Writing 101: Are Prologues Really the Root of All Fiction Evil?

I love a good prologue. My first favorite writer always included them, and even when they read more like a first chapter than a novel introduction, I was always down. It wasn't until I started reading writing forums and looking at writer blogs that I realized some people hate them -- passionately, vehemently, unendingly. And if you start looking for writing tips at will, you're going to find a lot of know-it-alls who will tell you, over and over again, that prologues are anathema in fiction. 

I don't agree...and I'm here to defend prologues. 

Prologues, a History

Prologues have a long history as an integral part of fiction. Shakespeare and other playwrights opened their stories with prologues, generally delivered in a monologue, in order to set the stage for the audience. The prologue from Romeo and Juliet is famous ("In fair Verona, where we lay our scene...").

Since those early days of fiction writing, novelists have adopted their own version of the prologue -- but they still serve the same purpose. Authors use prologues to introduce a story, certain characters and situations. Sometimes, they're used to tell an important piece of a character's history. Sometimes, they're used at the beginning of series books to catch readers up on all that happened in the story before. Sometimes, maybe they're used too much.

Prologues, and Why Readers Hate Them

Prologues are a point of contention among many readers and writers, and there are some who say they're a terrible literary decision in just about all cases. One writer called them "the blight upon all who read."

Yeah, that's kind of harsh. If a bad prologue is the worst thing you have to face in a book, count yourself lucky. I'm reading a book right now that has -- at last count -- 15 different scenes of a character fooling around on Facebook. I am not even 40% of the way through this book. What I wouldn't give for a prologue that condenses all 15 of those scenes into a few concise paragraphs, right? 

Emphasis on the concise part. The main reason that some seem to so passionately hate prologues is because they tend to feel extraneous. If you start reading a book, you expect to get right to the interesting parts -- right? A chapter-length prologue that goes into a long, detailed backstory is only going to delay the enjoyment of the action readers are trying to reach. Too many ingredients can spoil any story. Prologues should serve as a delightful little appetizer before the main course, which begins in chapter 1. 

The Prologue Argument

What I'm saying is this: readers hate prologues when they don't serve a purpose. If yours introduces something important and helps to set the scene that I, as a reader, need to understand, then isn't it necessary? Your prologue shouldn't quite read the same as the rest of the book; it shouldn't be comprised of paragraphs that just as easily could have been written into the first chapter. It should do exactly what prologues have always done: set the scene. If it does, write it and forget about all the prologue hate.

After all, weren't they good enough for Shakespeare?

Love for Justice

 "I fell in love with this book. It pulled me in very quickly, and I did not want to put it down."

"There are many great YA authors out there, but Varden's style stands out."

Justice (Deck of Lies, #1) has been reviewed by The Eager Reader, and I'm eager for you to read the whole thing!

Writing 101: Writing from All Five Senses

Are you writing from all five senses...or just one? It's standard to describe what your characters are seeing, but there's a lot more to living life than that. If you really want to immerse your readers in your world, you're going to have to let them know what it's like to be there. You're going to have to write from all five senses.

The Five Senses

Many book characters have all five senses, but how often do writers acknowledge that? To make your writing really descriptive, you've got to write from all five of those senses and really make every page come alive for your readers.

• Sight

The easiest sense to capture in print is sight. It's standard to describe what your characters look like, where they are, everything they can see. It's so common to focus on the sense of sight, in fact, that you might end up neglecting the other senses -- which are just as important.

• Sound

The sense of sound is often captured in books in dialogue. Everything the characters are saying is essential to any story, but the world is filled with other sounds as well. If you've got a character riding around in a hybrid car, for example, it's not going to have the deep, throaty roar of a '70s-era Chevy, is it? Your character might hear ringtones when their cell goes off, or special chimes when they get a text. Don't always tell me that someone is laughing -- tell me what their laugh sounds like. Is it low-pitched and soft or loud and grating? When that character talks, is their voice smooth and melodic or abrasive and whiny? Sound is an important sense, and it can lend a lot to any story.

• Smell 

I always crave potatoes if I smell french fries, and I can always tell when someone is cutting the grass outside because I get the urge to go to the park. Smell is one of the most important senses and one of the most under-valued. Certain smells can trigger memory and emotion, and some scents may be indelibly linked to an individual that you know. Baby powder, for example, conjures up images of sweet-faced, clean toddlers. Don't neglect this sense in your book. Love interests might smell a little nicer than other people; villains might have bad breath; the house on the corner that always smells like bread might be a favorite place. Adding certain scents to your story will make it all the richer, and all the more real.

