Face Off Friday: Prologues

Photo by Martialartsnomad.com

2015 Update: I have to admit that I am guilty of loving a prologue. Since getting published, I've used them in a number of books. However, generally, I'm using them for reunion stories. Like Melt Into You, I show what happened between the hero and heroine when they were teens then jump forward in time to the present. I think it builds their characters quickly, and I can show the past in "real time" instead of dropping in chunks of past backstory later. My prologues are always real time, action-oriented scenes. They are always about the hero or heroine, not an outside character. And sometimes I won't even label them the prologue, I'll just call it chapter one and put a time stamp on it. My editor has never pushed back. I've learned over the years that if you can figure out how to do something well, most rules can be broken. ;) The important part is to make sure you're not using it as a cheat.  

Today, I'm resurrecting an old debate--the loved/dreaded/maligned prologue.  The rumor is that writers love them and agents/publishers hate them.  Some quotes from our favorite blogging agents:

99.9% of the time, the prologue is vague or doesn’t really give me a sense of the writing or the story that’s going to unfold. I skip them as a general rule. --Kristin Nelson, Pub Rants

It is 3-5 pages of introductory material that is written while the author is procrastinating from writing a more difficult section of the book. --Nathan Bransford's definition

Previously, I talked about the written and unwritten rules of writing I have discovered along the way.  The one that many of you had pain over was the fact that prologues are frowned upon.  So, I thought I would delve deeper into that topic today.

First, let's define a few types of "pre-chapters": 

Prologue is a preface to the story, setting up the story, giving background information and other miscellaneous information. --wiki

A preface is an introduction to a book written by the author of the book. A preface generally covers the story of how the book came into being, or how the idea for the book was developed; this is often followed by thanks and acknowledgments to people who were helpful to the author during the time of writing. --wiki

A foreword is a (usually short) piece of writing often found at the beginning of a book or other piece of literature, before the introduction, and written by someone other than the author of the book. --wiki

Okay, so what most of us are dealing with is the first one, as the preface and foreward are typically used for non-fiction works. (However, Twilight breaks this rule--what's new--and uses the term preface for its prologue.)

Prologues are seen in all genres, but are particularly popular in fantasy/sci-fi and thriller/suspense. In fantasy, the prologue often provides information to help the reader understand the strange world that they are about to enter. In suspense, a prologue can contain the killer's point of view or one of his first victims points of view to ratchet up the tension instantly.

So those seem valid reasons to use one, right? What's the problem?

The problem can lie in the fact that the prologue is almost always a big chunk of backstory. And backstory can be dangerous--it risks boring the reader and makes your pace drag. Prologues can also be a sneaky way to hide a slow-moving first chapter. The latter is how it's used in Twilight. We get a glimpse of the end action--an unnamed victim being stalked by a unknown predator--before we enter into chapter one where nothing much interesting happens for many pages.

However, prologues aren't always terrible. Hush, Hush had a prologue. The brief pages showed a scene that explained what happened to one of the characters to make him the way he was. In this novel, I didn't mind the prologue and its purpose was clear. Could the story have been sprinkled in later? Perhaps, but the prologue was a big shining billboard that said--"hey this is about angels!" and the scene had tension and action, not just flowery language about some random legend.

So when is it a good idea to include a prologue and when do you need to cut it?

Prologue vs. No Prologue

For love of the prologue:

• Fantasy/Sci-fi/Paranormal can be difficult to jump into without explaining a bit of the mythology/legend/world first.
• Some of the greats used prologues
• It can build tension early
• You have a helluva twist coming later that you need to foreshadow
• There is history that is vital to your story that must be introduced early

Nix the prologue because you are probably using it to cheat and do one of the following: 

• Set the mood/atmosphere because you failed to do so in the opening chapter
• Info dump because you can't figure out where to sprinkle in the backstory
• Create tension because your chapter one is slow and you can't bear to edit it again
• Not trusting that your reader is smart enough to understand the world you created
• Your story or fantasy world is overly complicated and you want to get the reader a school lesson on it first

Another thought:

 "Writers hope to create suspense and interest by writing a prologue about the person who turns out to be the villain but without identifying that person by name or gender. Sorry, but in my opinion, that's a cheap parlor trick and your reader knows it. You're better off doing the hard work of creating suspense and tension with your hero and heroine."--author Carolyn Jewel 

So what's your opinion? How do you feel about prologues in the stories your read? Do you have a prologue in any of your stories? Are you using it for the right reasons or are you worried it's a cheat? Do you think they should be used only as a last resort?

Face Off Friday: Posting Excerpts of Your Work

 

This morning I wasn't sure what I was going to blog about (what's new), but then I read Julie Dao's post on imitation over at Silver Lining (thanks to Sierra's Google Reader Roundup for highlighting it, since I had missed that post this week) and got inspired.

The post was basically warning to be careful what you post about your WIPs because once the info is out on the internet, anyone can steal it or your ideas.  Now, in response to this post, Sierra said she doesn't plan on participating in blogfests and such anymore for  this reason.

I have mixed feelings on this issue.  I'm pretty paranoid by nature and tend to not share the overall concept for my WIPs when I'm working on them, but I do participate in blogfests on occasion and post excerpts.  (Although, once I start shopping a book or entering contests, I pull those snippets off.  And yes, I know about cache copy.)  I also have my blurbs for my completed novels posted on my website and on the "my writing" page on this site.  Am I worried someone will steal those?

*shrug* Not really.  I've cursed them with a strong voodoo spell that will inflict years of intestinal nastiness if stolen.  But also, only I can write the books I write.  My voice, my words, my story.  Just like I couldn't go grab an excerpt of one of your stories and recreate your novel.  It would come out as a totally different story.  

However, what I would worry about is posting your one or two sentence hook or logline--especially if you have something high-concept.  In this competitive market, if you have some brilliant hook/logline, I would keep that to yourself because maybe there is only room on the shelves for one story about alien ants who invade our picnics to spy on human communication (well, I doubt there's room for even ONE of those books, but you know what I mean.)  

