Manuscript Critique: a Comprehensive Guide

ADVICE: A Good Prologue....

When I was pregnant with my first child, my sister—who had already had one of her own—informed me that there was an underground, epic battle being waged among moms and once my child was born, she and I may be fighting on opposite sides.

Breastfeed moms vs. formula moms. And no, I couldn't straddle the fence.

I'd thought she was joking until I'd encountered my first 'Breastfeed or bust' pediatrician. That was the day I realized a strong belief, of anything in any form, comes off looking crazy. I've since learned that it's best not to announce which side I call home.

That's how I felt when I came out as anti-prologue.

Now, here's the thing. I wasn't always against prologues. In fact, till January of this year, nay, until May of this year (This is written May 9th), I'd been "it's not for me, but...." in my stance.

That ship has said, fell under pirate occupation, received damage during a poorly stage mutiny, and sunk to the deepest, DEEPEST depths of the ocean.

All thanks to...the response.

We're not 'allowed' to dislike prologues. Why? I really don't know. But firm prologue lovers take it PERSONALLY when you inform them that you refuse to share in the experience of giving upwards of ten minutes to a character/chapter/scene that's probably not going to pan out in the big scheme things.

Truth of the matter is, prologues are tools. They are good tools and they serve a purpose. Done well, of course, they strengthen stories. However, in my reviewing endeavor, I went from writing prologues, to squinting at prologues, to reluctantly reading prologues, to reading only when pressured, to being ready to lose a pinkie, slowly, as it's eaten from the inside out by carnivorous worms before ever reading another prologue. And that wasn't 'by chance.' That's from experience. And I'm not alone.

So why aren't we allowed to voice our reluctance without someone feeling slapped in the face?

In my defense, I have good reason for my dislike and hesitation.

1. It feels like two starts. A lot of prologues give us a different POV, a different character, a different key plot point, all of which have no follow up in chapter 1 which starts with a NEW character, new POV etc. and that would be fine if they weren't totally UNRELATED. So it becomes two starts.

2. The prologue outshines the chapter 1. As it's the first thing people often see, authors go the extra mile for that prologue. It's exciting, it's intriguing, it's brave and bold and so mindbogglingly good. So when you eagerly scamper to the chapter 1, expecting the same energy, you find yourself with a slow buildup. And while that slow buildup is probably normal, thanks to the prologue, which was 'fire,' that normal buildup feels like a lag.

3. It's often a poorly disguised info dump.

4. It introduces something that won't be followed up on for CHAPTERS and CHAPTERS.

5. The characters you start to like and even get emotionally invested in, are killed off for dramatic effect or 'tone.'

So far, this is what I've seen, this is what I've experienced, and I just don't like it.

In all these instances stated above, if an author wants to do all these things, they are within their right. And I am well within my right to not put myself through that.

I suppose, at the end of the day, we should all wear plastic smiles and lie to one another for the sake of peace in all underground wars.

That way, nobody's feelings ever get hurt.