• Touch

Ever shaken someone's hand and noticed they have very rough skin? How about someone with smooth skin? The sense of touch is extremely evocative, and it provokes a lot of feelings and sensations, thoughts and desires. If your characters don't have a sense of touch, they're not fully three-dimensional. Slipping into a silk robe, for example, might feel like Heaven -- or it might make your character feel sweaty and strange. Skin is the largest organ, and it's something everyone's got, so your characters should certainly have a sense of touch.

• Taste

Have you ever eaten alligator? I don't know where you're from; maybe it's common where you're at. But I've never tasted it, so if I'm reading a book where someone's eating it I'm definitely going to wonder. Sense of taste is essential in books, though many authors forget that it even exists. Don't tell me what people are eating and drinking, because I might not even recognize what it is. Tell me about the texture, the flavors, and put it in a context that I can understand. If you don't happen to know what alligator tastes like but you want to write about it anyway, you're in luck -- you can simply research it, and find out from people who have eaten it firsthand.

The Sixth Sense

 It's not easy to write from all five senses, but it is easy to write from the sixth. Intuition and intangible feelings are described all the time in books -- maybe too much. Unless your characters are intentionally psychic, if they're "sensing" everything seemingly at random, this might be a sign that you're neglecting the five main senses. Why does your character feel frightened? Why doesn't your character like the dinner? Why is that outfit uncomfortable? If I'm asking questions like this when I'm reading your work, it's because you're neglecting your senses.

From the Trenches: Self-Publishing Pioneer

A story we've all heard almost didn't make it, because the author trying to publish it was rejected so many times. She heard the word "no" from publishers so much, in fact, that she decided to self-publish -- just like so many of today's authors. The thing is, she did it way back in 1902...more than a hundred years before the Kindle existed. 

Beatrix Potter started writing as a child. She invented her own secret writing code and started recording the events of her life as young as 15 years old. As a girl, she often secretly brought small animals into her house. She loved writing stories, but Beatrix Potter also has a scientific mind. She tried to publish a paper about fungi and algae, but because she was female she couldn't submit it. Her parents tried to find suitors for Beatrix as she became of an age to marry, but she rejected them all and retained her single status against their wishes.

Her Own Way

She wanted to be a writer. Beatrix submitted a children's book and accompanying drawings to several publishers, but it was rejected many times.Finally, she self-published the book at her own expense. All the drawings were done in full color, something Potter's youngest brother Norman insisted upon. The book was also made in a small size, because she wanted it to be easy for children to hold in their small hands. 

 

That self-published book was The Tale of Peter Rabbit, which would go on to become one of the most beloved children's books of all time. Frederick Warne & Company eventually published the book on their dime, though they didn't have a lot of hope for it. It sold nearly 30,000 copies that first year, and Beatrix Potter went on to write 22 more children's books. She introduced young readers to characters like Squirrel Nutkin, Benjamin Bunny and Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle. 

Beatrix Potter wrote and drew for the rest of her life, and ended up getting married while in her 40s. Today, young children still read Peter Rabbit and watch animated movies about the rabbit that stole into the garden when he shouldn't have. Beatrix Potter wrote in the trenches when women were supposed to be getting married and having children instead, and when she heard the word no she decided she didn't need any old publisher, anyway. She became a huge success in her market, but before she did it Beatrix Potter was an indie author, too.

Writing 101: Going to Extreme Lengths

Would you read a novel with more than a thousand pages? Could you even pick it up? In a modern world where any question can be answered in seconds and entertainment is accessible from a dozen different electronic devices, how long is too long when you're writing a book? Lots of writers struggle with writing full-length novels, because there's a whole lot of words involved, but at the opposite end of the spectrum you have a few who do something that's even worse: they write too much. If you're going to extreme lengths in your books, it might actually be a serious problem you need to address.

Book Length

I saw a forum thread, the other day, where a writer was asking how many words you have to write to technically create a book. I've addressed the question of book length before, but I didn't address a big book problem that some writers don't even realize exists: going to extreme lengths. 

When is a Book Too Long? 