I definitely have gone to blogs and seen those little one sentence hooks and thought "ooh, that's goooood."  Now, of course, I'm not a thief, so my thought is "I want to read that", not "I'm going to steal that."  But there are many out there who would hijack it.  (Although, I'm hoping that karma gets all those filthy liars by making sure they're terrible writers and would never get a shot anyway.)

So I guess I fall somewhere in the middle on the debate.  I say be careful, but also don't deny yourself the fun of blogfests, contests, and opportunities to get reader feedback.

But I'm curious to hear your opinions.  Do you worry about theives?  Where do you draw the line on what you post or don't post?

**Today's Theme Song**

"I Think I'm Paranoid" - Garbage

(player in sidebar, take a listen)

Face Off Friday: Writer's Block

Writer's block.  Whether you believe if it truly exists or not, most of us can't deny that there are times when the inspiration isn't coming and the words aren't flowing.  Many say that the block is just fear or insecurity playing with our minds.  I kind of subscribe to that belief, but also know that sometimes my brain simply shuts down.

I have a pattern.  For two weeks, I'm in the zone.  My fingertips fly over the keyboard, pages rack up, and I have trouble falling asleep because the scenes keep writing themselves in my head.  Then I hit the end of the two weeks and everything comes to a screeching halt.  For the next two weeks, I struggle to write and feel like the creative neurons in my brain are trying to fire through peanut butter.  I get frustrated, grumpy, and feel ready to give up on the project entirely.  (And no, I'm not bipolar.  I've just accepted that this is my process.  I'm not entirely unconvinced that this isn't tied to the cycles of the moon or some hormonal shift.)

But anyway, the question I have is: what do you do when the words aren't coming?

There are two schools of thought from what I can tell.  In the first camp are the "write anyway" people.  This means that even when you aren't inspired, you just put words on the page because eventually it will spark something for you.  This is the "write or die", NanoWriMo mentality.

The other side would say that if the muse isn't speaking then take a break.  Walk away for a few minutes, hours, days.  Let your mind relax out of it's "oh crap, I'm on the way to an epic fail" state of mind.  When we're not concentrating so hard, our mind can wander and often hit on solutions or ideas for our story.

So which path should we take if we hit a wall?  Here's the breakdown:

The "Write, No Matter What" Side

Pros:

• You keep yourself in the habit of writing daily even if the words aren't going to be used later on.
• You may be able to write your way around the block.
• You keep the story fresh in your head.
• You're developing a good work ethic.  If you eventually write under deadline, you don't have the luxury of taking long breaks.

Cons:

• You may write a lot of words you'll have to scrap or write yourself into a corner.  How many people finish Nano and say "Hey, got my 50k words, but they're all crap"?
• You may end up meandering--I'm convinced that saggy middle is due to the fact that many of us hit a block somewhere in the heart of that.
• You can end up so frustrated and put so much pressure on yourself, that the creative part of your brain just shuts down.
• You run the risk of turning something you enjoy into something you hate.

The "Take a Break" Argument

Pros:

• When you take some of the pressure off, your mind can relax and work on the story issues.  How many times does the answer to a block arrive while you're driving or showering?
• You can use the time to re-energize yourself--read, take a walk, enjoy something that has fallen by the wayside because of your writing.
• You won't be a miserable cuss during the block.
• You won't waste your time writing pages and pages that you'll never use.

Cons:

• When you take a break, it can be easy to not go back to the project because you've gotten out of the habit.
• If you take too long of a break, you'll have to reorient yourself to the story once you return
• All that free thinking time may lead to SNI (shiny new idea) syndrome and you may be tempted to move onto another project instead of finishing the other one.

So what to do?  I think a combination works best for me.  I know that for my two inspired weeks, I need to milk it for all it's worth.  Then during the other half the month, I give myself permission to take breaks and don't put a daily word count goal over my head.  But I do try to look at the story at least once a day and see if it sparks anything.  If not, I read through and do some editing on what I already have.

So what's your process?  Does your muse have a pattern?  Which method do you use to get past a stuck point?

**Today's Theme Song**

"Brain Stew" - Green Day

(player in sidebar, take a listen)

Face Off Friday: Should You Query a First Novel?*

 Today I'm asking one of the more hotly debated questions in the writing blogosphere - should you put your "baby" (first novel) in a drawer for a while or should you send it out to the world once you're done editing? Some say that you should not query your first book until you've written a second.

(It's too soon if) It's your first novel. No matter how hard it is to hear and follow this advice, it's probably the best advice I'll ever offer: write a second novel before you query on the first one. You'll learn so much while writing that second novel that you'll go back and either revise or discard Novel #1. AND you won't have all the baggage from those damn form rejections to weigh you down --agent Janet Reid

Others argue that it's silly to do that, some first novels get published. You've done all that work, so go for it. So, I thought this would make a great debate for a Face Off Friday.

I have to say that in my case, I queried my first novel too soon. It was before I was blogging, before I had quality beta readers, before I knew what the heck I was doing. (Although, I thought I did.) I had three biggie agents request fulls, which were eventually met with rejections (albeit one was personalized and encouraging.)  After I received these a few months after querying, I already knew that my book needed work. Since querying, I had learned so much. I now want to smack myself in the head that I jumped too soon on sending out those letters.

I've since parked that YA under the bed with plans to completely rewrite it one day. And, thankfully, my second novel turned out much better (at least based on publisher interest and contest wins.)

But patience is my least favorite virtue and is often my downfall. So I understand when others want to do the same as I did. And perhaps they will have better luck than me. But here are some points to consider:

Querying Now vs. Later

In defense of immediate gratification...

• You've worked really hard on your novel and the thought of not seeing what it could do out there is driving you crazy

• Some first novels sell

• You've revised the book ten ways til Sunday so it's not "technically" your first effort

• Publishing follows trends and your vampire/fairy/angel/werewolf book may not be "in" if you wait too long

• You can't focus on a second book unless you know if this one is going anywhere

• Your family has been hearing about your writing this book, now they keep asking you about the results

• You love this book and can't bear the thought of tucking it away for a while

For love of patience...

