Terry,

At the end of the Nineteenth Century there emerged an American black preacher who apparently mesmerised audiences with his firebrand sermons. He was asked how it was that his words had such an effect.

He replied 'I tells them what I'm goin' to tell 'em, I tells them what I'm telling 'em, then I tells them what I told 'em.'

This came from a course on Public Speaking I attended some time ago and which is a bedrock upon which 'good public speaking' is now based.

Sorry to inject this but I agree that TV programmes do seem to follow the same technique.

However back to Prologues. There is no hard and fast rule and a Prologue can be useful, helpful or essential. Sue had in mind to her latest draft. I read this and said that in my opinion it needed a Prologue. Perhaps others might read and comment.

Len

I want to write a book that has one really long prologue and nothing else after it. I might consider this for my upcoming thriller Memoirs of an Amnesiac.

I think it's all relative and depends on the writing. I have read a plethora of prologues (flock of sheep, pride of lions, plethora of prologues) that have been excellent and set my pulse racing for more.

I think there has to be a decent excuse for first person. It's tricky, because you're basically making your MC as skilled a writer as you are - though you don't have to. My first novel is written as a confessional, so it makes sense, though I had a hellish time with the time frames and tenses. That's why I went on to write something linear - much easier when you're writing in a sequence of events rather than a series of cross references. My publisher said my book was incredibly complex but the pay offs make it worth it.

JB

The TV programme makers are presumably convinced that no-one will watch a programme for more than two minutes without being tempted to hop to a different channel, so they're simultaneously trying to keep existing viewers wanting to stay, and get new viewers up to speed before they lose interest.

He replied 'I tells them what I'm goin' to tell 'em, I tells them what I'm telling 'em, then I tells them what I told 'em.' This came from a course on Public Speaking I attended some time ago and which is a bedrock upon which 'good public speaking' is now based.

That may be true, when your audience either can't or won't take notes. But I hate books that are structured like that, and more and more are. I feel condescended to, bored by the repetition, and baffled by the reduction of a complex argument to a soundbite at the end. 'What I'm going to tell them' may be useful, but if 'what I'm telling 'em' is properly written, the signposts will be clear enough not to need 'what I have told 'em'

Because that's so tedious to read, they have to spice things up with a juicy anecdote at the beginning, to hook the reader in. That's where my wariness for prologues come in. I actually abandonned a book on military history - The Hinge Factor by Erik Durkheim - which ought to have been really interesting because he started every chapter like that, and it was incredibly irritating - as if he didn't trust me to be interested in the core of his quite sophisticated historical argument. It takes a Simon Schama to do it in a way that really works.

Emma

JB, I think your idea of a book that is all prologue is absolutely brilliant! Not quite sure how you could do it and whether it would work - but there's always a way. As someone said (it might have been you) it all depends on the writer. Anyhow, I just love the outrageousness of it.

I'm thinking about something I wrote ages ago and coming to the decision that maybe what it needs is a prologue. Funny how these threads have an effect on you.

Roger.

Emma,

The 'tells 'em' basis holds very firm for the majority of well-written speeches but I agree that, if applied to many other forms of writing, it becomes a boring mess designed to impress the ignorant. However I think that no worthwhile writer would ever dream of using this as a baseline or template except for public speaking.

Len

However I think that no worthwhile writer would ever dream of using this as a baseline or template except for public speaking.

Len, I wish that were true! In non-fiction, anyway. In academic writing it's positively encouraged. I'm not looking forward to that aspect of my PhD

Emma

Yes, Emma, I can understand that; thanks for reminding me. It is well appreciated template in the world of public relations (nowadays in political terms referred to as 'spin and spit'.

Good luck with your PhD I am sure this will be a result of flying colours.

Len


<Added>

Another smiler! Wish I could get rid of them! Len

Emma,

I don't know if you've read any Asimov? His remedy for practicing PhD-style writing was to produce a short-story in that style: "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thyotimoline" (not sure of the spelling of that last word). He wanted to see if he could write badly enough for a PhD!

