Do you read prologues?

[chesilbeach]

I hope the mods don't mind this off-topic, but sort of related, post in this thread, but I've always been curious about the role of an editor in the publishing of books today, and as Maggie has commented about agents and editors feeling their readers dislike prologues, and I came across a blog entry on the Guardian website relating to an award for the unsung editors. One of the comments to the post is from an editor, and I was intrigued to see him say this:

 

I have to admit I'm uneasy about awards for editors. I feel the book and the author should be celebrated. But to answer WillDuff's comment (after fifteen years as an SF and Fantasy editor with three major publishers), books are submitted to specific editors. That editor turns down 99.9% of what he or she sees, without it being considered by anyone else in the company. Those books the editor DOES feel are wonderful and commercial enough to bbe published are taken to a publishing meeting, where the editor has to persuade their Sales and Marketing colleagues of the book's suitability for publication (which doesn't always happen). This is true in all areas of fiction and non-fiction, as far as major publishers are concerned.

 

In terms of SF and Fantasy, the editor (or the editorial director and their editorial team) shapes the list of books (this takes in imprints like Orbit, Gollancz and Voyager in the UK, for instance). Publishing is a subjective industry, and what one editor loves, another will not necessarily be keen on. Over the years, I took on and published successfully many books that other editors turned down - and vice versa.

 

Sorry, I should also have said that when the editor does take a book on, they are that book and author's cheerleader throughout the company. The editor often has to represent both book and auhtor to the publishing company, in the same way they represent the company to the auhtor and his or her agent (agented submissions are taken far more seriously than those that turn up out of the blue from an unknown writer, by the way). One also does the full edit on the book, discusses the cover design (in which the author should always be involved, they should never simply be shown a finished cover), marketing and publicity for the book in-house, sometimes acts as a shoulder for the author to cry on and - as I did - goes to W H Smiths and Waterstones head offices to talk about an entire season's books, twice a year.

 

As well as other stuff...

 

Trying to get back on topic, I wonder if it is the agent/editor who think the prologue is disliked by readers, or whether their experience of trying to represent books with prologues to the marketing/publishing departments is that they don't like them. I don't think I've ever come across anyone as a reader, who has specifically said they don't like a prologue in a book. I've been going to my library reading group for over three years now, and discussed probably 50 or so books, and I don't think the issue of a prologue has ever come up. I think we may have once discussed the inclusion of an epilogue which was felt unnecessary, but I can't remember a single comment about a prologue.

[anisia]

I always read the prologue... it never occurred to me to skip it.

[Mac]

Here's the prologue to the book I'm currently reading, The Stormwatcher by Graham Joyce:

 

"All motion in the atmosphere is caused by the unequal heating, by the sun, of different parts of the planet. Heat is constantly seeking to exchange, between the warm tropics and the cold polar regions. This causes the movement of air, winds, changes in air pressure, temperature fluctuations, clouds, precipitation of rain and snow.

Everything we call weather.

Going round and round in an endless effort to settle and even out that which can never be settled or evened out."

 

I thought this very short prologue was a highly skilled piece of writing, drawing me in with an unwritten promise of upset, excitement and unpredictability. I wanted to read further immediately. I also thought of this thread. A valuable thing, this prologue.

 

[Guest ii]

You know Mac, in that pic of yours, you look exactly like my prof when he's drunk.

 

Oh, yeah, and everyone should read prologues.

[Mac]

You know Mac, in that pic of yours, you look exactly like my prof when he's drunk.

 

Oh, yeah, and everyone should read prologues.

Is this a good thing, or a bad thing?

 

And I can't understand why anyone would miss the prologue out.

 

Of course, skipping the middle, I'm totally down with...

[Guest ii]

Is this a good thing, or a bad thing?

 

I don't know, actually. It's weird, more than anything. And slightly freaks me out.

 

But I like him! He's a good prof (and my thesis supervisor). You could have done worse, trust me! You could have looked like the other prof, the creepy post-middle-age man with standard-of-living-stomach who likes to touch his belt buckle while he gives his lecture. That would have been disturbing!

 

And I can't understand why anyone would miss the prologue out.

 

Of course, skipping the middle, I'm totally down with...