• If you write a second, you will have learned so much more that you will look back and see the flaws in your first effort that you missed the first time

• It's already too hard to keep up with trends since publishing is a slow process, so you have to take comfort in that if it's a great book, it will still be great in six months

• You'll have time to detach yourself from the first book and have a more unbiased opinion later

• You won't burn bridges with agents

• If one book sells, you'll be able to tell the agent you have something else already finished and ready to go as well

Alright, so I'm picturing myself reading this a year and half ago. I would have read the points for patience and been like, yeah BUT BUT BUT... and figured out all the ways that this did not apply to me.

So, I know that some of you are probably doing the same thing. Therefore, I'll include a little checklist to look over if you want to query your first novel and know that you're not going to be able to wait until you finish a second.

If you can't wait, make sure...

• You have read writing books, blogs, etc. on a regular basis.

• You know these rules/best practices (adverbs, participial phrases, buried dialogue, avoiding melodrama, showing not telling, etc.)

• Each important character has a clear internal and external Goal, Motivation, and Conflict. And by clear, I mean you do not have to explain it to others who have read your book.

• Your novel is high concept (if that's what you're going for) so you can boil the plot down to a sentence.

• Both your author voice and character voice are strong.

• Your opening chapter hooks the reader and is not loaded down with backstory.

• You are able to write a 1-2 page synopsis. If you can't, there may be a problem in the book (according to Janet Reid).

• Your novel has been read by at least three beta readers/crit buddies who are NOT your personal friends or family members. You need people who are writers themselves, have knowledge of the craft, and aren't afraid to be honest.

• You've read extensively in your genre and know what's out there, what's been done, etc.

• Even if you're not writing a second novel yet, let the manuscript stew for at least a month to gain some distance from it.

Alright, so that's my take on it. The links I included are former posts on all these issues. Feel free to disagree as always.

So what's your opinion? Should you follow the path of patience or jump into the shark tank? For those of you who have more than one novel under your belt, how do you see your first novel now? And has anyone out there had success with first novel querying?

**This is a revised reposting of an Oct. 2009 post.  My kiddo is sick and I'm running on two hours sleep, so I didn't think I could be coherent enough today to come up with the post I had planned.  However, I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts on this issue.**

 

**Today's Theme Song**

"Patience" - Guns 'N Roses

(player in sidebar--go ahead, take a listen)

Face Off Friday: Reading Fiction While Writing

Alright, this post will be short because today my husband is going in for knee surgery--yuck--so I will be on nurse duty.  So I'm just going to pose a question that I'm curious about.

Obviously, if you are a writer, you're also a reader.  I can't imagine the two not going hand in hand.  However, I have heard many writers say that while they are in the midst of writing (especially a first draft) they abstain from reading fiction so as not to muddle their own ideas.

I'm the opposite.  I actually find that reading stimulates the same part of my mind as writing and helps me stay in the right mindset.  When I stop reading, I often notice that's when I hit a wall with my writing.  The only time that reading becomes detrimental to my writing is when the book is too good.  Like with those Vampire Academy books I reviewed earlier this week--those were bad news for my writing.  When I was supposed to be working on my WIP, I had my head buried in the books.  Not productive--although quite enjoyable nonetheless.

So how about you?  Does reading interfere with your writing or help it?  Can you be actively reading something at the same time you have a new WIP going?

**Today's Theme Song**
"Read My Mind" - The Killers

(player in sidebar if you'd like a listen)

Face Off Friday: First Novel Querying

Abby Annis over at Evolution of My Neuroses had a post yesterday on whether or not she should put her "baby" (first novel) in a drawer for a while or send it out to the agent world. Some say that you should not query your first book until you've written a second.

(It's too soon if) It's your first novel. No matter how hard it is to hear and follow this advice, it's probably the best advice I'll ever offer: write a second novel before you query on the first one. You'll learn so much while writing that second novel that you'll go back and either revise or discard Novel #1. AND you won't have all the baggage from those damn form rejections to weigh you down --agent Janet Reid

Others argues that it's silly to do that, some first novels get published. You've done all that work, so go for it. So, I thought this would make a great debate for a Face Off Friday.

I have to say that in my case, I queried my first novel too soon. It was before I was blogging, before I had quality beta readers, before I knew what the heck I was doing. (Although, I thought I did.) I had two biggie agents request fulls, which were eventually met with rejections (albeit one was personalized and encouraging.) After I received these a few months after querying, I already knew that my book needed work. Since querying, I had learned so much. I now want to smack myself in the head that I jumped too soon on sending out those letters.

I've since dramatically revised and rewritten that YA book and the new version is still out with a two agencies, so I haven't given up hope. But I think it would have served me well to wait on anything until I finished my second, which I've now done.

But patience is my least favorite virtue and is often my downfall. So I understand when others want to do the same as I did. And perhaps they will have better luck than me. But here are some points to consider:

Querying Now vs. Later

In defense of immediate gratification...

• You've worked really hard on your novel and the thought of not seeing what it could do out there is driving you crazy

• Some first novels sell

• You've revised the book ten ways til Sunday so it's not "technically" your first effort

• Publishing follows trends and your vampire/fairy/angel/werewolf book may not be "in" if you wait too long

• You can't focus on a second book unless you know if this one is going anywhere

• Your family has been hearing about your writing this book, now they keep asking you about the results

For love of patience...

• If you write a second, you will have learned so much more that you will look back and see the flaws in your first effort that you missed the first time

• It's already too hard to keep up with trends since publishing is a slow process, so you have to take comfort in that if it's a great book, it will still be great in six months

• You'll have time to detach yourself from the first book and have a more unbiased opinion later

• You won't burn bridges with agents

Alright, so I'm picturing myself reading this a year ago. I would have read the points for patience and been like, yeah BUT BUT BUT... and figured out all the ways that this did not apply to me.

