Kevin's Watch

As a rule, when I read books I only look at forwards, prologues, and their ilk after I finished the books. They pepper me with unwanted spoilers, mention character and themes that aren't relevant for me yet and assume I know things I don't.

So naturally, when I first read The Mirror of her Dreams I didn't bother to read the prologue Donaldson added to it. As a result I never thought about Terisa and Geraden's story as paralleling the princess in the hightower fairytale and had some problems assimilating it into my perception of the story. The romance in the story had more of a good&honest versus bad&attractive slant to it.

How is it for you? Did you read the prologue before you started the books? And was it a good thing to do it and its influence on the rest of your reading was for the best or would you have preferred to judge the meaning of the story by yourselves?

I always read the prologue first, and the epilogue or afterword last. I assume they're there because the author wanted to tell me something that wasn't part of the story.

I'm glad I did for MN. My thoughts as I read the opening pages were "This even reads like a fairy-tale.

--A

Avatar wrote:I always read the prologue first, and the epilogue or afterword last. I assume they're there because the author wanted to tell me something that wasn't part of the story.

I'm glad I did for MN. My thoughts as I read the opening pages were "This even reads like a fairy-tale.

--A

I agree. I read it as the author intended and 'rate' it accordingly..
In this case I thought is perfect.
MN is my fave.

I agree too. A prologue is part of the story to me, so I'll read it.

What I WON'T read is the book jacket, promotional blurbs, etc. Those usually tell WAY too much (as do most movie trailers). Example being: the jacket for The Illearth War mentions "Elena - found to be Covenant's daughter" ... gee, do you think I might not have wanted to know that yet? Part of the tension of the first part of the book is wondering who this woman is, how she became High Lord, what are the cryptic references she makes to Covenant...

Yup, I always read the prologue first. It's part of the story.

I agree with Relayer's comments about jacket blurbs and so forth, though. I will sometimes read them, but often avoid them. They don't always ruin the suspense of the story, but sometimes they do.

shadowbinding shoe wrote: when I first read The Mirror of her Dreams I didn't bother to read the prologue

I'm sorry, I have trouble assimilating that sentence into my understanding of your viewpoint.

Did you read the prologue before you started the books?

Yes.

And was it a good thing to do it and its influence on the rest of your reading was for the best or would you have preferred to judge the meaning of the story by yourselves?

The prologue was an inherent part of the story's meaning.

I try not to read any cover blurbs or the jacket, or the back of paperbacks. But I always read the prologue first, with the exception of The Fellowship of the Rings. That got read after, on advice of friends.

Why? I read the whole thing cover to cover, starting with the first things in the book.

I guess I'm one of a kind

Why NOT read the introductions first according to their place in the books?

A story, if it's a good one, is complete onto itself. And, its message would be best etched on the tabula rasa of a mind that hadn't been contaminated with the subjective slants of blurbs, back-covers and of course, introductions.

And despite you all I'm not alone in my opinions. One dude, called Stephen Donaldson said repeatedly things in the same vein.

In introduction, I mean an outside the story discussion / explanation about the story, not a special first chapter (which of course I'll read first.) After I'm done with the story I'll be happy to see what others have to say about the story. (Let us note that a lot of these introductions are not made by the author himself which make them even worse.)

Beside why would I be interested to hear about someone like Terisa or Geraden before I even met them? They were nothing to me yet. I had to read their story before I was interested to hear about their story.

Finally, why wade through all the extras before I had a chance to enjoy the story itself? I have The Mirror of her Dreams in my hands and I want to read it damn it, not about it.

Sorry if my earlier post seemed snarky, but I'm saying it would have been rather perverse of me NOT to read the prologue of Mordant's Need. There I was, having bought The Mirror of Her Dreams, eager to delve into another epic fantasy by Donaldson...and so the first thing I do is to skip a part of it? That does not compute.

Whatever method of reading works for you, works for you. But I just don't know why you feel a need to divorce the prologue from the "rest" of the book(s) as if it was some infection that needs to be quarantined. As far as I see it, this is much ado about very little. To Wyl: same thing with the prologue for Fellowship...I just don't get this precious attitude. When I buy a book to read, I read everything in it, from the copyright page to whatever promotional stuff is at the back..

I think I better remove myself from this conversation because I can see us getting worked up needlessly over this.

matrixman wrote:To Wyl: same thing with the prologue for Fellowship...I just don't get this precious attitude. When I buy a book to read, I read everything in it, from the copyright page to whatever promotional stuff is at the back..

I think I better remove myself from this conversation because I can see us getting worked up needlessly over this.

