Elmore Leonard's 10 "Rules" of Writing

[Steerpike]

1. Never open a book with the weather.
2. Avoid prologues.
3. Never use a verb other than “said” to carry dialogue.
4. Never use an adverb to modify the verb “said.”
5. Keep your exclamation points under control!
6. Never use the words “suddenly” or “all hell broke loose.”
7. Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.
8.Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.
9.Same for places and things.
10. Leave out the parts readers tend to skip.

You can find him expanding on them a bit more, here: WRITERS ON WRITING; Easy on the Adverbs, Exclamation Points and Especially Hooptedoodle - New York Times

I can't say I disagree with any of these. If you're going for a more artistic style, along the lines of a Peake or Nabokov, these don't work of course. But in general I think these are good guidelines (there are no rules).

[JonSnow]

#2 and #6 caught my eye... first I think a prologue is SOMETIMES necessary. For instance, if you are setting a backdrop for the story using an event that happened many years in the past, a Prologue is a more fitting way to include that history, rather than using it as chapter 1, where those characters and/or places may never be heard from again. It would seem really out of place. The reader expects the prologue to be something different from the main body of the story. That being said, the prologue shouldn't be 25 pages long, either.

In regards to #6, I think the "all hell broke loose" is a good example of what a lot of writers do by accident (myself included, though I catch myself more often through experience). These cliches or sayings like "all hell broke loose", "hot summer night", "two peas in a pod", "smelled like roses", "crystal clear", or "plain as day" should be avoided all together. If you want to use quips or cliches, make up your own. You don't want the reader to snap out of their reading world by hearing some saying their mother used the other day.

[Steerpike]

I agree with you regarding #6, JonSnow. An exception would be first person POV, I suppose, where maybe the viewpoint character is prone to using cliches.

I don't agree regarding #2, however. I don't think a prologue is ever necessary. Sometimes they are used effectively, many time they are not, but I can't think of a situation where you absolutely have to have one. But people who know me around here know I don't like prologues. I'll put a book with a prologue back on the shelf a good portion of the time; or maybe I'll skip the prologue and go straight to the story in chapter 1. If it is really well done, I'll read it. If it is merely a vehicle for providing background to the reader, I'm not interested.

[ProfessorBrainfever]

My NiP has a prologue.

I say, if you're going to use one, make it necessary. Writing off all prologues is quite silly, in my humble opinion.

[Steerpike]

"Necessary" to me indicates that the author had no choice but to include one, because there is no other way to impart the information from the prologue to the reader. I can't think of a situation in which that would be the case.

I'll read a prologue in some circumstances, but it certainly counts as a strike against any book I pick up. My experience is that I tend not to like them, so all other things being equal I'd rather read something that doesn't have one. As I noted above, though, I have actually bought books with prologues and just skipped the whole prologue and started right in with chapter 1.

[ProfessorBrainfever]

So, is it the fact that they're called 'prologues' that you object to? Would calling it 'Chapter 1' change your opinion? Or is it that they (generally) take place a certain amount of time before the next chapter?

[T.Allen.Smith]

I think the point concerning prologues can be stated another way.

A really good story with spine-tingling tension and anxiety causing conflict is immediate and urgent in how it is felt & experienced by the reader. A prologue offers information from the past or from distant locales, both far removed from the current action & intrigue.

If you're writing a prologue I think you should ask yourself two questions.

Can I relay this information in the main body of the story where it will have more immediate impact or am I just being lazy in my efforts to get the information out there?

Will there be increased tension as my characters discover this information as the story moves along?

If you can answer those questions honestly and still feel a prologue is the only way to dole out this part of the tale then I'd say you have grounds to write a prologue. Otherwise, it's probably better to get it across in another way.

[Steerpike]

So, is it the fact that they're called 'prologues' that you object to? Would calling it 'Chapter 1' change your opinion? Or is it that they (generally) take place a certain amount of time before the next chapter?

It's the fact that they're generally a bunch of boring backstory that I don't want or need to know yet, because I want to get straight into the story. I don't care if the author called it a prologue, chapter 1, or a ham sandwich. It's what the author tends to do with it that I don't like. The word "prologue" is just a convenient way for the author to tell me "OK, now I'm going to tell you a bunch of stuff that happened before the story." As a rule, I'd just rather get to the story.

It's a generalization. Not all prologues are like that, but I seem to come across many that are.

[ProfessorBrainfever]

Maybe we're just reading different things? I don't remember most of the prologues I read having that quality to them.

When I think of them, I think of the first chapter of 'Game of Thrones'. It's not called a prologue, but that's essentially what it is, and it's an action-filled hint of the story to come that gives the flavor of the world without boring you.

Perhaps this is less an argument between 'prologues' and 'no prologues' than it is an argument between 'good prologues' and 'bad prologues'.

[T.Allen.Smith]

Maybe we're just reading different things? I don't remember most of the prologues I read having that quality to them.

When I think of them, I think of the first chapter of 'Game of Thrones'. It's not called a prologue, but that's essentially what it is, and it's an action-filled hint of the story to come that gives the flavor of the world without boring you.

Perhaps this is less an argument between 'prologues' and 'no prologues' than it is an argument between 'good prologues' and 'bad prologues'.

I agree that this chapter in GoT was good..... Why would he choose to do that?

First reason I thought of was because it enabled him to accomplish 2 different things. One, show that there was something sinister looming but more importantly, lead into the scene where Bran witnesses his father beheading the deserter.

Also, we're not talking about a massive span of time or distance here either. We're talking about 2 bordering realms and a deserter that is captured not long after the action scene your referencing. That being the case, it is still immediate the the story.

I wouldn't place that in the category of prologues that show me something "relevant" a hundred years earlier.