So, I know that some of you are probably doing the same thing. Therefore, I'll include a little checklist to look over if you want to query your first novel and know that you're not going to be able to wait until you finish a second.

If you can't wait, make sure...

• You have read writing books, blogs, etc. on a regular basis.

• You know these rules/best practices (adverbs, participial phrases, buried dialogue, avoiding melodrama, showing not telling, etc.)

• Each important character has a clear internal Goal, Motivation, and Conflict and external GMC. And by clear, I mean you do not have to explain it to others who have read your book.

• Your novel is high concept (if that's what you're going for) so you can boil the plot down to a sentence.

• Both your author voice and character voice are strong.

• Your opening chapter hooks the reader and is not loaded down with backstory.

• You are able to write a 1-2 page synopsis. If you can't, there may be a problem in the book (according to Janet Reid).

• Your novel has been read by at least three beta readers/crit buddies who are NOT your personal friends or family members. You need people who are writers themselves, have knowledge of the craft, and aren't afraid to be honest.

• You've read extensively in your genre and know what's out there, what's been done, etc.

• Even if you're not writing a second novel yet, let the manuscript stew for at least a month to gain some distance from it.

Alright, so that's my take on it. The links I included are former posts on all these issues. Feel free to disagree as always.

So what's your opinion? Should you follow the path of patience or jump into the shark tank? For those of you who have more than one novel under your belt, how do you see your first novel now? And has anyone out there had success with first novel querying?

**Today's Theme Song**

"Patience" - Guns 'N Roses

(player in sidebar--go ahead, take a listen)

Face Off Friday: Honest Reviews vs. Selective Reviews

Honesty is the best policy, right? That's what we're told when we're growing up. You won't get in trouble if your tell the truth. However, after the first time we tell our friend that the side ponytail she's rocking makes her ears look elfin (I grew up in the 80s--for my younger friends, side ponytails were the way to win friends and influence people), we learn that there are caveats to this honesty thing. Tact and good judgement have to be a part of it.

So where does this fall when doing book reviews? People read a book review because they want an honest opinion to know if they should read the book or not. If the reviewer is just saying he/she liked it because the author gave them a free ARC or they know the author or the author agreed to do an interview with them or they're afraid to insult the author, then the reviews are not honest. Therefore, the reviews on that site are unreliable. So reviewers should be completely honest then, right?

Well, maybe, but then there's karma. It may be because I am a writer, but throwing another writers work under the bus makes me feel icky. I know how much I slave over every word and I'm sure that author did the same. Telling other people not to buy their work shrouds me in guilt. Plus, I worry that if I'm ever lucky enough to get published, karma will wield her crafty hand and have reviewers or other authors lambasting me.

But if I don't like a book, what should I do? I won't lie. It's not in me. I'm the girl who created this elaborate plan to sleep at her boyfriend's house on prom night, only to call my mother at seven the next morning to admit it. (You should have seen the horrified look on my boyfriend's face as I made that call.) My mom has actually told me that I have a truth problem, that sometimes lying is necessary, lol.

So what's a girl to do? My policy thus far has been to follow the credo of "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say it at all." If a book receives less than three stars, I don't review it online. But is that the right thing to do? Here's the argument:

Brutal Honesty v. Selective Reviewing

The truth hurts, but it's the truth...

• Honest reviews will build trust among your followers

• You'll save people from spending hard earned money on a crappy book

• Authors are adults and can handle a tough review. Heck, maybe it will make them better the next time if the reviews are universally bad.

• People often enjoy debating and commenting on a negative review

If you don't have something nice to say, don't...

• If you're a writer and eventually get published, these writers will be your peer group and the internet has a long memory

• Agents have said they don't appreciate if they go on a site and a writer is dogging out one of their author's books

• Karma's a bitch

• The only thing a negative review does is cut into someone else's income

So what's your opinion? I've gone with the selective reviewing policy, but see the merits in both sides. Do you think I'm just lying by omission? What's your policy?

**Today's Theme Song**

"A Beautiful Lie" - 30 Seconds to Mars

(player in sidebar--go ahead, take a listen to the lovely Jared Leto)

Face Off Friday: EReaders v. Traditional Book

First off, I would like to apologize for my slacker status this week. On top of being busy with revision stuff, I have had a super cranky toddler who is suffering with a painful ear. So I have gotten ridiculously behind on blog reading and commenting. So if you haven't seen me around your blog or I've let super short comments, that is why. Hopefully this weekend, I will get some time to catch up. I miss reading all of your great posts.

Alright, so on to our Friday Face Off ...

As I mentioned in a previous post, I recently purchased a Kindle. I did this with the utmost reluctance. I couldn't imagine enjoying reading on an electronic device. Books are so, well, perfect. Some people use retail therapy, I have book therapy. If I've had a bad day, a few hours in a library, Borders, or the used book store will rejuvenate me like a soak in a hot tub. So how could I possibly like some plastic box that claimed to be a book substitute? *places my nose high in the air*

However, my closets were starting to tumble over with piles of books and my husband kept mentioning that those Kindle things look pretty cool--HINT HINT YOU FRIGGING PACK RAT. So, when I received some money for a holiday, I decided that maybe I should give one of these new fandangled devices a try. I checked to make sure there was a return policy (there is) and then put it in my Amazon cart. I literally closed out the order three times in the matter of two weeks before I got myself to hit the purchase button. Then, I finally did it.

And now.

*ducks book-loving head in shame* I'm a convert.

So I thought I would give my opinion about the pros and cons of each method for those of you wrestling with the decision like I did. I know there are many other ereaders besides the Kindle, but since I have no experience with those, I will speak specifically about Amazon's Kindle.

Traditional Book v. Kindle

For those who sniff books and say ahh....

• Looking for books in a store/library is half the fun
• A book won't break (although it may fade, get worn, etc.)
• Books are relatively inexpensive
• You can check them out from the library
• You can buy/sell them used
• Friends can borrow them after you finish
• You always have a physical copy if you want to save it
• Covers are pretty to look at
• Shelves of books in your house makes you feel warm and fuzzy
• Anytime you want to flip back through a book, it's there

For the progressive...