 

I prefer to skip things at totally random. Sometimes I skip backwards, too. Or sideways.

[Lucybird]

I always read prologues, I guess they're part of the book and quite often you need them so things make sense

[Maggie Dana]

I think what many editors don't care for, or perhaps feel their readers don't care for, are lengthy prologues, say, of more than four pages. Anything longer, they feel, should be called Chapter 1.

 

That said, there are times when calling something 'chapter 1,' doesn't work for a variety of reasons (setting up the scene, narrative flow, back story, etc.), but if the prologue is, in fact, back story, this is usually the last thing an editor wants at the beginning of a book. In these days of sound bites and instant gratification, most readers want to be dumped (so editors claim) into the meat of a story right away. No time for elegant preambles and gorgeous descriptive bits, unless it's lit-fic. Then all bets are off.

 

If I can pull any more information out of my writers' forums to help shed light on this (that is, if any of you can stomach any more of my maundering on the subject), I'll be glad to share.

[Maggie Dana]

 

Trying to get back on topic, I wonder if it is the agent/editor who think the prologue is disliked by readers, or whether their experience of trying to represent books with prologues to the marketing/publishing departments is that they don't like them. I don't think I've ever come across anyone as a reader, who has specifically said they don't like a prologue in a book. I've been going to my library reading group for over three years now, and discussed probably 50 or so books, and I don't think the issue of a prologue has ever come up. I think we may have once discussed the inclusion of an epilogue which was felt unnecessary, but I can't remember a single comment about a prologue.

 

Who knows where this bias (preference?) came from, and maybe it's not much of a bias in UK publishing, but in the US (where I live) and on the US-based writer's forum where I tend to hang out, writers (especially newbies) are advised by both the forum's published authors and contributing agents and editors to avoid prologues if at all possible.

 

There was even a thread recently on the same forum, started by a newbie writer who was agonizing over what the 'rules' said about using one space or two after a full stop. Everyone weighed in on both sides of the issue to the point where I felt compelled to step in and tell them it really didn't matter, that if their work was fresh and innovative an agent (or editor) wouldn't give a rat's a** if they used one, two, or ten stupid spaces after terminal punctuation. Then one of the resident agents joined the fray and backed up what I'd said. Hopefully, the thread has now died down.

 

Writers can be a very sensitive lot.

[Andaira]

Like some here, I think that prologues are an important part of books. For me at least, they hold some piece of information that I might read when I'm reading the rest of the book. Just like with epilogues, I never skip prologues, and I do prefer it when a book has both. Though a prologue and epilogue are preferable.

[Michelle]

I sometimes wonder whether publishers and editors should spend time on forums like this, listening to what readers have to say?

[Andaira]

I for one think that it would improve the work of a few of them, so it couldn't hurt them in the least.

[Natty]

I pretty much read everything in a book be it prologue, epilogue or very long and boring introduction.

 

However, this doesn't mean I like them. These devices strike me as tools used by authors who want to escape the way in which they tell the main bulk of their narrative. The best example I can give is Bob. Bob is a writer and Bob wants to write a crime story in third person about a investigator type catching a psychopath. He uses a prologue to introduce these happenings and in that prologue he deviates entirely from the rest of the narratives structure by writing in first person and yes, you guessed it, as the psychopath.

 

I just feel a bit blah when I see that. I have much more respect and willingness to read a book where the author builds all that suspense up him or herself. It just makes me feel like the mood is being forced upon me somewhat. Each genre might do it a little differently, but the result is the same.

 

x

[Maggie Dana]

Natty, you've hit a big nail on its head, here. Books with the sort of prologue you describe are, to my way of thinking, a lazy approach to telling the story.

[Maggie Dana]

I sometimes wonder whether publishers and editors should spend time on forums like this, listening to what readers have to say?

 

Good idea, Michelle. I wonder if any would respond to an invitation from you. Might be worth a try.

[Mac]

A book immediately springs to mind for me, here. It's called The Locust Room by a chap called John Burnside.

 

It's not really anything to do with prologues, but there is an unpleasant character in the book who we only come across in the first person (if memory serves...although I have a doubt, now that I come to write about it...) and these are separate chapters. The character is only central to the plot by way of his presence creating an atmosphere in Cambridge. I found this book very compelling and thought I'd just wave it around in case you're interested in having a look.