Actually, I tried to read the prologue to the book, and found it impenetrable. My friends (diehard Tolkien fans) encouraged me to read the story first, and then return to the prologue. They felt that the story could stand on its own. Granted, the prologue was placed there by the author with the intention of enriching or setting the stage to the story being told. But in the case of Fellowship of the Ring, my friends saw my frustration and knew I was close to giving up on the book entirely. As I said, it is not my typical practice.

And as for removing yourself from the conversation, I see no need. Even if we have different views we can still discuss them reasonably.

Having said that, I do find shadowbinding shoe's position a little odd. This may be due to the fact that I'm trained in English literature, and we're taught that everything in a story has meaning and purpose. But to each his own, I say.

Having said that, I do find shadowbinding shoe's position a little odd. This may be due to the fact that I'm trained in English literature, and we're taught that everything in a story has meaning and purpose. But to each his own, I say. Very Happy

That is exactly the point! The prologue is not 'part of the story. It's an addition. It is a section where the author talks ABOUT the story, about how he came with the idea for the story but it is not PART OF the story he tells us. That, begins at the beginning of Chapter One. I don't see where training in English literature comes into this. I've had a few courses in literature at Uni (even one at English literature) myself. But I'd like to believe that my arguments stand on their own force.

Well, I'm not trying to preach my opinions in this matter. Just stating them and asking how you all feel in this matter. Since you all (so far) don't think like me let me ask you another question. Suppose the prologue / introduction was not written by Donaldson but by, say Del Ray or some literary expert. It would have been the same length and said the same things. Would you have still read it before starting reading the story?

That is an interesting question. I probably would have read it anyway. My only hesitancy comes from the concept of spoilers as I said earlier, and those aren't generally in intros, they're in ancillary material like book jackets or promo materials on Amazon.

Part of the contention here seems to be that we're talking about 2 different types of material, which are often both called Prologues, Introductions, etc. You're really talking more about something like the Afterword of The Real Story, where SRD talks about his writing process. But the Prologue to MN is not talking about the story from the outside, it's directly an intro about Terisa and Geraden and sets the scene for the entire story.

However, I do agree that I'll often skip "Introductions" when they're literally not about the story... certainly the long-winded thank yous and stuff... but even w/ those, how would I know I didn't want to read it until I started reading it.

By this logic, did you skip the Prologue to Runes? You would've missed quite a lot

I could use the same argument, "why should I care about these two people," if I started at Ch. 1. I still have no reason to care about this woman. It's an author's job to make however he starts the story be interesting enough that I want to continue. I'm wondering, how would you have felt reading it if, instead of calling it a Prologue, SRD had written exactly what he did, but simply called it "Chapter 1" ?

shadowbinding shoe wrote: That is exactly the point! The prologue is not 'part of the story. It's an addition. It is a section where the author talks ABOUT the story, about how he came with the idea for the story but it is not PART OF the story he tells us. That, begins at the beginning of Chapter One.

You mistake my intent. . . I see these things as part of the story.

shadowbinding shoe wrote: I don't see where training in English literature comes into this. I've had a few courses in literature at Uni (even one at English literature) myself. But I'd like to believe that my arguments stand on their own force.

In the course of my studies in literature, I studied the literature of the western world from the epics of Gilgamesh, to Greek Drama, all the way to modern literature. The reason I brought up my training was merely to comment that my understanding of what comprises a story was shaped by these studies. Should you want to see what I speak of, you can check out the following explanation of the history and function of the prologue. This brief summary explains that the prologue has a long history of being an integral part of the story itself.

And as for your new question, yes, I would read the prologue even if it were written by someone other than the author. I trust the author to know what is best for his story, and whether the author himself or an editor (or another author) writes the prologue, I can confidently say that it was placed there with a purpose. I do not understand the thought that reading the prologue could be harmful to the story.

Wyldewode wrote:Actually, I tried to read the prologue to the book, and found it impenetrable. My friends (diehard Tolkien fans) encouraged me to read the story first, and then return to the prologue. They felt that the story could stand on its own. Granted, the prologue was placed there by the author with the intention of enriching or setting the stage to the story being told. But in the case of Fellowship of the Ring, my friends saw my frustration and knew I was close to giving up on the book entirely. As I said, it is not my typical practice.

That makes sense. That answers the question I asked after your post, above, where you said you skipped the prologue.

I got confused for a second, cause shadowbinding shoe answered my "why did you do that" question which was aimed at you.

Guess that's what I get for not quoting, but I thought if the post was right under yours, it would be obvious who the question was aimed at.

