posted
1) First Person vs. 3rd Person In Jack Whyte's "Dream of Eagles" series, he used a first person style that I really enjoyed, and thought that it allowed for some unique storytelling. However, most books are told using multiple POV's, or 3rd person. Which do you think is better / do you prefer?
2) I'm trying to write a novel now, but have a question about "Prologue's." I am writing a fantasy story, but I want to tell some backstory about events that occur 1,000 years ago to four characters who will be (but are not the main char's) in the story during the proper timeframe. Is a prologue a real turn off to publishers when submitting a query? The events are dramatic (a trial for treason, where 1 man is banished to a form of limbo, one is sent to the lowest level of Hell, and one is forced to live forever, witnessing all of his family and friends dying). However, people here say you have 1 page to hook the editor, and if you don't is rejection time.
posted
1) There's a topic going for this question. My advice: do what comes naturally.
2) My advice: If you must include it, keep it short and don't expect to use it to draw in the heart strings of your readers for two reasons. A. They don't know the four, so why should they emotionally invest themselves in their plight? (That doesn't mean you can't make them care when you re-intro them later.) B. You don't want your readers spending the next some-odd chapters worrying over your first four characters when they should be getting to know the main ones.
Also, a comment: Is condemning someone to _eternal_ life just so they'll witness the death of their loved ones really such a punishment? After a few generations, I think they'll have gotten over it. But then, that's just my gut reaction to what you've written here.
posted
My experience is that many readers have a prejudice against first person and are reluctant even to try a novel that employs it. My advice is only to use first person if it's right for the story AND if you can get round its limitations without using cringingly bad devices. The worst I ever encountered was having the first person narrator recount some event they haven't witnessed and then glibly say "of course, I knew nothing about this". Aaaargh!
Think carefully about the limitations first person will place on your story and make sure you have viable and workable ways to get round them. First person is challenging to write in but does offer an opportunity to develop the narrator's unique voice.
Prologues--some say yay, some say nay. My suggestion would be to work the prologue into the story in some other way. Perhaps as a folk tale.
quote:Also, a comment: Is condemning someone to _eternal_ life just so they'll witness the death of their loved ones really such a punishment? After a few generations, I think they'll have gotten over it.
Interesting comment. My thought would be that if the person forms any new relationships, those will go the same way and the suffering will be endlessly repeated. If they don't form new relationships, they will be completely alone. So I suspect it may be more of a punishment than it first appears.
posted
Conventional wisdom, which I think is sound:
3rd person is the default. Use 1st person if there's a good reason. See OSC's Characters & Viewpoint for a longer discussion.
Avoid the prologue if you can, but if you can't, make it short. It sounds like you probably can. The problem with a prologue is that the readers are going to get involved with characters, and then switch to a new set. It's a certain cost. It may be worth it.
posted
Highlander makes for an interesting example. He always lit a candle for Heather on her birthday, so she was certainly never forgotten. And he did seem reluctant to form new relationships.
Posts: 245 | Registered: Aug 2005
|
I do not support prologues that are so removed in time or characters from the first chapter as to make the reader wonder why it was included and not have it pay off for half of the book or more. If there is too much space between when the scene is given and when it actually gains context then it either should be removed or put somewhere else.
posted
When submitting three chapters, I would think that means three actual chapters, not the prologue. Leave that till you've got a request for the entire manuscript.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted
For your prologue, I would say read the Song of Ice and Fire series by George R. R. Martin. He has a similar situation, but he does not use a prologue to show the Very Important Event that had occurred in the past. He just starts the story, fifteenish years after the VIE, and shows the characters and relationships as they are now. Occassionally during the series, some character that was at the VIE remembers it or tells a story about it to another character. Of course they all remember it with their own biases, and none of them knew everything that happened. As you work through the story, you'll gradually get the idea that 1) this event was very important, and 2) things that happened then were a direct cause of the situation the characters find themselves in now.
It was very deftly done. Martin still uses prologues, but they are to show quick glimpses of things none of the POV characters can know about.
Of course you know your story best, but it sounds to me that it could benefit from using a similar approach.
posted
I don't have any problem with using a prologue in the situation you describe. It doesn't have to be especially short, either.
The main thing with a prologue is that it should be interesting in its own right and clearly important to the main story. One difficult element of prologues is getting the "open-ended closure" thing just right, it sounds like this should be a natural what with the trial for treason concluding with sentances that leave those characters indefinitely...available.
On the subject of first person, wait till you have a definite reason to tell the story in first person, preferably several. It's like a two-headed dragon, you can't just tell every story using a two-headed dragon because you really liked one story that featured such a beast.
I think I'll find a better way to do the Prologue, rather than simply stick it at the start. I hadn't thought of having the readers invest their time and emotion into the initial 4 char's, then switch up to the main char's of the story.
posted
As for why I picked "eternal life" as a punishment, I always thought that watching your wife and children out live you and die off, same with your friends, etc, would be horrible.
He wouldn't be too eager to make new relationships either, for 2 reasons.
a) He would be viewed as a freak / somthing evil as he cannot die
b) His new wives / friends would also end up dying off too, so he probably would not want to ever start a new lasting meaningful relationship.
I'm also adding the condition that he cannot commit suicide, or allow somebody else to kill him.
posted
You could do that. But wouldn't the cooler twist be that, though he suffers initially, he begins to use his longevity in nefarious ways? Perhaps he specifically chooses women with certain attributes to breed children on them--intelligent women, or women with certain skill sets. Then, when those children are born, he manipulates them (yes, his own children) into breeding among others and inter-breeding, masterminding an entire race with the select qualities he chooses?
Okay, maybe that's a little off the deep-end. But I would try going with the atypical guilt and pain-ridden punishee. Make him feel it at first, but then make him enjoy it, becoming more and more villainous in the eyes of the reader. I think it makes for a much more interesting character.
posted
The "can't die" as punishment has been done to death, as I learned after writing a story with that theme. Here, though, I'm looking longer term. What happens to an immortal at the end of time, when entropy had destroyed everything else in the entire universe and there is nothing left whatsoever besides the immortal soul. It's very difficult to bring something new to that table.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted
Simple immortality gives you a lot of capabilities, but it doesn't necessarily make supervilliany possible all by itself.
After all, just because you can't die, that doesn't prevent a mob from beating you to a pulp, throwing you on a bonfire, and only then leaving you for dead. You think that would be a terrible death? Try doing it and not dying. Then, try doing it again, just for kicks
If you warn somebody what immortality does and doesn't cover, they should be able to make some pretty good decisions.
As for the eugenics program, it always seems like a good idea right up till you find out that everyone else has a different idea of eugenics from yours and is willing to kill all your off-spring to make that point. Even assuming that a simple curse of immortality would leave someone capable of engendering children forever.
posted
The twist that I'm putting on these characters, is that when they were alive they were the "holiest" and most respected people of their age. Through treachery and political backstabbing, they were convicted of treason and sentenced to their respective punishments.
All three of them live until the current time where my main story takes place, but they all now feel betrayed and very bitter. They'll feel that they lived their lives as paragons of virtue, and all it got them was bruatal punishments.
posted
I happen to like prologues that are done well. Unfortunately, some editors seem to be very prejudiced against them, so it's probably best to avoid them if at all possible.
Posts: 1517 | Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted
I think that as long as your writing is without silly errors, such as grammar or spelling mistakes, then I think you'll get more than one page to convince the editor you have something worthwhile. This is a novel not a short story. In fact, with a novel, your query letter may be more important in giving your story a chance.
The thing with prologues is to do what works. Many novels have prologues, so some people must like them.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