• One device can hold hundreds of your books (mine holds 1500), saving your closets
• What we love about books is the story not the paper and that stays the same
• After the initial cost of the device, ebooks are often cheaper, hardbacks are 9.99
• You can take your library with you anywhere
• You can read books with covers or titles like these in public and people are none the wiser. You could be reading Chaucer for all they know. Not that I ever do this, *ahem*.
• 
• There is a whole world of ebooks (some very good) that are only available in e-format. I was totally missing out.
• Not printing all those paperbacks is more friendly to the environment
• Instant gratification--you want a book, you can download it in 60 seconds wirelessly
• There is a built in dictionary, which I didn't expect to be so helpful, but is great
• You can upload word documents onto it--so you can read your own manuscript or your crit buddies' on it
• There are tons of free ebooks and promotions available
• Your purchases are saved online, so if your reader breaks or you get a new one, everything you bought is still available to redownload
• The battery life is ridiculously long
• You can highlight and bookmark passages, which is super helpful for me with reviews. If I run across a quote I love, I just highlight it and it saves it in a file for me.

To be fair, I'll also point on some of the concerns about E-readers.

• The upfront cost ($299 or more) is steep
• You can't lend/sell your books after you've read them
• You lose the library option (although they are looking at ways of incorporating this option)
• They can break and eventually (like any electronic device), you'll want to buy the newest version of it
• Some are concerned about straining their eyes--I will say this worried me, but the e-ink technology really does read like a book, not a computer screen. Most of the time I completely forget I'm not reading a paper book.
• You don't get to see the cover/back copy and there are no page numbers (just percentage done), which I hope they change in the future.
• Not all books are available as ebooks. This was a huge concern of mine, but all but one of the books I've wanted lately were available. The selection is huge.

So that's my take. I ♥ my Kindle. I still hang out at the bookstore, but I just make note of what I want then look it up when I get home. I never thought I'd be such a believer, but my experience has sold me.

So how about you? Would you ever consider getting an Ereader? For those of you who have one, what's been your experience? And am I the only one who's sniffing books?

**Today's Theme Song**

"I'm A Believer" - The Monkees

(player in sidebar--go ahead, take a listen)

Face Off Friday: Prologues

It's that time of the week again: Face Off Friday. On today's agenda, the loved/dreaded/maligned prologue. The rumor is that writers love them and agents/publishers hate them. Some quotes from our favorite blogging agents:

 

99.9% of the time, the prologue is vague or doesn’t really give me a sense of the writing or the story that’s going to unfold. I skip them as a general rule. --Kristen Nelson, Pub Rants

It is 3-5 pages of introductory material that is written while the author is procrastinating from writing a more difficult section of the book. --Nathan Bransford's definition

 

Earlier in the week, I talked about the written and unwritten rules of writing I have discovered along the way. The one that many of you had pain over was the fact that prologues are frowned upon. So, I thought I would delve deeper into that topic today.

First, let's define a few types of "pre-chapters":

 

Prologue is a preface to the story, setting up the story, giving background information and other miscellaneous information. --wiki

A preface is an introduction to a book written by the author of the book. A preface generally covers the story of how the book came into being, or how the idea for the book was developed; this is often followed by thanks and acknowledgments to people who were helpful to the author during the time of writing. --wiki

A foreword is a (usually short) piece of writing often found at the beginning of a book or other piece of literature, before the introduction, and written by someone other than the author of the book. --wiki

Okay, so what most of us are dealing with is the first one, as the preface and foreward are typically used for non-fiction works. (However, Twilight breaks this rule--what's new--and uses the term preface for its prologue.)

Prologues are seen in all genres, but are particularly popular in fantasy/sci-fi and thriller/suspense. In fantasy, the prologue often provides information to help the reader understand the strange world that they are about to enter. In suspense, a prologue can contain the killer's point of view or one of his first victims points of view to ratchet up the tension instantly.

So those seem valid reasons to use one, right? What's the problem?

The problem can lie in the fact that the prologue is almost always a big chunk of backstory. And backstory can be dangerous--it risks boring the reader and makes your pace drag. Prologues can also be a sneaky way to hide a slow-moving first chapter. (I have NEVER used this device for this sordid purpose, *cough*.) The latter is how it's used in Twilight. We get a glimpse of the end action--an unnamed victim being stalked by a unknown predator--before we enter into chapter one where nothing much interesting happens for many pages.

However, prologues aren't always terrible. Hush, Hush which I just reviewed recently had a prologue. The brief pages showed a scene that explained what happened to one of the characters to make him the way he was. In this novel, I didn't mind the prologue and its purpose was clear. Could the story have been sprinkled in later? Perhaps, but the prologue was a big shining billboard that said--"hey this is about angels!" and the scene had tension and action, not just flowery language about some random legend.

So when is it a good idea to include a prologue and when do you need to cut it?

Prologue vs. No Prologue

For love of the prologue:

 

• Fantasy/Sci-fi/Paranormal can be difficult to jump into without explaining a bit of the mythology/legend/world first.
• Some of the greats used prologues
• It can build tension early
• You have a helluva twist coming later that you need to foreshadow
• There is history that is vital to your story that must be introduced early

 

Nix the prologue because you are probably using it to cheat and do one of the following:

 

• Set the mood/atmosphere because you failed to do so in the opening chapter
• Info dump because you can't figure out where to sprinkle in the backstory
• Create tension because your chapter one is slow and you can't bear to edit it again
• Not trusting that your reader is smart enough to understand the world you created
• Your story or fantasy world is overly complicated and you want to get the reader a school lesson on it first

 

Another thought:

 

"Writers hope to create suspense and interest by writing a prologue about the person who turns out to be the villain but without identifying that person by name or gender. Sorry, but in my opinion, that's a cheap parlor trick and your reader knows it. You're better off doing the hard work of creating suspense and tension with your hero and heroine."--author Carolyn Jewel

 

I have to admit that I am guilty of loving a prologue. The one I had for my first novel was unnecessary and I was using it as a cheat (cheap foreshadowing). I cut it a few months ago and saw that I never needed it. However, I do have some mythology that could be helpful in a prologue, so even though I haven't added it, I'm constantly tempted. *sits on hands for a moment to keep from typing one up*

However, I am a little afraid of including one based on the may negative opinions out there. Most agents/authors say it should be used as a last resort. I don't want to do anything to hurt my already slim chances of breaking into the world of publishing.