There were so many posts after yours I missed your question. Sorry.

I think it depends on the prologue.

In books such as Runes of the Earth and A Feast for Crows, the prologue is an integral part of the story, a special name for the first chapter/chapter as it were. I would think it foolish not to read it in these cases.

However in books such as The Fellowship of the Ring and A Mirror of her Dreams, the prologue is more about the story than part of it. In these cases I can see why some people might skip the prologue and come back to it later.

The question is, how do you know what type of prologue it's going to be before you read it? That's why I generally read them all.

Wyldewode wrote:There were so many posts after yours I missed your question. Sorry.

At least I got the answer, eventually.

Relayer:

That is an interesting question. I probably would have read it anyway. My only hesitancy comes from the concept of spoilers as I said earlier, and those aren't generally in intros, they're in ancillary material like book jackets or promo materials on Amazon.

Part of the contention here seems to be that we're talking about 2 different types of material, which are often both called Prologues, Introductions, etc. You're really talking more about something like the Afterword of The Real Story, where SRD talks about his writing process. But the Prologue to MN is not talking about the story from the outside, it's directly an intro about Terisa and Geraden and sets the scene for the entire story.

Great analysis. That was what I was thinking about. I probably made assumptions based on sour previous experience. Looking back at my thoughts at the time there was also something more. Death to the 'she's just a whiny rich girl'-s we all say, right? But when I started the prologue those were my thoughts. It took me some time to ignore the 'I hate romance novels ' thoughts and try and read the book from the story's beginning.

But in general, from my experience when someone adds an introduction to a book where it is discussed and dissected the spoilers naturally start to pop up. And while it may be interesting and enlightening it would have more meaning after you read the book and know what it was talking about. Why then is it placed in the beginning of books? Not because this was the right place to position it. It's to encourage people to read it at all. If it's in the end the reader might be disinclined to read it after he got what he was looking for or that is the way the publishers think when they print it. (I don't.)

However, I do agree that I'll often skip "Introductions" when they're literally not about the story... certainly the long-winded thank yous and stuff... but even w/ those, how would I know I didn't want to read it until I started reading it.

You can breeze through them to see if there's anything interesting in them. You don't need to read the whole list of thanked people to know if you wanted to read their names.

By this logic, did you skip the Prologue to Runes? You would've missed quite a lot Smile

Heck no!!! For me, the parts of the TC chronicles that happen in 'the real world' are the most interesting. But I did skip the 'what happened before' part in Runes.

I could use the same argument, "why should I care about these two people," if I started at Ch. 1. I still have no reason to care about this woman. It's an author's job to make however he starts the story be interesting enough that I want to continue. I'm wondering, how would you have felt reading it if, instead of calling it a Prologue, SRD had written exactly what he did, but simply called it "Chapter 1" ?

Is a heap of dung, a heap of dung by any other name??? It's not the name that makes an introduction an introduction, it's what it says. Why did I became interested in Terisa when I started reading chapter 1 but not when I read the prologue? There's a difference between hearing a description of someone and getting a glimpse into their lives.

variol son wrote:I think it depends on the prologue.
In books such as Runes of the Earth and A Feast for Crows, the prologue is an integral part of the story, a special name for the first chapter/chapter as it were. I would think it foolish not to read it in these cases.

And you'd think right! In case anyone was wondering I never skip these kinds of prologues. They are part of the story.

variol son wrote: However in books such as The Fellowship of the Ring and A Mirror of her Dreams, the prologue is more about the story than part of it. In these cases I can see why some people might skip the prologue and come back to it later.

Yes this was what I was talking about.

variol son wrote: The question is, how do you know what type of prologue it's going to be before you read it? That's why I generally read them all.

Well, You don't need to read more than a few words to distinguish between the two kinds.

You mistake my intent. . . I see these things as part of the story. Smile

In the course of my studies in literature, I studied the literature of the western world from the epics of Gilgamesh, to Greek Drama, all the way to modern literature. The reason I brought up my training was merely to comment that my understanding of what comprises a story was shaped by these studies. Should you want to see what I speak of, you can check out the following explanation of the history and function of the prologue. This brief summary explains that the prologue has a long history of being an integral part of the story itself.

I read your wiki link. But does a novel works the same way a Greek play does? The viewers of the plays often knew what the plot would be in advance. But here, talks of spoilers and spoilering are endless. A novel's plot is usually supposed to be unexpected. And in contrast to plays we meet the characters as we go along in the story itself.

