My argument has been the same throughout - there is no proof that all/most agents dislike prologues. A handful here and there have stated they will toss a ms that has one - bringing that up is about as useful as saying a handful of agents here and there don't like sex scenes. Instead of saying don't write prologues or sex scenes, why not tell people to find out what a particular agent's preferences are and don't submit to the ones who don't like what you have in your story? My God, I can't believe it's that difficult! Sorry. How about just plain proof then? You know, something other than "this guy said" and "that guy said" and "Others have said they've heard it, too ...". I hear that kind of thing around the coffee machine...
This is one of those "lesser of two evils/greater of two goods" questions. As it sits, the novel I want to self-publish before the end of August has a prologue. In it, we see something that happened to the female protagonist when she was a child, and it starts several themes that will be important in the rest of the book. I want that info in there. And they are scenes (yeah, two scenes, plural). All nicely shown, not told. But the common wisdom about prologues is Don't Do Them, They're Never Needed, blah, blah, blah. And it occurs to me there are a couple of places wayyyyyy farther on in the story where I might be able to work that info in. But it would have to be the female protag saying to someone, "I remember when I was a kid, this happened, and I did this," and so on and so forth. In short, it would be Telling. And all that Telling might well derail the scenes I might put it into. What's more, on the last page I cite a line from the prologue, to bring the plot full circle. No prologue, that line gets cut, and right now I'm at a loss for what to do instead. None of my beta readers have complained about the prologue. On the other hand, I rather like my first chapter and wonder if the prologue is upstaging it. I'm so close to the story I'm not sure if it would hurt or not if the reader didn't get this info about the FMC until over halfway through. It's kind of late for these kind of self-doubts, but what do you think?
If it's interesting enough to be the first thing people read then a prologue is better. But the prologue will upstage the first chapter, simply because people will read it first. Go with the advice from readers I guess.
Another option would be a flashback--not the character explaining what happened, but just flashing back to the scene. Are you absolutely, utterly, totally, completely, without-a-doubt sure that you need this? What would happen if it weren't there? I don't mean if you removed it from the story world--I mean, if you didn't explicitly show and/or explain the scene.
Some people skip prologues, and that's reason enough for me to not use any in my books. If a reader skips yours, does the rest of the book make sense? Discovering a character's backstory slowly throughout the book is nearly always preferable to getting it upfront in a big chunk, IMO. Obviously there are exceptions.
Hard to say. The only way to test that would be to send it out to beta readers without it, and see if anyone says, "But I don't get why she's making such a big deal of . . . (fill in the blank)." But I'm no good at getting beta readers to report back on any decent schedule, and it could be months before I find out.
That was exactly my experience with betas who read my first draft. That's why I ended up adding a Prologue to my story in the second draft ...which nobody (and I mean NOBODY) who has read it has complained about. If your Prologue contains an incident that is crucial for the readers to know from the outset, and its time or setting is far enough removed from the rest of the story that labeling it "Chapter One" disjoints the presentation, then Prologue is the most effective way to frame this. I am concerned that this issue boils down not to what's best for the story, but instead it's about pandering to the prejudice of folks who refuse to read Prologues. It's up to you. I know what I've done, and I'm sticking to it. If somebody skips the Prologue then gets the wrong end of the stick later on, maybe they'll wake up? I live in hope.
Exactly. YOU are telling the story. You get to choose how you want to do this. You will keep in mind what your readers should know at any given point, and do your best to set it up so that the right things come out in the right places. If you want your readers on track from the start, knowing something that happened prior to the opening of the story, then a Prologue is a great tool. It's a device that has been in use for many many years, for that very reason. It's still being used, and writers who use it are still getting published. If you throw things in as flashbacks, readers may well be shocked or surprised or even annoyed that things are not as they seemed at first. If that is your aim, to jolt the reader a bit, then by all means, use flashbacks to change their perceptions of what they thought the story was about. If that's not the effect you're after, then a Prologue works a treat. Despite what Prologue-haters try to tell you, it's an extremely valuable tool when written with panache. If some readers always skip a Prologue because they think it's probably not going to matter or will just be an infodump, then THEY are the ones who are making a mistake. Not you.
A while back I got randomly anxious about having a prologue in one of my projects - I think I must have read something about people not liking and skipping them? So I did a lot of poking around on websites like goodreads where actual readers are talking about books, and the overwhelming opinion I found was "Why would anyone skip a prologue? I would never do that. Don't people want more story?". I honestly think the common knowledge that people don't like or won't read prologues is bunk. I'm sure there are some of them, but like @jannert said: is it worth pandering to them? I do mostly think that revealing backstory throughout, rather than all at once, is the better way to go, but I also tend to think it's better to show than tell, and flashbacks can damage your pacing. And if what happens in the prologue isn't meant to be kept a secret - I'm assuming it's something that motivates her? - then keeping it from the reader until further along seems pointless if not counter-intuitive. You might not want to know everything about a MC from go, but if she spends like half the book acting on things that the reader doesn't know about, she's just not going to make much sense, and when it is revealed I feel like the impression is likely to be "okay, why couldn't you have just told me that?" or something. Do you want a protag who's mysterious, with a secret, or one whose motivations are clear? Obviously you know your story best, and I wouldn't want to dissuade you from cutting the prologue if you feel like that's what would serve it best. But imo it's a bad move to cut something no one's complained about just because of misaimed 'common wisdom' that most likely just comes from frustration with bad prologues. From what I can tell, this seems like one of the cases where a prologue is a good fit.
For me, the problem with a prologue is that if it's well-written I want more of THAT story and am therefore resentful of having to switch to a different story after only a small bit. And if it's not well-written, well - that problem is obvious! I don't think this is a question anyone can answer without having read your MS. Have you specifically asked your beta readers how they felt about the prologue?