So what's your opinion? How do you feel about prologues in the stories your read? Do you have a prologue in any of your stories? Are you using it for the right reasons or are you worried it's a cheat? Do you think they should be used only as a last resort?

**Today's Theme Song**

"Your Cheatin' Heart" - Patsy Cline

(player in sidebar--go ahead, take a listen)

Face Off Friday: E-publishing

As aspiring authors, our goal is to get published (Yes, I'm playing the role of captain obvious today). That used to be a straightforward plan. Write great book, land an agent, get a publishing contract, see book on shelf. Done. Right?

Well now there are more options than that. The rapidly rising industry of ebooks is beginning to change the face of publishing. Now, instead of just having hold-in-your-hand printed books, there are e-books and self-publishing and print on demand technology. Things are changing fast and we better pay attention.

But my question is, if you don't have luck with the traditional route, should you consider the ebook publishers? (I'm not going to talk about self-publishing. Weronika discussed that recently if you are curious about that direction.)

Ebooks are gaining popularity, especially in the areas of romance, erotica, and fantasy/sci-fi. Kindles and SonyEbooks are selling quickly and new companies are jumping in the ring with their own technology. Even Borders and Barnes and Noble are moving into the market.

So, is this a good route to get your words out there? I know most of us would prefer the traditional route, so I'm not going to pit that against ebooks. Instead, I'm going to look at the pros and cons of going with an e-publisher if you haven't had luck with an agent or traditional publisher. Is it better to be e-published or is it better to tuck your manuscript away and move on to the next project?

E-Publishing vs. Waiting out "the dream"

For love of technology:

 --An Ebook can be your springboard--This gets your name out there and gains readers. The early titles of Sherrilyn Kenyon, Angela Knight, and Sylvia Day were released as ebooks before they had books in traditional format. (source)

--The turnaround to get published is quicker

--Royalty percentages are usually higher with ebook publishers

--Environmentally friendly--same great book, less waste

--More control--it's been said that epublishers are often very author friendly

--Your book is published and not gathering dust in a drawer

--Genres such as romance have big gains in ebook readership

--Readers get a reasonable price on your book

--Once someone owns a e-reader (speaking from experience), it's easier to make an impulse buy. You hear about the book, sixty seconds later, it's on your reader. I did this yesterday in fact. If I had had to purchase this recommendation from my friend from a bookstore, I probably would have never gotten around to buying it.

--Because the upfront costs are lower, the e-publishers can take more risks, so they may give you a shot when an agent or traditional publisher couldn't because of market conditions/similar stories in their hopper/editor preferences/etc.

In defense of practicing patience:

--Your book will not be on a shelf at the local bookstore. Your grandmother will never believe you are published.

--Ebooks have a stigma attached to them that they are not as high quality as traditionally published books. (I have recently started reading ebooks and have not found this to be true, btw.)

--If you eventually get traditionally published with a different manuscript, you can dust off that first novel, revise, and try to get it published now that you're established.

--The number of people who own e-reading devices is still pretty low. The upfront cost for a reader is significant.

--You may not feel satisfied because it is a modified version of your dream.

--Distribution can be limited with ebook publishers.

So what's your opinion? If you tried to go the traditional route and it didn't work out, what would you do? Would you try to submit to an e-publisher or would you bury your manuscript and move on? I'd love to hear from those who have been e-published as well. What was your experience?

**Today's Theme Song**

"You Can't Always Get What You Want"-- Rolling Stones

(player in sidebar, take a listen)

Face Off Friday: Plotter vs. Pantser

Plotting and pantsing--two words passed around writer's circles constantly. People who are one or the other often wear their label with pride, thinking that their way is inherently better than the other way. For those of you who aren't familiar with these terms, here are some definitions:

 

Plotter: One who organizes, plans, plots, outlines, synopsizes, characterizes, takes copious notes, makes a storyboard, researches, figures out scene and sequel before putting pen to paper. Before they sit down at the computer, they know exactly what's going to happen in their story and feel confident that every scene flows into the next and all loose ends are neatly tied up. --source

Pantser: One who writes by "the seat of her pants". A writer who gets an idea for a story and/or characters and who might do some early thinking about basic story plots or characterization, but who for the most part, works off the "leap of faith" principle: "the characters will take me where they want me to go and everything will work out in the end." --source

Plotting vs. Pantsing

In defense of a plan:

• Without good planning, your story will end up messy and filled with holes
• If you don't work out your characterizations beforehand, you will write flat characters because you don't know their history
• Plotting helps avoid writer's block because you know what you have to write about next
• This makes it easier to plant early hints, red herrings, foreshadowing, etc.
• Knowing the big picture ahead of time helps you solidify things like theme, pacing, and story arcs.

For love of the spontaneous:

• Plotting smothers creativity
• You should let your characters lead you
• If you end up with a mess at the end, you can always revise it
• Not knowing what's coming makes it more exciting to write
• Beautiful surprises can happen while you're writing this way
• Outlining and writing down each detail is boring

A lot of the decision to go one way or the other may have to do with your own personality. Are you a checklist, organized kind of person or a go with the flow person?

I have a hard time deciding on which side I fall. I think I'm a bit of a combination. In life, I'm more a planner. Every weekend, I go through recipes and plan out the meals for the week, then make my grocery list--separated into sections that correspond with the aisles of the grocery store. I stick to a routine daily and rarely deviate from it.