And as for your new question, yes, I would read the prologue even if it were written by someone other than the author. I trust the author to know what is best for his story, and whether the author himself or an editor (or another author) writes the prologue, I can confidently say that it was placed there with a purpose. I do not understand the thought that reading the prologue could be harmful to the story.

Ahh, but who's purpose? Is it the authors purpose or, say, the publisher's? I tend to give a lesser amount of trust to the later.

Relayer:

That is an interesting question. I probably would have read it anyway. My only hesitancy comes from the concept of spoilers as I said earlier, and those aren't generally in intros, they're in ancillary material like book jackets or promo materials on Amazon.

Part of the contention here seems to be that we're talking about 2 different types of material, which are often both called Prologues, Introductions, etc. You're really talking more about something like the Afterword of The Real Story, where SRD talks about his writing process. But the Prologue to MN is not talking about the story from the outside, it's directly an intro about Terisa and Geraden and sets the scene for the entire story.

Great analysis. That was what I was thinking about. I probably made assumptions based on sour previous experience. Looking back at my thoughts at the time there was also something more. Death to the 'she's just a whiny rich girl'-s we all say, right? But when I started the prologue those were my thoughts. It took me some time to ignore the 'I hate romance novels ' thoughts and try and read the book from the story's beginning.

But in general, from my experience when someone adds an introduction to a book where it is discussed and dissected the spoilers naturally start to pop up. And while it may be interesting and enlightening it would have more meaning after you read the book and know what it was talking about. Why then is it placed in the beginning of books? Not because this was the right place to position it. It's to encourage people to read it at all. If it's in the end the reader might be disinclined to read it after he got what he was looking for or that is the way the publishers think when they print it. (I don't.)

However, I do agree that I'll often skip "Introductions" when they're literally not about the story... certainly the long-winded thank yous and stuff... but even w/ those, how would I know I didn't want to read it until I started reading it.

You can breeze through them to see if there's anything interesting in them. You don't need to read the whole list of thanked people to know if you wanted to read their names.

By this logic, did you skip the Prologue to Runes? You would've missed quite a lot Smile

Heck no!!! For me, the parts of the TC chronicles that happen in 'the real world' are the most interesting. But I did skip the 'what happened before' part in Runes.

I could use the same argument, "why should I care about these two people," if I started at Ch. 1. I still have no reason to care about this woman. It's an author's job to make however he starts the story be interesting enough that I want to continue. I'm wondering, how would you have felt reading it if, instead of calling it a Prologue, SRD had written exactly what he did, but simply called it "Chapter 1" ?

Is a heap of dung, a heap of dung by any other name??? It's not the name that makes an introduction an introduction, it's what it says. Why did I became interested in Terisa when I started reading chapter 1 but not when I read the prologue? There's a difference between hearing a description of someone and getting a glimpse into their lives.

variol son wrote:I think it depends on the prologue.
In books such as Runes of the Earth and A Feast for Crows, the prologue is an integral part of the story, a special name for the first chapter/chapter as it were. I would think it foolish not to read it in these cases.

And you'd think right! In case anyone was wondering I never skip these kinds of prologues. They are part of the story.

variol son wrote: However in books such as The Fellowship of the Ring and A Mirror of her Dreams, the prologue is more about the story than part of it. In these cases I can see why some people might skip the prologue and come back to it later.

Yes this was what I was talking about.

variol son wrote: The question is, how do you know what type of prologue it's going to be before you read it? That's why I generally read them all.

Well, You don't need to read more than a few words to distinguish between the two kinds.

You mistake my intent. . . I see these things as part of the story. Smile

In the course of my studies in literature, I studied the literature of the western world from the epics of Gilgamesh, to Greek Drama, all the way to modern literature. The reason I brought up my training was merely to comment that my understanding of what comprises a story was shaped by these studies. Should you want to see what I speak of, you can check out the following explanation of the history and function of the prologue. This brief summary explains that the prologue has a long history of being an integral part of the story itself.

I read your wiki link. But does a novel works the same way a Greek play does? The viewers of the plays often knew what the plot would be in advance. But here, talks of spoilers and spoilering are endless. A novel's plot is usually supposed to be unexpected. And in contrast to plays we meet the characters as we go along in the story itself.

And as for your new question, yes, I would read the prologue even if it were written by someone other than the author. I trust the author to know what is best for his story, and whether the author himself or an editor (or another author) writes the prologue, I can confidently say that it was placed there with a purpose. I do not understand the thought that reading the prologue could be harmful to the story.

Ahh, but who's purpose? Is it the authors purpose or, say, the publisher's? I tend to give a lesser amount of trust to the later.