The longest actual novel ever written, according to some sources, is Clarissa, or the History of a Young Lady. The paperback version of the story (measuring at close to 9 inches) is 1,534 pages long. In total, the book is just shy of a million words long. I haven't read the book, so I can't say whether or not it's too long, but I can say this: I just plain don't have the time to find out. 

Writers love to write, and good for you. But if you just let yourself go, you might end up with a few thousand (or even a few hundred thousand) words too many. When is a book too long? When I'm bored, that's when. 

I don't think about the books I write in terms of pages or chapters; I think about them in terms of scenes. Each scene I write in my books serves some important purpose -- it conveys information, or progresses the story, in some way. For example, if I need to show a deep, history-filled relationship between two characters, I can convey that information over four different scenes if I like. I can write about the two going out together, maybe having an intense phone conversation, possibly talking together at school. But I can, just as easily, convey that information using just one scene.

I don't have the time, or the inclination, to read pages and pages of descriptions of the same thing or the same event. I don't necessarily need to go out to the club with the characters in your book four nights in a row to understand that this is how they live; you can write that scene brilliantly just once, and in one line say "we went out to the club again for the next three nights" without giving me a full blow-by-blow of similar events from the first scene. Unless something is actually happening, I don't need to waste a bunch of time reading about it. 

With every chapter, or scene, or paragraph you write, ask yourself some questions to see if you're going to extreme lengths: 

• Does the reader need this information? 
• Is the reader getting this exact information anywhere else in the book? 
• Is there a better way to convey this information? 
• Does this serve a purpose that isn't being served by another piece of writing elsewhere in the book?

The world moves fast, and there are a ton of books in it. There's lots of stuff to read, and you want every moment of your book to be compelling, engaging and interesting. If readers feel like they're reading the same thing over and over, they aren't going to be very pleased with your writing. 

The Epic Novel

That said, there is merit to be found in the epic novel. Gone With the Wind and Doctor Zhivago, for example, are giant books and they both became lengthy movies because of it. Yet both are popular, and well-loved, both in spite of and because of their size. Some stories are huge, and don't lend themselves to being split into multi-volume collections. If you are certain that every part of your book serves a purpose and there's nothing extra and it's still coming in at an epic length, then it's okay. Some stories just happen to be big, but you have to continuously be aware of your length and make sure you're doing everything to keep it reasonable and keep every page exciting. Don't write for writing's sake.

When a Book is Too Short

You don't want your book to be too long, full of unnecessary words, and boring. But on the other side of the coin, you don't want your book to be too short, either -- especially if you're going to charge full price for it. Young adult novels, children's books and short story collections are generally smaller in size than full-length novels, but if you're writing for an adult market you should have a story that requires at least 50,000 words. Nicholas Sparks' The Notebook weighs in at a mere 49,000 words, a length many publishing houses would consider a novella and not a full-length novel. Brevity is a fine quality, but you can't call something a book unless it actually is one.

Sometimes, you might need to take a little more time with your writing. Read your book, and make sure that your readers are going to "get" everything. You can write that "Gwen and Stacey were good friends from way back," but I won't really absorb that information well without the proper context. You'd be telling me, and not showing me, this relationship. Why not write a scene of a memory from their past? Show me something that happened, something that illustrates this closeness, or perhaps how this friendship was forged. One sentence isn't likely to make a big impact, but a descriptive scene certainly will. I don't want to feel like I don't have a good handle on Gwen and Stacey's relationship the entire time I'm reading the book; I don't want to wonder about their history and feel like something's lacking. When a book is too short, it might be due to the fact that you aren't giving me enough information. See where your story might be lacking, and add the necessary scenes to paint a better (and bigger) picture.

Death: Official Trailer Revealed

The official trailer for Death (Deck of Lies, #3) is here! I'm unveiling it here first, but soon you'll be able to find it on Smashwords, Goodreads and Twitter. As always, you can tell me what you think of it in the comments section. 

Writing 101: Sneaked vs. Snuck

How many errors have snuck past you in editing? No author can get through an entire book without making a mistake (and I personally can't seem to get through a single paragraph without them), but it's not entirely your fault. Words are confusing, and they have lots of different forms that only adds fuel to the fires of bafflement. But if the wrong usage of a word sneaked past you in the past, you can prevent it in the future -- just learn which one's right. In the epic battle of sneaked vs. snuck, which word will win?

Sneaking in the Past

By and large, books are written in the past tense. Some authors do create their books using present tense, but past tense is the most popular...and this makes it difficult to chose the right word forms. Words like sneak, which have more than one past tense form, really only exist to make your job difficult (that's my theory, anyway). 