However, in other ways, I'm a complete pantser. This blog, for instance, is never planned. Beyond knowing that I'm going to do WIP on Wednesday and this theme on Friday, I don't have an idea of what I'm going to write about until I wake up. This is why most of the time my post don't get up here until lunchtime.

So I've decided on a new category to apply to myself. I'm going to call it the Clark Griswold (from National Lampoon's Vacation).

Clark has good intentions. He has a rough plan of what's going to happen on his family's trip. They are headed to Wally World--he knows his ending. Along the way, he plans a few more stops. Largest ball of twine anyone? How about the Grand Canyon?

However, during his journey, he stumbles upon things that are way more interesting than what he thought. There's conflict. Blown up cars. Dead aunts. Murdered dogs. (Okay, it really is a funny movie if you haven't seen it, although my description is making it sound morbid).

Along with the conflict, new characters pop up out of the blue. Including ones that completely distract him from his journey. Like Christie Brinkley in the red convertible.

Although I hope my distraction would look more like Alexander Skarsgard from True Blood. Can't you just picture him in a red convertible, blond hair whipping in the wind. Okay, I digress.

So, although Clark has a general plan, he ends up experiencing a very different trip than he expected. He lets himself be led by the things and people around him. Then when he reaches the end he thought he wanted, he gets something very different, but much more fun. He literally punches his original plan in the face.

So I think that's what I am--a clark. I start out with a plan. My outline usually consists of a page of scribbles (including a beginning, an end, and a few points of conflict) and a couple of rough notes about my main characters. Then I just start writing and let the characters and story lead me. And most often, the story (including the end) that I originally planned look nothing like my original idea, but I like it better.

So how about you? Where do you fall on the Plotter/Pantser scale? What benefits do you find from your style? Are there any other clarks out there?

**Today's Theme Song**

"Holiday Road"--National Lampoon's Soundtrack

(player in sidebar, come on, you know you can't resist)

 

Face Off Friday: YA Lit and Sex

As most of you know, young adult books are all the rage right now. Many are calling it a YA renaissance. I know that many of you who read this blog both write (and read) YA, as I do. So hopefully this is a relevant topic for you guys.

When I was writing my YA, I had the constant worry about where to draw the line on the controversial things, particularly sex and cursing. In my teen years, YA lit was very different. Most of the books were pretty clean. There were the exceptions that many of the libraries banned (Judy Blume's Forever and the book Go Ask Alice come to mind), but for the most part books were "wholesome". So, in theory, when reading YA we were protected from the "adult" things. Right?

Well, this theory didn't hold true for me because by fourteen, I was bored with YA and had moved on to adult novels. As I mentioned in a previous post, I started V.C. Andrews' Flowers in the Attic series my freshman year of high school. Looking back, these books would probably be considered YA now. The protagonist was a teen. However, the books had sex, so at that time, they were marketed as adult fiction. And as for cursing, well I had a thing for Stephen King books in high school too, so...

In today's YA market, the books run the gamut--from the squeaky clean to the shocking. So when writing, I had to make the decision of where I would fall on this issue. People on each side of this debate feel very strongly about their opinions. I'll give you the argument, then I'll tell you what I ultimately decided worked for me.

Wholesome vs. Edgy

For love of the wholesome:

• Books with cursing, sex, and drugs normalize these behaviors and encourage teens to participate in them
• These books are pornographic and are selling sex to kids
• They teach teens (girls especially) that their worth is tied into their ability to please a boy
• The situations in these books expose children to adult situations that they aren't prepared to handle or interpret correctly

In defense of edgy:

• These books, although it is unfortunate, reflect reality: many teens are in fact having sex, some are exposed to drugs, and the majority are cursing.
• Teens are programmed to think about sex so we're not giving them any ideas with the books
• There is safety in fantasy. Perhaps teens can explore the topic through a book instead of in real life. For instance, in Forever, the sex is there but so are the emotional consequences that can happen in a sexual relationship.
• Most YA authors, although I'm sure there are exceptions, do not put sex in for gratuitous purposes, but for plot purposes.
• Has anyone watched TV lately or seen a movie or listened to the radio? Teens see a lot more sex outside of books than they see inside them.
• Teens can connect with a character who is struggling with the difficult issues and not feel as alone.
• Teen readers won't believe you if all your characters are squeaky clean
• If it's kept out of YA, the kids (like me) will just move to adult books, which may paint sex in a much more gratuitous and tempting light (sans consequences).

Both arguments have good points. So what did I do? I ended up trusting my characters. If in real life, I felt the character would curse, then I let him (where it would have the most impact.) I also put in some sexual situations and dialogue, but nothing beyond making out actually happens.

Why? Because of plot reasons. If I had felt my character was ready to have sex, then I probably would have let her. But the story didn't lead me that way. So I guess I fall on the liberal side in this debate. Perhaps I'm jaded from working with troubled teens in my past. They always trusted me more in therapy when I didn't balk at or preach about the things they were experiencing. I just let them talk through their feelings and offered some insight to try to lead them in a better direction.

So where do you fall in the debate? How did you make the decisions in your own YA? If you're a parent of a teen, how do you feel about what your child reads?

**Today's Theme Song**

"Don't Tell Me" - Avril Lavigne

(player in sidebar if you'd like a listen)

Face Off Friday: Say it pretty vs. Say what you mean

Scott over at The Literary Lab (great blog, btw) had a post this week on overwritten prose. He argued that writers, especially newbies, often try too hard to sound "writerly" and trump up their prose with unnecessary adjectives, adverbs, and metaphors. In other words, purple prose.

Wiki defines purple prose as "prose that is overly extravagant, ornate, or flowery as to break the flow and draw attention to itself. Purple prose is sensually evocative beyond the requirements of its context."

Here is the famous example (from Wiki): A more recent author famous for purple prose is Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton (1803–73), who begins his novel Paul Clifford (1830) with the sentence:

It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents—except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.