 

*waves said book around head whilst smiling impishly*

 

Thanks, people.

[Freewheeling Andy]

Now, having been properly abusive earlier on, I will come out sort of in defense of the original proposition.

 

Because, frankly, there are some pretty awful authors who have big big egos. And they may think that their "proper" book ought to have a prologue. When strucuturally the prologue is no different to a Chapter One. And it would certainly serve editors and publishers well to tell these people to get a grip and learn to write properly.

 

Also, knowing what publishers are like, they might see people saying "I always read the prologue" and think of it as a focus group question and therefore think that Books With Prologues Are Liked By The Public so they should put one in every book.

 

As a counter to that, certain books do require a prologue, where it's genuinely not a chapter one. A good example in my recent reading is Brideshead Revisited, where the substance of the book explains the feelings the narrator has for Brideshead, starting from his arrival at Oxford in the 1920s; but it only works because the scene had been set in "present day" war-time and he finds himself arriving to be barracked at Brideshead which brings on the reminiscence.

 

It would be ludicrous to not read that Prologue; or to ask Waugh to rewrite the book without. It would ruin the purpose and structure of the book, and the prologue is clearly not a "chapter one".

 

But I would definitely caution against authors and publishers including prologues without good reason.

[Maggie Dana]

Freewheeling has made some very good points, pro and con prologues. I suppose it all boils down to ... 'sometimes they serve a purpose, sometimes not.' My main objection to prologues is that book designers often feel the need to set them all in italics which is hard to read, especially over several pages.

[BookJumper]

Agreed that if it's just to give a book a "tone" and there's nothing that distinguishes it narratively from "Chapter 1" you might as well call it that rather than "Prologue".

 

However they sometimes are needed, if just to set a scene in a context that will not make the reader think, "gawd, nothing happens in this book" - no one expects much to happen in prologues so it's a good place for explaining things which it would break the flow of the action/dialogue/etc. once the story's properly underway.

 

All in all, I would hope (although this thread makes me dread otherwise) that a good editor/publisher would have the sense to distinguish between a mis-named "Chapter 1" and an actual "Prologue" and act accordingly.

[kala_way]

As a counter to that, certain books do require a prologue, where it's genuinely not a chapter one. A good example in my recent reading is Brideshead Revisited, where the substance of the book explains the feelings the narrator has for Brideshead, starting from his arrival at Oxford in the 1920s; but it only works because the scene had been set in "present day" war-time and he finds himself arriving to be barracked at Brideshead which brings on the reminiscence.

 

It would be ludicrous to not read that Prologue; or to ask Waugh to rewrite the book without. It would ruin the purpose and structure of the book, and the prologue is clearly not a "chapter one".

That's exactly the book I was thinking of, and I completely agree. That's a case where it was used correctly and to good effect!

 

I read prologues if they are actually part of the story and important to it's opening, otherwise, no. Prefaces and forewards and such like that I never read, let the book speak for itself

[Maggie Dana]

In my experience, prefaces and forewords occur in non-fiction and, as such, it's always a good idea to read them. They generally impart information that will aid in more fully understanding what the book is about.

[kala_way]

In my experience, prefaces and forewords occur in non-fiction and, as such, it's always a good idea to read them. They generally impart information that will aid in more fully understanding what the book is about.

I rarely read non-fiction. I have quite a few fiction books with prefaces and forewards written by the author for a later printing or by the translator or publisher or by another author talking about the book/author. I've never found them very useful, but that's just me.

[Maggie Dana]

I rarely read non-fiction. I have quite a few fiction books with prefaces and forewards written by the author for a later printing or by the translator or publisher or by another author talking about the book/author. I've never found them very useful, but that's just me.

 

I'm with you on this one, Kala, and thanks for the heads up. I'd forgotten that prologues and forewords sometimes appear in fiction, especially as you describe.

[princess]

Prologue? What's a prologue?

 

Just kidding! I always read it. It's important to get an better undertanding of the book and the author.

[Maggie Dana]

Prologue? What's a prologue?

It's part of a set of bookends. The other half is called an Epilogue. They're usually shaped like elephants with their trunks raised.