So, which one's right? Both of them. Whether you're using sneaked or snuck, either can be used in your book and remain correct. Sneaked is older; it's been in use for about 5 centuries. Snuck originated in the United States only about a hundred years ago, but in the past century it's spread to all English-speaking (and English-writing) countries. You can find either word in major, prestigious publications and popular books around the world.

Some traditionalists, however, absolutely hate the word snuck; it's still too new for some of the old school grammarians. But if you're writing ebooks, I say embrace any and all word trends. No word that's over a century old can be considered "new" when dictionaries are updated every single year.

Books on Film: Mary Poppins

One of the most iconic characters of all time is also the most confused. Mary Poppins on the page isn't a whole lot like the Disney version that would become famous three decades later. Mary Poppins was heavily adapted for the screen, yet the film version is probably more well-known than the book that came first.

The Book

Mary Poppins was published in 1934 by P. L. Travers, and it became only the first in an 8-book series that would spawn decades and even generations. But the first book created a legendary character that all children, young and old, recognize immediately...as Julie Andrews. 

Like the Disney film, the book revolves around the Banks family. They live at Number Seventeen Cherry Tree Lane in London. In the book, Mr. and Mrs. Banks have four children, not two. In addition to Jane and Michael, there is a pair of twins named John and Barbara. Mary Poppins arrives at the house on a gust of wind quite soon after Katie Nana, the nanny, storms out of the family home in a snit. 

Mary Poppins is cross, stern and vain -- but also magical, and wonder follows wherever she goes. They go on a trip around the world using a compass, experience a tea party on the ceiling, meet a bird woman, even celebrate a birthday party at the zoo with the animals. At the end of the book, the west wind blows Mary Poppins away from the Banks family because her work is done.

The Film

Disney released their Mary Poppins in 1964, with a then-unknown actress in the title role. Julie Andrews was a rising star on Broadway but she wasn't anyone on film...until 1965. Andrews scored the Oscar for her portrayal of Mary and became a legend as a result.

Rumor has it that Walt Disney himself tried to get the rights to the book as early as 1938, but Travers turned him down because she didn't want to see an animated version of her book. It wasn't until she was granted script approval, in 1961, that she relented and let him make the film. 

It's still one of the best Disney ever made. Putting the script and songs together alone took around two years, and Julie Andrews almost didn't do the role. Other actresses, like Bette Davis and Angela Lansbury, were being considered because the book Mary was prim and cool. Andrews was much warmer, but Walt Disney wanted her for the role after seeing her performing on Broadway. When Audrey Hepburn was confirmed to play the lead in the film version of My Fair Lady (a role Andrews had hoped to get), she agreed to become Mary. 

With Dick van Dyke in the supporting cast, the Disney version of Mary Poppins became a fun, musical tale filled with grinning chimney sweeps and colorful characters -- not to mention, animated friends. It's a true Disney flick...and in true Disney fashion, it was changed and re-arranged to no end with very little regard to the original narrative. They'll do it to history, they'll do it to any book.

What Got Adapted?

Mary Poppins isn't pretty. Nor is she sweet and charming and fun. In fact, she's rather cool and quite stern (which is why Bette Davis was considered for the cinema version). Jane and Michael are quite a bit worse than the movie would have you believe. Many little things are changed throughout the plot. 

Bert hardly appears in the book; his role was greatly beefed up because why wouldn't you want more of Dick van Dyke? He does go with Mary to the country through the painting...but not with the kids. Admiral Boom is mentioned but once in the book, only in passing. The entire chimney sweep scene in the movie is fabricated; there isn't really any reference to Bert being a chimney sweep in the original story. The bank run is also a fabrication for the film; it just doesn't happen.

The overall theme of the story was also changed, in my opinion for the worse. The book is more focused on the children. Mary Poppins is there to teach them how to use their imagination, and be better people. In the movie, she changes Mr. Banks and makes him less of a workaholic so he spends more time with them.

That said, Mary Poppins is still one of the most wonderful movies Disney's ever made, and a true classic that everyone should keep watching. The narrative of the book isn't a cohesive thread exactly; the way it's written, it reads more like a book that should be read to children. It's a perfect book for bedtime, and a sweet read for older people. But if you're going to give the original a try, brace yourself for a lot of differences.