**I will say I don't mind "It was a dark and stormy night" as it's also the first line of A Wrinkle in Time, my favorite childhood book.***

In the comments section of his blog, a debate began. Some argued that purple prose is actually very common in many of the classics and shouldn't be vilified. They also argued that just because someone should write accurately, does not mean they have to be brief. Brevity can sometimes come at the sacrifice of lush and beautiful language.

So here we go with the face off:

Say it Pretty vs. Say What You Mean Prose

For love of Purple:

• Many classics, which have been lauded as great writing, contain purple passages
• Without beautiful, flowery words, we're reduced to lackluster sentences
• Why do we have such a rich language if we aren't going to use all those lovely words?
• This type of prose does not mean it has to be inaccurate writing. You can say what you mean and still say it in a beautiful way.
• Brevity is a trend, not a rule.

On the less is more side:

• Say what you mean and don't dress it up to make it look fancier.
• Being brief and accurate does not mean the writing must suffer--straightforward prose can be beautiful

  In The Book on Writing by Paula LaRoque, she suggest an exercise where you take a passage and only use one syllable words. When a high school student performed this exercise, she/he came up with "When I stepped through the rocks to glimpse the coast for the first time in my life, I was awed. The wide blue sea glowed with light from the sun, and wisps of smooth white clouds soared in the huge free sky." Maybe too many adjectives still, but pretty, using only one syllable words. I love the idea of the huge free sky.

 

Lisa McCann (Wake- excerpt) and Laurie Halse Anderson (Speak
) also do a really good job of being brief but impactful.

• Purple prose often tells instead of shows
• It often contains unnecessary information.
• It's painful to read.

So, I will admit that I have a personal bias on this. I hate long passages of flowery language. This type of writing has never done it for me even before I knew what purple prose was. I often find myself skimming through pages of long descriptions to get to the "good" part. Maybe this is a sign of undiagnosed ADD, I'm not sure. However, I can say that I don't enjoy these passages. I have a very functional imagination. You tell me the kids are in a high school gym, I've got a picture. I don't need to know the color of the floors or that is has basketball goals, unless either of those play some crucial role in the plot. But I know not everyone feels this way.

What's your opinion? Do you love the beauty of this type of writing or do you skim past these passages like I do? Do you catch yourself putting passages like these in your own writing or do you have the opposite problem and struggle with description?

Face Off Friday: Adverbs

The votes are in. You guys have chosen Face Off for the weekly Friday theme. Thanks to those of you who voted!

So, first a quick update, since I have been absent for most of this week. I have spent the last four days in a manic state of revising. The manuscript, thankfully, is now on its way to the agent's hands. She estimates she'll get back to me within eight weeks.

Word of warning to anyone out there: Say (as a completely hypothetical example) you are querying, and you've gotten a few rejections, some with feedback about your manuscript. Based on this you decide, you need to change the story arc, rewrite the ending, and change some of the mythology in your book. But you figure, you haven't heard from the rest of your queries and it's been three months or so since you've sent them, so they must be rejections. In fact, you even blog about the death of your first novel and start working on a second book. Then, out of the blue, another full request comes in and now you have to do a month's worth of work in a week. What an idiot you would be. Don't be me  one of those people.

Okay, moving on.

For Face Off Friday, I will be selecting a topic that people have opposing opinions on. I will give both sides and then ask you, as commenters, to give you own opinion.

First in the ring: ADVERBS

On the Adverbs are Satan's spawn side:

The adverb is one of the most talked about parts of speech amongst writers. Pick up most writing books, and it will tell you that using adverbs should be avoided like the plague. Stephen King goes as far as saying that the road to hell is paved with adverbs.

The argument consist of the following:

-Adverbs are the sign of weak writing, particularly weak verbs. Why speak loudly when you should just yell?

-They tell instead of show.

-It's the lazy way. Ex.) He gazed at her tenderly vs. He gazed at her, brushing a wisp of hair off her face.

-They provide redundant information. Ex.) He yelled loudly. She ran quickly.

-They make the prose sound purple.

On the Adverbs are unfairly maligned side:

This side claims that murdering adverbs is just part of the current trend of our fast-moving, text-messaging, tweeting society. We want writing to be as succinct as possible. We don't have time to read all the flowery prose that the 1940s writers employed.

Their argument:

-Sometimes the adverb might be the absolute right work for the situation. Ex.)What would "through a glass, darkly" be without the adverb?

-Without adverbs and the other redheaded step child (dialogue tags), we're reduced to said, asked, and stated. Snore.

-Sometimes its hard to find a verb that fits what you're trying to say. Ex.) whispered loudly--you could say "said in a loud whisper" but if we're trying to be brief, what's better

-The general reading public are not bothered by them. Some of the bestsellers (most notably Twilight and Harry Potter) are notorious adverb abusers.

Case in point:

Unexpectedly, he was on his feet, bounding away, instantly out of sight, onlyto appear beneath the same tree as before, having circled the meadow in a half second.

“As if you could outrun me,” he laughed bitterly.

He reached up with one hand and, with a deafening crack, effortlessly ripped a two-foot-thick branch from the trunk of the spruce.

… I’d never seen him so completely freed of that carefully cultivated facade. … His lovely eyes seemed to glow with rash excitement. Then, as the seconds passed, they dimmed. His expression slowly folded into a mask of ancient sadness.

“Don’t be afraid,” he murmured, his velvet voice unintentionally seductive.

… He sat sinuously, with deliberately unhurried movements, till our faces were on the same level, just a foot apart.

– Excerpted from Twilight by Stephenie Meyer, pages, 264-265 (source)

I'll admit that I struggle with no adverb rule when I'm writing. A large chunk of my editing goes into finding these and figuring out a better way to say whatever I was trying to say. (Tip: do a Find/Search on "ly" in your document to unearth the little buggers.)

The first run through my novel, I wasn't aware of this rule. Wow. When I started reading on the craft and discovered this, I wanted to bang my head against the computer. Adverb (and dialogue tag) abuse didn't even begin to describe the first version of my novel.

So how about you? Do you struggle with this? Are there ever times where you think the adverb is needed? Are we being too hard on this lonely part of speech?