Alex

Never read any Asimov, I'm afraid - one of the sci fi writers I know I ought to try, but I have a bit of a blind spot about that genre. But now I really will have to go and have a look!
Emma

Emma,

The piece in question is a short story, and it's in a collection called "The Early Asimov". I have the paperback version, and in that it's Volume 3 (I think the hardback version is a single volume). The correctly-spelled title is "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline". Before the piece, Asimov gives some amusing notes on how he came to write it. Then, after the piece, he tells us a little more about the background. His short story collections always have these interesting semi-biographical details about the circumstances of a story's writing.

I wouldn't say he's the best SF writer in terms of his characters' dialogue (which always sounds a little learned, he having been an academic). However, the broad sweeps of his "future history" are very imaginative and well-grounded in past human history, and he wrote very good crime-mystery stories, albeit with an SF twist. This piece, though, is more like a scientific paper. I, too, have a science background, so it amused me when I read it.

Alex

If you ever have trouble sleeping, read Asimov's Foundation series. Yawn-o-rama!

Asimov is sci-fi for boffins. If you like something to actually happen in the books you read, avoid. That blind spot is probably there for a reason.

JB

Thanks for the health warning! Sadly, my blind spot extends to Le Guin, Marge Piercy, H G Wells etc. Though Terry Pratchett has been known to make me laugh.

Maybe it's because my genes are split straight down the middle between science and literature: one of my grandmothers was such a scientist that she never read fiction, because what was the point of reading anything that wasn't true? And my grandfather on the other side, who was an academic and should have known better, was heard to describe a colleague as 'the harmless, necessary chemist.'

Emma

In my teens and twenties I read hundreds of science fiction books, including loads of Asimov, Foundation trilogy included. At the time, I enjoyed most of it but looking back, it's interesting that the only stuff I can remember is to do with strong characters or morally interesting situations. For which reason, I remember a lot of Sturgeon, since he often raised controversial issues and, by the strength of his writing, obviously thought them through. I still remember 'A World Well Lost' which was one of the first sci-fi stories to deal positively with gay issues, and had a big effect on my thinking as a teen. He also wrote about how the next development for humans could be as group entities, in which the mind is one but the individual parts may be physically odd, even damaged. Similarly, I recall just about all Philip Wylie's books, because he always raised interesting, usually uncomfortable, moral questions (he also wrote 'Gladiator' from which the Superman writers nicked their character). On the other hand, I can't remember a single thing about any Asimov story, other than his Laws of Robotics.

Terry

It isn't to my taste, but I accept Asimov is loved and respected by millions, just to clarify. I'm not a techno sci-fi fan,a I did attempt Foundation while I was fourteen years old.

I don't understand that attitude of 'won't read anything that isn't true', but it is typical of a scientist. I went out with one for four years, and you couldn't change a lightbulb in our flat without the entire process being dutifully explained.

The thing is, a scientist should know how much is unknown about the universe, so who are they to say what's true or not?

To some extent, if something lives and breathes in your imagination, and effects you on a deeply personal level, thereby changing the course of your life, I would hazard a guess and state that there is nothing truer.

But that's just me.

JB

Who says not reading anything that isn't true is typical of scientists? Does a sample of 1 constitute a typical example? While I was studying physics at university, I met lots of fellow-students who were avid SF readers, most more so than myself. It is also quite sobering to discover how many physicists have deeply-held religious beliefs.

When people use phrases like "typical of x", they are blinding themselves to the truth about the people around themselves, because the belief that goes along with such sweeping statements becomes self-fulfilling (you only see what confirms it and ignore what doesn't). This is where prejudism starts. Where it ends, of course, we found out 60-odd years ago.

Sorry if I sound like I'm coming down too heavily, or if I've caused offence by the above, but sweeping generalisations about people have always been a pet-hate of mine.

Alex