to prologue or not to prologue

[Nathan N.]

I hardly think that calling you hardheaded for statements like this is invective. Creative writing is not a realm of "nevers and always."

(what in the heck is an "epeen," by the way?)

Oh please. There are plenty of "nevers and always" in creative writing. The problem of some readers skipping prologues always applies.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=e-peen

[Gary Kessler]

Oh please. There are plenty of "nevers and always" in creative writing. The problem of some readers skipping prologues always applies.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=e-peen

As I've posted already (a couple of time), feel free to limit your writing options as you please. I'm perfectly happy for you to do so.

So, as far as invective is concerned, you equate "hardheaded" with "epeen." Interesting. A crock of ****, of course. But interesting.

[Nathan N.]

Epeen referred to using your "credentials" as an argument.

And at no point did I state that I would never use a prologue.

[Lea Zalas]

I like most prologues. And I have never met a prologue that ruined a book for me.

[Susan B]

Of course, if the prologue is done to perfection....

Obviously, you want to lead off with your best foot forward. It the prologue grabs the reader/agent/publisher, then by all means. If not, use as backstory.

I like most prologues. And I have never met a prologue that ruined a book for me.

As a reader and buyer of books (and a writer of little note), I have to agree. I will read the prologue whilst still in the bookshop sniffing books, before I decide whether to hand over my hard-earned cash. A great prologue can provide the elusive 'hook' that pulls you in. Although so can a great chapter 1...

[Gary Kessler]

Epeen referred to using your "credentials" as an argument.

And at no point did I state that I would never use a prologue.

OK, not going to let it pass. Folks come here for real, best-practice advice on developing writing projects they've sweated blood for. Why would anyone assume they weren't here to get the best possible advice from the best-experienced folks? Credentials are the quickest way to establish credence (see, say root word). I have them and I post here in my true name with links back to evidence of my credentials precisely to give people asking questions that I respond to an indication of what experience backs up that answer. I will not apologize for having credentials or pointing to them--or just let posters like you who want to give opinions without backing it up with the work required for those opinions to have foundation pull the expertise level here down.

I'll repeat that the only ones who sniff at people having credentials is because they want the playing field reduced to their own level. Substandard advice isn't what writers come here to get, however. Attitudes such as yours stem from the falacious "axiom" of the Internet that every opinion expressed is equally valid as every other opinion. That's hogwash. The real people behind the postings don't either diminish or expand in their actual knowledge to meet some sort of dumb belief that everyone's opinion on the Internet is equal. Eveyone's access to posting on the Internet may be equal, but this neither adds to nor detracts from the actual expertise that backs up their postings.

So, good buddy, credentials for answering a question here are actually the strongest ammunition in an argument over writing and publishing issues, and none of your "I prefer the easy button" declarations change or negate that.

What have you done or acquired expertise in to make blanket pronouncements on the acceptability or usefulnesses of prologues? And where can I verify these claims?

[Joe Zeff]

Nathan, the fact that some readers won't read prologues isn't a good reason not to use one if it's indicated. Smart readers will read them expecting to find out later what they mean. And, if you'd read my post carefully, I didn't say that there Terry Pratchett wrote a prologue to Going Postal, I said that he wrote two: one that takes place 9,000 years before the story starts and a second one placed one month before.

[Gary Kessler]

Some readers only skim books anyway or go right to the last page to see the resolution. So, I guess we might as well just not write books--and if we do, we should put the last page up front.

[Cat]

I really think it depends on the prologue.

I've seen lots of people on writing sites say that prologues turn off agents, but I have not found that to be true.

I've had two major agents - I'm not going to name drop - tell me that they liked my story and loved the prologue, but sent it back with suggestions.

Guess what i'm doing? ;-)

[Nathan N.]

<Snip>A whole lot of bull****</Snip>

What have you done or acquired expertise in to make blanket pronouncements on the acceptability or usefulnesses of prologues? And where can I verify these claims?

What an obnoxious post. All you're doing is trying to build up your Appeal to Authority logical fallacy further. I particularly like how you quoted yourself ("I prefer the easy button"), then implied that I had something to do with that, even though I've never mentioned it.

I'll tell you what I did: I googled prologues and read the arguments for and against them, applied some logic to what I read, and made an informed decision.

I'm done arguing with you, Gary. You've consistently proven that you can't argue the topic without resorting to straw men or attacking my credibility.